Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks

Losertown USA wrote:

:: are twinkies food?

If you run 50 miles a week, maybe.

On Oct 9, 6:37 pm, Jim wrote:
When I started reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" I breezed though
over 100 pages. Then I realized that very little of what had been said
was in memory, and the only solution was to begin again and take notes
or write comments in the book and underline or circle text.

I'm really not that far along yet, but I am astonished at the lack of
scientific principles that have been revealed in this older medical
research.

They pick the variable they think is the solution, and ignore everything
else. "My way, or the highway" is a good saying, but on the other hand
it shows astonishingly lousy science.

The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
"researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of fields.

I have never read of such a bunch of self centered individuals vying for
control of the minds of collages and the public ... well, I forgot
Congress.... Sorry.

Maybe that up above explains WHY it became such a mess.

At any rate, part of the slowness is needed because I often have to stop
and reconsider my own overly simplified biases I have developed over the
last two or three years of reading based on my desire to learn best
how to reduce weight and become healthier.

I can see why Taubes spent the better part of five years bringing all of
this together.

The story is complex, but repetitive. Certain things happen over and
over, namely that facts will distort themselves somehow around the Keys
hypotheses of the decade. The past large dollar amounts spent on Keys
inspired "research" will continue to be "validated" and all kinds of
compromises will be made to allow this out of control ship to keep
lumbering on.

I haven't got the slightest idea of how I could ever explain much of
this information to someone who hasn't read the book.

Okay, I just finished this thing. I wouldn't even call it a book.
It's the only fully cited research paper likely to hit Barnes and
Noble this year.

The newspapers probably all have some asthmatic intern who's been
assigned to summarize New Diet Books. Unluckily for the intern, there
is no way to do that. The book *is* the summary. Gary Taubes doesn't
strike me as a genius or anything but no one can say his Conclusions
are Unsupported.

Nothing published in the past five years has made me more confident
that we're all beset by The Sugar Jeebies.



c

don't hold your breath for the graphic novel

Losertown USA writes:

I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always
ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and
always eventually came right around and cut carbs.

I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could remember when
and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't think there was any
one Eureka moment when I read or heard something and had my outlook
changed. Growing up on a farm and having ancestors who lived long lives
on lots of fatty pork, I never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even
when they were pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die
Young" introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again, I
think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural progression
from all that, but I can understand how people with different
backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.

A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti
turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start
again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to
the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people
believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide.

Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose weight.
I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the complete lack
of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease off it and hang onto
those benefits. This time around, thanks in part to testing my blood
sugar, I realize it has to be for the long haul, and sugar is a
poisonous drug for me.

When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered myself an
alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of people who got drunk
pretty much every night after work -- that's just what we did for fun.
For me it was a way to get my shy self to loosen up. One friend even
told me he thought I might be an alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I
dropped alcohol entirely on the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me,
alcohol was a much easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view
sugar that way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.

I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow
carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.

I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
"complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're gaining
ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to believing that the
truth does eventually win out.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

On Oct 11, 10:23 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:
Losertown USA writes:
I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always
ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and
always eventually came right around and cut carbs.

I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could remember when
and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't think there was any
one Eureka moment when I read or heard something and had my outlook
changed. Growing up on a farm and having ancestors who lived long lives
on lots of fatty pork, I never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even
when they were pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die
Young" introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again, I
think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural progression
from all that, but I can understand how people with different
backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.

A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti
turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start
again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to
the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people
believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide.

Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose weight.
I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the complete lack
of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease off it and hang onto
those benefits. This time around, thanks in part to testing my blood
sugar, I realize it has to be for the long haul, and sugar is a
poisonous drug for me.

When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered myself an
alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of people who got drunk
pretty much every night after work -- that's just what we did for fun.
For me it was a way to get my shy self to loosen up. One friend even
told me he thought I might be an alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I
dropped alcohol entirely on the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me,
alcohol was a much easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view
sugar that way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.

I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow
carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.

I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
"complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're gaining
ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to believing that the
truth does eventually win out.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

. Hi Aaron, nice to meet you.

Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people who
make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part of the
Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a new 300
dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty effective
carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without actually
*saying* so.

I grew up with old-world Ukrainians. Same thing. All there was for
dinner when I was growing up was pork chops. Once in a while there
would be a beet. Wonderbread was what American kids had to eat
because their grandmas didn't love them.

c
Pima by any other name

On Oct 11, 3:41 pm, wrote:
On Oct 11, 10:23 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:



Losertown USA writes:
I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always
ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and
always eventually came right around and cut carbs.

I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could remember when
and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't think there was any
one Eureka moment when I read or heard something and had my outlook
changed. Growing up on a farm and having ancestors who lived long lives
on lots of fatty pork, I never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even
when they were pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die
Young" introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again, I
think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural progression
from all that, but I can understand how people with different
backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.

A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti
turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start
again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to
the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people
believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide.

Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose weight.
I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the complete lack
of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease off it and hang onto
those benefits. This time around, thanks in part to testing my blood
sugar, I realize it has to be for the long haul, and sugar is a
poisonous drug for me.

When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered myself an
alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of people who got drunk
pretty much every night after work -- that's just what we did for fun.
For me it was a way to get my shy self to loosen up. One friend even
told me he thought I might be an alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I
dropped alcohol entirely on the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me,
alcohol was a much easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view
sugar that way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.

I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow
carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.

I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
"complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're gaining
ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to believing that the
truth does eventually win out.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

. Hi Aaron, nice to meet you.

Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people who
make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part of the
Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a new 300
dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty effective
carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without actually
*saying* so.

As I get deeper into Taubes, my reading is (and this is maybe Taubes
point) is that Atkins did a great service to some of us (the folks who
bought the book and who it resonated for) and he did a greater
disservice
to us by antagonizing the establishment to where it had to be with him
or against him, even though the LC diet goes back long before him and
had a lot of science for it that he wasn't up on. Mike Eades's blog
for
yesterday (I think) was about the story on Taubes's story and cascades
in the NY Times. Seems reasonable.

So, maybe what we need is a new Dr. Atkins, only one who gets
along with people. Like, I dunno, Tom Hanks.

The important thing, the info is out there, you just have to look a
little,
and it works for most folks if they actually do it.

Hollywood wrote:
:: On Oct 11, 3:41 pm, wrote:
::: On Oct 11, 10:23 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:
:::
:::
:::
:::: Losertown USA writes:
::::: I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right,
::::: always ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried
::::: something else, and always eventually came right around and cut
::::: carbs.
:::
:::: I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could
:::: remember when and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't
:::: think there was any one Eureka moment when I read or heard
:::: something and had my outlook changed. Growing up on a farm and
:::: having ancestors who lived long lives on lots of fatty pork, I
:::: never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even when they were
:::: pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die Young"
:::: introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
:::: without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again,
:::: I think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
:::: processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural
:::: progression from all that, but I can understand how people with
:::: different backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.
:::
::::: A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and
::::: spaghetti turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would
::::: have to start again, weighing it all, researching it all, and
::::: coaxing myself back to the inevitable conclusion that whatever
::::: the hell these people believed, MY body thiought sugar in all
::::: forms was slow cyanide.
:::
:::: Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose
:::: weight. I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the
:::: complete lack of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease
:::: off it and hang onto those benefits. This time around, thanks in
:::: part to testing my blood sugar, I realize it has to be for the
:::: long haul, and sugar is a poisonous drug for me.
:::
:::: When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered
:::: myself an alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of
:::: people who got drunk pretty much every night after work -- that's
:::: just what we did for fun. For me it was a way to get my shy self
:::: to loosen up. One friend even told me he thought I might be an
:::: alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I dropped alcohol entirely on
:::: the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me, alcohol was a much
:::: easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view sugar that
:::: way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
:::: drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.
:::
::::: I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree,
::::: Slow carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.
:::
:::: I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
:::: "complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're
:::: gaining ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to
:::: believing that the truth does eventually win out.
:::
:::: --
:::: Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz
:::
::: . Hi Aaron, nice to meet you.
:::
::: Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people
::: who make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part
::: of the Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a
::: new 300 dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty
::: effective carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without
::: actually *saying* so.
::
:: As I get deeper into Taubes, my reading is (and this is maybe Taubes
:: point) is that Atkins did a great service to some of us (the folks
:: who bought the book and who it resonated for) and he did a greater
:: disservice
:: to us by antagonizing the establishment to where it had to be with
:: him or against him, even though the LC diet goes back long before
:: him and had a lot of science for it that he wasn't up on.

Well, that's an interesting POV. Did (or could) Atkins really **** off the
establishment so much that they had rebel so strongly as to essentially
condem LC to hell?


Mike
:: Eades's blog for
:: yesterday (I think) was about the story on Taubes's story and
:: cascades in the NY Times. Seems reasonable.
::
:: So, maybe what we need is a new Dr. Atkins, only one who gets
:: along with people. Like, I dunno, Tom Hanks.
::
:: The important thing, the info is out there, you just have to look a
:: little,
:: and it works for most folks if they actually do it.

On Oct 11, 4:45 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:

Well, that's an interesting POV. Did (or could) Atkins really **** off the
establishment so much that they had rebel so strongly as to essentially
condem LC to hell?

It's in the chapter entitled "The Fattening Carbohydrate Disappears."
Up
in the 400's. Read it on the bus today. One of the low fat cognoscenti
of
the 70's pretty much admitted in an interview with Taubes that that's
what
happened.

Mike Eades seems to back it up (consistently will cite Atkins the man
as a royal jerk who was insufferable).

I have never read the original Diet Revolution, only the last version
of
DANDR before he died. From that, between the lines, you get that he's
a rebel against the system that's shut him out for 20+ years. The
anger
always came through for me. I might've misread the cause.

writes:

Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people who
make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part of the
Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a new 300
dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty effective
carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without actually
*saying* so.

I've noticed that too. Even the low-fat packaged meals are quietly
dropping in carbs. You don't exactly see them pushing a lot of baked
potatoes anymore. Of course, I don't think those companies *really*
want people to be lose all the weight and keep it off, but they do need
people to have a little success, or they won't keep paying. A diet
that's reduced enough in carbs to cause some weight loss, while still
having enough carbs to cause cravings, would be just the ticket -- but
I'm not sure even I'm cynical enough to think that's the plan.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Hollywood writes:

Mike Eades seems to back it up (consistently will cite Atkins the man
as a royal jerk who was insufferable).

In a recent blog post, he talked about Atkins's statement that his diet
"seemed" to repeal the laws of thermodynamics, and said that that
"claim" set low-carbing back 50 years. I think that's a little harsh,
because Atkins didn't claim to have repealed anything; he said it
*seems* that way when you first get into it. Also, people who were
willing to condemn a whole field of research because of one bombastic
statement from one man had to already be headed that direction anyway.
If it hadn't been that line, it would have been something else.

Still, he's probably right that Atkins wasn't the best spokesman when it
came to gaining the respect of the elites -- although the same qualities
that hurt him there probably helped him sell to the general public.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz