Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes Review

Tom, I used BFFM with great success but if you think that macronutrient composition doesn't matter you're just wrong.

You know of course about the thermic effect of eating protein, and I am sure you realize the role insulin plays in fat storage.

For a person who lifts weights for example, the composition of diet has a direct impact on nutrient partitioning- whether calories tend to be used to build muscle or whether they tend to be stored as fat.

Obviously, a diet full of simple carbohydrates is going to result in more of the calories being stored as fat. Yes, you have to have be in a hyper-caloric state, but clearly there are other factors like insulin that impact the tendency for the body to store those calories as fat.

Barry, first, would you point me to where I said "macronutrient composition doesn't matter?"

second, regarding george bray's comment "weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to it's macronutrient composition", whether I would agree with that statement would depend on whether we are talking about free living situation (ad libitum diet) or a study done in a controlled situation (metabolic ward, controlled calorie intake).

In a free living situation, the low carb, higher protein diet will frequently show better results (greater fat loss) due to appetite control and higher satiety, not to mention of course, the large water weight loss in thebeginning. In that regard, diets with reduced carbs have a significant advantage In calorie-controlled research, however, varying macronutrient composition will have a relatively minor effect on body fat loss unless there is a large difference in protein intake. When theprotein intake is higher, there may be a small difference in fat lost due to the thermic effect of protein, even in isolcaloric diets

So does macronutirent composition matter in body composition results? Certainly. But if you look at the studies that controlled for calories and protein, you will see that differences in macronutrient composition don't matter nearly as much as you think when it comes specifically to body fat loss. what matters first is calories.

If a book author suggests that low carb (and especially low carb, high protein) dietshave an advantage in fat loss, I would agree in many regards. I use low carb/high protein diets myself for bodybuilding contest prep. When the authors say calories dont matter, thats when I shake my head and roll my eyes...

when the author starts saying stuff like "exercise is ineffective for weight loss" thats when I start LMAO

regards

I read the nonsense you permitted yourself to utter about Gary Taubes - while admitting you didn't even bother to read his brilliant book first. I lost all respect towards you and am going to unsubscribe from your newseltter.

BTW, Bray misrepresents in a most breathtaking way the data in Taubes book. including the 100+ pages of faultless scientific citations at the end that prove his point in a big way

It seems really hard for people to let go of the accepted dogma and admit that almost all we thought we knew about obesity, nutrition, disease etc. is probably wrong - and that the medical and scientific "research" in the field during the last few decades was conducted in such a shabby, blinkered way

Taubes book may very well be brilliant and well referenced. However, these two claims are not so briliant::

"we've never been able to demonstrate that you can lose
weight exercising"... "exercise makes you work up an appetite"

-Gary Taubes, on larry king (as per CNN transcript)

I dont know if he expanded on this in his book, but if so,
there goes your "faultless research"

and if bray has quoted taubes correctly, that he believes calories dont count (you can gain fat in a deficit or lose fat in a surplus just becaues you are on low carbs), thn you can add that blooper to the list as well.

I dont extend my complaints/ criticisms beyond those claims nor to any person making them. Im interested in the issues at hand that help solve a big problem we have today.

Seems to me that with all your talk about research and shabby science that the pot is calling the kettle black...

What about all the countless studies and all the exercise physiology textbooks that show dose response relationship between exercise volume and fat loss; what about the very recent research on high intensity exercise which shows that it decreases appetite. Or was that omitted because its rather difficult to do any high intensity exercise when you're low on carbs???

re: exercise and appetite. An author needs to fairly represent ALL the data, not selectively pick the data he needed to support his hypothesis. huge list of citations or not, I think maybe he missed some of these:

Blundell JE, cross talk between physical activity and appetite control: does physical activity stimulate appetite? Proc Nutr Soc, 62, 651-661. 2003
Donahoo WT, Variability in energy expenditure and its components. Curr Op Clin Nutr Metab. 7: 599-605. 2004.
King NA, et al, Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: Identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss. Int J Obes, 32, 177-184, 2008.
King NA, effects of exercise on appetite control: Implications for energy balance. Med Sci Sport Exer, 29(8): 1076-1089. 1997
King, NA, The relationship between physical activity and food intake. 57: 77-84. 1998.
Lluch A, Exercise enhances palatability of food, but does not increase food consumption, in lean restrained females. Int J Obes, 21: supp a129.Melzer K., effects of physical activity on food intake. Clin Nutr, 24: 885-895. 2005
Slentz CA. Effects of the amount of exercise on body weight, body composition, and measures of central obesity. Arch Intern Med. 164: 31-39. 2004
Titchenal A., Exercise and Food Intake: what is the relationship? Sports Med, 6: 135-145. 1988
Yoshioka M, Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness. Int J Obes. 25, 332-339. 2001

and as for calories dont matter; if i sent you the list of references on that point - even as it relates specifically to low carb diets -you would be reading for weeks.

regards

tom

PS by the way I like low carb diets in many cases for many people. I see many advantages in low carb for health in some cases and for obesity in many cases. But low carb doesnt mean unlimited calories. Even if low carb diets are the best dietary means of weight loss (which IS highly debatable because people are so different, surely there is no single best way), it STILL doesnt mean calories dont count. Its a matter of getting the mechanisms correct and avoiding dogma and generalizations to all populations . Perhaps you are just as guilty in not letting go of your own dogma as the folks who wont admit there are any benefits of low carb

"We've never been able to demonstrate that you can lose
weight exercising"

Aw crap, I better stop exercising then!

Actually I've lost 60 lbs following Tom's e-book so far and he's one-of-a-kind in this nutrition and exercise game. Don't kid yourself guys, you got to exercise and control how much you eat, how can this still be disputed these days...

I think I have some relevant information based off personal experience. I had been struggling to find the right balance of protein and carbohydrates in my diet, and never realized the value of starchy carbohydrates for energy. I am a 20 year old male with (naturally) average build (until I downloaded BTF by the way...) and had poor eating habits at college because of laziness (no excuse) and anxiety/depression (sort of an excuse). And one thing I thought I had been doing correctly was to be completely avoiding starch because I thought I was very carbohydrate sensitive. I basically "quit" potatoes of any kind, and rarely touched bread or pasta unless it was whole grain, even at that I ate pasta once a month maybe. Most of my meals consisted of a lot of protein, and whatever good veggies I could find. I also NEVER had any sort of dessert and rarely much fat (until I fell off my "diet," that is). I considered myself to be conservative in the way I ate and thought I was doing myself a favor.

Here is what I experienced:

I would stay on this extremely conservative meal plan for about a month, and would be going to the gym during this time but I would always struggle to find the energy to get there. I found myself using energy drinks as a crutch and then I wouldn't get enough sleep at night because I'm caffeine sensitive. This was a horrible cycle that usually ended with an extremely frustrated and tired me stopping my workout routine altogether, and then falling completely off of this "diet" and going crazy with carbohydrates. The cycle repeated itself many times, getting me nowhere and nothing but a slow as sh*t metabolism.

After reading BTF I realized the HUGE importance of macronutrient ratios that included carbohydrates. Once I began eating more often (5-6 times per day), and including foods like sweet potatoes, and high fiber whole grain breads with my meals, my energy level EXPLODED and all the sudden no matter how much sleep I got or what mood I was in, I ALWAYS had the energy to go to the gym and haven't fallen off the BTF lifestyle (not to be confused with diet) ever since. To put the icing on the cake (something I actually eat now on my cheat day!), after eating more carbohydrates, I noticed that my ability to put muscle on has improved TREMENDOUSLY, and that muscle, in turn, has helped boost my metabolism and made all of my cardiovascular workouts way more effective! Meaning I do the same work as I used to (with much ease and way more energy to do so) and I burn more calories! For all you non-btf buyers, this is probably because insulin is NECESSARY to bring protein to the muscles for growth and repair.

It's also necessary to remember that no matter what your macronutrient ratio, you cannot break the laws of physics. If you burn calories, calories get burned. If you don't, they don't burn themselves. No one's bodies have developed through adaptation or evolution the ability to use cold fusion and turn their energy into some other stuff and have it float away magically.

So... to all of you that have the believe that carbohydrates are OOoOoOo evil and that Tom Venudo is in fact possessed and speaking in tongues, get a grip and try it for yourself. You'll only see what I have seen, and that is the fire that still burns in my furnace as we speak.

P.S. Fitness and my self image, things that both used to frustrate me, have now become my passion. I am currently studying to be a certified personal trainer and can't wait to tell all my friends and family how simple attaining your goals really is. Even better: after reading BTF, the curriculum for NFPT certification is so friggin easy because I know all of it already! Thanks for that one too Tom! Because I hate studying, and I basically accidentally studied all of it by reading your extremely enjoyable book.

For that I say thanks AGAIN, Tom, you've helped make my efforts to achieve great fitness levels easier, and now even the pathway to my possible career even easier. Can we be friends :D?

Each four of these alleged statements grossly misstates Taubes' position:

"(i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance." No, he states that calories consumed and calories expended should not be treated as independent variables."

"(ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity." No, he states that the so-called "Lipid Hypothesis" of coronary heart disease has not been proved by reliable research, and in fact there is much evidence against it.

"(iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity." Not exactly. He views obesity as a disease of lipid metabolism, and this in turn can be driven by a lifetime exposure to refined starches and sugars.

"(iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity."
Okay, carbohydrates don't secrete insulin. But yes, insulin is a major player in the Carbohydrate Hypothesis.

Worse, George Bray merely falls back on the conventional wisdom - which is precisely what Taubes is arguing against. (Taubes: the conventional wisdom is incorrect due to XYZ. Bray: No, because that goes against the conventional wisdom. See the problem?)

Now, I think Taubes has succeeded admirably in showing that much more research needs to be done in these areas, and that scientists and policy-makers must keep an open mind. That was his goal.

Having said all this, I think that Taubes overstates his case somewhat in a number of areas (his take on exercise, for example), but there is no way his work can be casually dismissed.

1. I dont think bray casually dismissed the book. In fact, he said it's worth reading. He was merely pointing out what he felt were errors or inconsistencies, in his view and based on the current view of obesity.

2. Personally, I wasnt dismissing the book either. in fact I didnt even read it, I merely posted brays review and bray is one of the top obesity researchers in the field, not just a journalist. The review article was published in a peer reviewed journal.

I certainly don't dismiss various types of low carb diets in the context of fat loss. I think people should be more open to the potential advantages. I will always however, debate it when someone in support of low carb publicly (on national tv) claims that exercise doesnt work for fat loss, and that carbs and/or insulin have a causal role in obesity, while dismissing or failing to focus on calories in versus calories out.

I think its good to question everything, especially perhaps conventional wisdom. But some folks in certain segments of the low carb community are as stubborn in their own conventions as those making public policy on nutrition. While they may be adamant about their stance because low carb (against conventional wisdom) worked for them, they have the mechanisms incorrect if they suggest calories dont count, carbs make you fat, or insulin makes you fat, or any of the above are implied

We STILL need much more clarity in the messages being sent about the role of carbs and exercise in nutrition and Obesity. Seems that some of the messages being sent by some writers dont clear the confusion, they add to it.

I respect your views Tom, but you really need to read the book before dissing what someone else says it contains.

It's extremely in depth -- and at that would be 4x as long if the publisher had been willing to try and market a 2000 page book. ;-) He couldn't cover everything in detail, and he does not cover exercise in detail, because the primary focus of the book is "the alternative hypothesis" regarding the science of nutrition, particularly concerning macronutrients (fats/proteins/carbohydrates). I'm sure there are many other books that could be written more specific to things like exercise.

However the book he wrote is excellent. It's not just his own opinions, most is "a research review" which even "educated" medical professionals have often found surprising and educational. And he himself points out in many areas that more research is needed.

As a note, he does not say calories don't matter at all. For weight maintenance, if insulin is kept very low via carbohydrate restriction, only extreme amounts would matter, but for weight loss, unless one is really large to start with, it's generally the case calories are going to matter at some point; I don't think he would argue that.

He also does not say that exercise doesn't matter at all. He is not saying that someone working their ass off in the gym or the track is not going to lose any weight--he was saying that the standard ad-lib line that if people go out and walk for 20 minutes in the evening, they'll lose weight, is not supported by research, in part because one thing research DOES show is that increased exercise often increases appetite to match. (And in part because the recommendations are usually for cardio and usually far too low, in reality, to make much difference in body weight.) That doesn't mean there aren't 101 great reasons for exercising, and it doesn't mean that proper exercising won't indirectly cause weight loss (eg by increase of lean body mass), it simply means that the assumption "eat less and exercise more" as if that would cure all the world's ills is not sufficient; not in research results and not in the real world. Again, he did not really focus on exercise much because it was outside his intended sphere of coverage regarding nutrition, but what little he said about it has been rather hyperbolized by many.

I would think someone like you would be a supporter of a book as thoroughly detailed and researched and referenced as the Taubes Diet Delusion (UK) and Good Calories, Bad Calories (USA). Most of what's in there is just plain and simple, history and research. A person could disagree with it, but that'd be something to take up with the researchers, not Taubes; he's the messenger, a science trained journalist, not the researcher himself. I consider his book one of the best contributions to layman understanding of the science of nutrition -- what does exist and most people don't know about; what does exist and most of us have learned differently; and what doesn't exist and still needs more study -- I've ever read.

Best,
PJ

PJ, if you go back and read all my comments above carefully, you will see that I already addressed every one of your comments.

To repeat myself, I did not "diss" the book or Taubes. I posted george brays review. I did however, address the selective quotation of research and a couple of dubious claims, one of which (exercise doesnt work for weight loss), I quoted word for word from taubes appearance on larry king live. I would dispute these claims anyway regardless of who or where they came from.

You wrote:
"the assumption eat less and exercise more" as if that would cure all the world's ills is not sufficient; not in research results and not in the real world.

it would be slightly more accurate to say that one must achieve a caloric deficit than to say eat less and exercise more... however, you could say thats semantics, the intention behind that advice is the same.

however it looks like you are going down that erroneous common low carb dogma path which says that calories either dont count or they are secondary to carb intake and insulin. Completely wrong. body weight loss is dictated by energy balance and there are thousands of references as such in the peer reviewed obseitty journals and textbooks, that say so, to the degree that it is ludicrous to beleive otherwise.

The research showing better results with low carb is almost all in free living humans. In metabolic ward studies where calories are strictly controlled, the low carb "advantage" seems to mysteriously disappear. conclusion: most people spontaneously eat less while on low carbs.

Low carb is simply one effective way of controlling appetite and achieving the calorie deficit. I have no problem when someone says, "I believe that low carb diets are most effective for fat loss AND you also need a calorie deficit," The best diet for weight loss is debatable, but i have no doubt that low carb has been the best approach for many.

but some folks still seem to think the carb restriction alone is enough and that insulin is causally related to obesity. If thats the case, lets put you on 1000 calories over maintenance with nothing but fat and protein - no carbs - low insulin - under laboratory controlled conditions. I will give you a million dollars if you dont gain fat. You can store fat without insulin. and in a calorie surplus, you will.

You wrote:

I would think someone like you would be a supporter of a book as thoroughly detailed and researched and referenced as the Taubes Diet

A long list of references doesn't mean anything if it doesnt present both sides. to repeat myself:

re: exercise and appetite. An author needs to fairly represent ALL the data, not selectively pick the data he needed to support his hypothesis. huge list of citations or not, I think maybe he missed some

I guess that this all begun by misreading Tom´s posts. A lot of people is discussing (arguing is a better term, I guess) and are not reading carefully. Tom is just clarifying all this mess provoked by someone that didn´t even read the entire blog, I might say, because he is contradicting himself. I am a nutritionist and chemical engineer and I absolutely agree with Tom, especially because he really knows what he's talking about, not just babbling about merely one book he read. Please, read everything first and then question politely, not just attack!!!

Tom,

Oh, you mean like Jeff's MAM experiment, 30 days of overeating without weight gain? Guess you'll be poor now.

See http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/ftopic846-0-asc-100.php

Mikeal. I didnt have time to read pages of forum threads, but I get the gist of it. A high fat overfeeding experiment.

Is this a personal experiment? If so, its purely anectodal, what does it prove in the scientific sense. He said he was doing it in "the name of science."

And, what specifically was he trying to prove?

Could you show us a few examples of this exeriment duplicated under controlled conditions by researchers? last time i asked someone this question, then sent me back an overfeeding experiment from the 1970s

what about the other 30+ years of research since that dubious, cherry-picked study?

Also, one person is a rather small sample size isnt it?

And.. if you hang your hat on anectode, what about all the folks who have done personal overfeeding experiments and gained weight?

I think personal diet experiments are fascinating. Youd be surprised at some of the experiments I did years ago. My first keto experiment was following vince girondas method, being as he was a bodybuilding traiiner and nutritionist. That was the beginning of how I learned keto wasnt the best approach for me, although you cant deny it worked for some of vince's students

But a personal experiment is just that. A personal experiment.