Taubes Article in "New Scientist"

There is a short (about 1000 word) article by Gary Taubes in the latest
issue of "New Scientist" magazine. I only have access (today) to the
website http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns which just gives a blurb and
the first couple of hundred words.

It looks like this work is getting some more serious academic
circulation, perhaps outside the circle of "Money Grubbing Diet Book
Writers and Diet System Sellers".

================================================== ============

BLURB from website:
The great diet delusion

It is time for researchers and health authorities to wake up to the fact
that people do not get fat simply because they overeat, says Gary Taubes



FIRST COUPLE HUNDRED WORDS:

Article Preview
Comment: The great diet delusion

* 19 January 2008
* Gary Taubes
* Magazine issue 2639

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has
remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend
and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable.
The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less
nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.

This contradiction has given us a catalogue of clinical literature
almost mind-boggling in its internal inconsistency. "Dietary therapy
remains the cornerstone of [obesity] treatment and the reduction of
energy intake continues to be the basis of successful weight reduction
programs," observes The Handbook of Obesity, a textbook edited by George
Bray, Claude Bouchard and W. P. T. James, three of the most respected
names in obesity research, and first published in 1998. It then goes on
to acknowledge that the results of such therapy "are known to be poor
and ...
The complete article is 972 words long.

Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems and need to return to the 5th
grade or something.

What is the take home message from this:

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has remained
remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend and you will
lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable. The only
problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less nor moving
more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.


Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any
but the rarest cases?

Who can take that statement at face value? Perhaps if I only do that one
day out of 365 it would be true, but what happens to me if I do that 364
days out of 365? I lose weight.

So, is Taubes saying I'm in that special group known as "The Rarest Cases"?

If he is somehow saying that people can't do it consistently (eat less and
move more), then I wouldn't be writing this. But I don't comprehend his
statement to be saying that.



"Jim" wrote in message
...
There is a short (about 1000 word) article by Gary Taubes in the latest
issue of "New Scientist" magazine. I only have access (today) to the
website http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns which just gives a blurb and
the first couple of hundred words.

It looks like this work is getting some more serious academic circulation,
perhaps outside the circle of "Money Grubbing Diet Book Writers and Diet
System Sellers".

================================================== ============

BLURB from website:
The great diet delusion

It is time for researchers and health authorities to wake up to the fact
that people do not get fat simply because they overeat, says Gary Taubes



FIRST COUPLE HUNDRED WORDS:

Article Preview
Comment: The great diet delusion

* 19 January 2008
* Gary Taubes
* Magazine issue 2639

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has remained
remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend and you will
lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable. The only
problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less nor moving
more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.

This contradiction has given us a catalogue of clinical literature almost
mind-boggling in its internal inconsistency. "Dietary therapy remains the
cornerstone of [obesity] treatment and the reduction of energy intake
continues to be the basis of successful weight reduction programs,"
observes The Handbook of Obesity, a textbook edited by George Bray, Claude
Bouchard and W. P. T. James, three of the most respected names in obesity
research, and first published in 1998. It then goes on to acknowledge that
the results of such therapy "are known to be poor and ...
The complete article is 972 words long.

"Jim" wrote in message
...
There is a short (about 1000 word) article by Gary Taubes in the latest
issue of "New Scientist" magazine. I only have access (today) to the
website http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns which just gives a blurb and
the first couple of hundred words.

It looks like this work is getting some more serious academic circulation,
perhaps outside the circle of "Money Grubbing Diet Book Writers and Diet
System Sellers".

================================================== ============

BLURB from website:
The great diet delusion

It is time for researchers and health authorities to wake up to the fact
that people do not get fat simply because they overeat, says Gary Taubes



FIRST COUPLE HUNDRED WORDS:

Article Preview
Comment: The great diet delusion

* 19 January 2008
* Gary Taubes
* Magazine issue 2639

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has remained
remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend and you will
lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable. The only
problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less nor moving
more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.

This contradiction has given us a catalogue of clinical literature almost
mind-boggling in its internal inconsistency. "Dietary therapy remains the
cornerstone of [obesity] treatment and the reduction of energy intake
continues to be the basis of successful weight reduction programs,"
observes The Handbook of Obesity, a textbook edited by George Bray, Claude
Bouchard and W. P. T. James, three of the most respected names in obesity
research, and first published in 1998. It then goes on to acknowledge that
the results of such therapy "are known to be poor and ...
The complete article is 972 words long.

I'm a bit embarrassed and also frustrated with myself that I am still
working on Taubes' book.

There are people I know, that I wish I could induce to read it, but there is
no point in even trying. There needs to be a DVD.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems and need to return to the
5th grade or something.

What is the take home message from this:

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has remained
remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend and you
will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable. The only
problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less nor moving
more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.


Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any
but the rarest cases?

He basically states in his book and video presentations, that being
obese is more of a hormonal problem than most people realize. Exercise makes
people hungry (working up an apetite) and they eat more to compensate.
Trying to reduce calories doesn't seem to work either, as the person
eventually succumbs to hunger. The consumption of too many carbs causes the
hormonal processes to favor the storage of fat. Once insulin resistance sets
in and a negative feed back loop dominates, it is difficult to reverse this
by conventional means of eat less and move more. (Not to say that it
entirely doesn't work).
I think most people kind of knew that hormones are screwed up if a person
is obese. Is it the weight gain first? Or the endocrine system that causes
the weight gain? It's a "chicken or egg" type theory. I suppose that the
Pima may have had little choice in the type of food intake at the time. It's
interesting to look at that situation and realize the amount of carbs they
ate rather than the activity level is what made them fat, even though a
similar tribe ate more calories of traditional food, worked the same and
remained slim.
I believe that a person's CCLL (Atkins) is related to how insulin
resistant they are. No one who is trying to lose weight wants to remain at
20 grams of carbs when everyone else seems to be eating 60 or more. In fact,
Atkins suggests that moving higher prevents stalls. But maybe they should be
staying lower than someone else until they reach a weight that "cures" their
metobolic syndrome. I think exercise would increase CCLL, but not enough in
some cases to overcome the person's level of carb intake, even if it seems
low to them.
So, now that all the conventual wisdom on "eating less and exercising
more" has been dispelled by Taubes, the question now is; Will serious
restriction of carbs work to help a person lose weight? Mostly no, because
it would be too much of a lifestyle change and people will likely not stick
to it. Some will embrace it and find their own cure, but most can't or won't
change the way they eat for whatever reason.
2 weeks ago, I linked to Jeff's experiment. He ate double the amount of
calories of very low carb foods (meat, fat, cream), for 1 month, and did not
gain weight. This is an extreme way of eating to some people, and he's been
saying it for a long time and finally proved it would work. He should have
gained about 12 lbs by eating almost 5000 Cal a day, but did not. Yes, it
works. How many people do you know who are willing to eat this way? 5% or
less? About the same amount as regular dieting?
I love Taubes' book, and it clarifies a lot of things that I questioned
about losing weight and conventional wisdom. If it helps everyone to believe
that low carb eating is good for you and will not damage health, that's a
good accomplishment. But I don't believe we are going to see less obesity
and diabetes, because people are not willing to change their lifestyle.
Whether someone believes less calories and more activety is the answer, or
changing the foods they eat is, it requries work and a certain amount of
vigilance. It won't change the way people work.



Who can take that statement at face value? Perhaps if I only do that one
day out of 365 it would be true, but what happens to me if I do that 364
days out of 365? I lose weight.

So, is Taubes saying I'm in that special group known as "The Rarest
Cases"?

If he is somehow saying that people can't do it consistently (eat less and
move more), then I wouldn't be writing this. But I don't comprehend his
statement to be saying that.



"Jim" wrote in message
...
There is a short (about 1000 word) article by Gary Taubes in the latest
issue of "New Scientist" magazine. I only have access (today) to the
website http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns which just gives a blurb and
the first couple of hundred words.

It looks like this work is getting some more serious academic
circulation, perhaps outside the circle of "Money Grubbing Diet Book
Writers and Diet System Sellers".

================================================== ============

BLURB from website:
The great diet delusion

It is time for researchers and health authorities to wake up to the fact
that people do not get fat simply because they overeat, says Gary Taubes



FIRST COUPLE HUNDRED WORDS:

Article Preview
Comment: The great diet delusion

* 19 January 2008
* Gary Taubes
* Magazine issue 2639

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has remained
remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend and you
will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable. The only
problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less nor moving
more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases.

This contradiction has given us a catalogue of clinical literature almost
mind-boggling in its internal inconsistency. "Dietary therapy remains the
cornerstone of [obesity] treatment and the reduction of energy intake
continues to be the basis of successful weight reduction programs,"
observes The Handbook of Obesity, a textbook edited by George Bray,
Claude Bouchard and W. P. T. James, three of the most respected names in
obesity research, and first published in 1998. It then goes on to
acknowledge that the results of such therapy "are known to be poor and
...
The complete article is 972 words long.

"Tom G." wrote in message
news:xnqkj.43871$wx.31031@pd7urf1no...

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems and need to return to the
5th grade or something.

What is the take home message from this:

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has
remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend
and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable.
The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less
nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest
cases.


Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any
but the rarest cases?

He basically states in his book and video presentations, that being
obese is more of a hormonal problem than most people realize. Exercise
makes people hungry (working up an apetite) and they eat more to
compensate. Trying to reduce calories doesn't seem to work either, as the
person eventually succumbs to hunger. The consumption of too many carbs
causes the hormonal processes to favor the storage of fat. Once insulin
resistance sets in and a negative feed back loop dominates, it is
difficult to reverse this by conventional means of eat less and move more.
(Not to say that it entirely doesn't work).

It always works, if you actually do it.

Basically, it's a psychological problem, not hormonal.

"Tom G." wrote in message
news:xnqkj.43871$wx.31031@pd7urf1no...

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems and need to return to the
5th grade or something.

What is the take home message from this:

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has
remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend
and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable.
The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less
nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest
cases.


Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any
but the rarest cases?

He basically states in his book and video presentations, that being
obese is more of a hormonal problem than most people realize. Exercise
makes people hungry (working up an apetite) and they eat more to
compensate. Trying to reduce calories doesn't seem to work either, as the
person eventually succumbs to hunger. The consumption of too many carbs
causes the hormonal processes to favor the storage of fat. Once insulin
resistance sets in and a negative feed back loop dominates, it is
difficult to reverse this by conventional means of eat less and move more.
(Not to say that it entirely doesn't work).

So what he is really saying is it doesn't work because people can't do it.
This I can accept. As a simple prescription to weight loss, it's useless for
most people. Enter LC.

I think most people kind of knew that hormones are screwed up if a
person is obese.

You mean researchers, perhaps. I don't htink most of the general population
knows that. Perhaps most of us do, though.

Is it the weight gain first? Or the endocrine system that causes
the weight gain? It's a "chicken or egg" type theory. I suppose that the
Pima may have had little choice in the type of food intake at the time.
It's interesting to look at that situation and realize the amount of carbs
they ate rather than the activity level is what made them fat, even though
a similar tribe ate more calories of traditional food, worked the same and
remained slim.
I believe that a person's CCLL (Atkins) is related to how insulin
resistant they are. No one who is trying to lose weight wants to remain at
20 grams of carbs when everyone else seems to be eating 60 or more. In
fact, Atkins suggests that moving higher prevents stalls. But maybe they
should be staying lower than someone else until they reach a weight that
"cures" their metobolic syndrome. I think exercise would increase CCLL,
but not enough in some cases to overcome the person's level of carb
intake, even if it seems low to them.

I'm pretty condifent that exercise does increase CCLL, but most people can't
/ won't do enough to move from needing LC to eating a fully HC diet.

So, now that all the conventual wisdom on "eating less and exercising
more" has been dispelled by Taubes, the question now is; Will serious
restriction of carbs work to help a person lose weight? Mostly no, because
it would be too much of a lifestyle change and people will likely not
stick to it. Some will embrace it and find their own cure, but most can't
or won't change the way they eat for whatever reason.

I agree to some extent. It's hard to change your ways after you've spent a
good lifetime making them. However, it could work for younger people. And
people can to moved to change if the have good info coming at them from the
right places. People changed to low fat.

2 weeks ago, I linked to Jeff's experiment. He ate double the amount of
calories of very low carb foods (meat, fat, cream), for 1 month, and did
not gain weight. This is an extreme way of eating to some people, and he's
been saying it for a long time and finally proved it would work. He should
have gained about 12 lbs by eating almost 5000 Cal a day, but did not.
Yes, it works. How many people do you know who are willing to eat this
way? 5% or less? About the same amount as regular dieting?

Most, I think, wouldn't even consider it because of fear of getting a heart
attack. However, I do think that a lot of people would enjoy eating that way
if it weren't ingrained in them that it would kill them.

I love Taubes' book, and it clarifies a lot of things that I questioned
about losing weight and conventional wisdom. If it helps everyone to
believe that low carb eating is good for you and will not damage health,
that's a good accomplishment. But I don't believe we are going to see less
obesity and diabetes, because people are not willing to change their
lifestyle.

I don't think it's so much a change of lifestyle issue as you do (perhaps in
older people it is more that way, though). The fact is most people still
believe fat is bad for you. It's what people believe that must change before
a lifestyle change can occur.

Whether someone believes less calories and more activety is the answer, or
changing the foods they eat is, it requries work and a certain amount of
vigilance. It won't change the way people work.


True.

Cubit wrote:
I'm a bit embarrassed and also frustrated with myself that I am still
working on Taubes' book.

There are people I know, that I wish I could induce to read it, but there is
no point in even trying. There needs to be a DVD.

I just finished reading it. I feel like I really need to go back and
read it all over again. And study some biochemistry and endocrinology
while I'm at it.

brigid

"jcderkoeing" wrote in message
t...

"Tom G." wrote in message
news:xnqkj.43871$wx.31031@pd7urf1no...

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems and need to return to the
5th grade or something.

What is the take home message from this:

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has
remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend
and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently reasonable.
The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less
nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest
cases.


Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in
any but the rarest cases?

He basically states in his book and video presentations, that being
obese is more of a hormonal problem than most people realize. Exercise
makes people hungry (working up an apetite) and they eat more to
compensate. Trying to reduce calories doesn't seem to work either, as the
person eventually succumbs to hunger. The consumption of too many carbs
causes the hormonal processes to favor the storage of fat. Once insulin
resistance sets in and a negative feed back loop dominates, it is
difficult to reverse this by conventional means of eat less and move
more. (Not to say that it entirely doesn't work).

It always works, if you actually do it.

Basically, it's a psychological problem, not hormonal.


I agree.

It really is about what's happening upstairs that needs to be worked on.
Those that are not willing to change their lifestyle won't be fixing their
hormone problems that resulted from continuing poor habits.

brigid nelson wrote:
Cubit wrote:
I'm a bit embarrassed and also frustrated with myself that I am still
working on Taubes' book.

There are people I know, that I wish I could induce to read it, but
there is no point in even trying. There needs to be a DVD.

I just finished reading it. I feel like I really need to go back and
read it all over again. And study some biochemistry and endocrinology
while I'm at it.

brigid


Yes, I felt the same way.

Even now as I go back and reread parts of it, I realize that the
information density was quite high, and much of it just slides back out
of my mind.

I also feel the lack of biochemistry and actual understanding of the
body as a living collection .... whatever best describes it.

I can understand the desire to make things simple, but in one sense,
that desire has been the largest hindrance to getting a real handle on
obesity and heart disease.

The initial triumph of the simple solution of "Fats" first and then
"Saturated Fats" driving cholesterol driving CHDhas turned into the
stumbling block of dietary progress.

Jim

"Nina" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 13:11:27 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:


"Tom G." wrote in message
news:xnqkj.43871$wx.31031@pd7urf1no...

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems and need to return to the
5th grade or something.

What is the take home message from this:

FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has
remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you expend
and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently
reasonable.
The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither eating less
nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest
cases.


Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in
any
but the rarest cases?

He basically states in his book and video presentations, that being
obese is more of a hormonal problem than most people realize. Exercise
makes people hungry (working up an apetite) and they eat more to
compensate. Trying to reduce calories doesn't seem to work either, as
the
person eventually succumbs to hunger. The consumption of too many carbs
causes the hormonal processes to favor the storage of fat. Once insulin
resistance sets in and a negative feed back loop dominates, it is
difficult to reverse this by conventional means of eat less and move
more.
(Not to say that it entirely doesn't work).

So what he is really saying is it doesn't work because people can't do it.
This I can accept. As a simple prescription to weight loss, it's useless
for
most people. Enter LC.

I think most people kind of knew that hormones are screwed up if a
person is obese.

You mean researchers, perhaps. I don't htink most of the general
population
knows that. Perhaps most of us do, though.

Is it the weight gain first? Or the endocrine system that causes
the weight gain? It's a "chicken or egg" type theory. I suppose that the
Pima may have had little choice in the type of food intake at the time.
It's interesting to look at that situation and realize the amount of
carbs
they ate rather than the activity level is what made them fat, even
though
a similar tribe ate more calories of traditional food, worked the same
and
remained slim.
I believe that a person's CCLL (Atkins) is related to how insulin
resistant they are. No one who is trying to lose weight wants to remain
at
20 grams of carbs when everyone else seems to be eating 60 or more. In
fact, Atkins suggests that moving higher prevents stalls. But maybe they
should be staying lower than someone else until they reach a weight that
"cures" their metobolic syndrome. I think exercise would increase CCLL,
but not enough in some cases to overcome the person's level of carb
intake, even if it seems low to them.

I'm pretty condifent that exercise does increase CCLL, but most people
can't
/ won't do enough to move from needing LC to eating a fully HC diet.

So, now that all the conventual wisdom on "eating less and exercising
more" has been dispelled by Taubes, the question now is; Will serious
restriction of carbs work to help a person lose weight? Mostly no,
because
it would be too much of a lifestyle change and people will likely not
stick to it. Some will embrace it and find their own cure, but most
can't
or won't change the way they eat for whatever reason.

I agree to some extent. It's hard to change your ways after you've spent
a
good lifetime making them. However, it could work for younger people. And
people can to moved to change if the have good info coming at them from
the
right places. People changed to low fat.

2 weeks ago, I linked to Jeff's experiment. He ate double the amount
of
calories of very low carb foods (meat, fat, cream), for 1 month, and did
not gain weight. This is an extreme way of eating to some people, and
he's
been saying it for a long time and finally proved it would work. He
should
have gained about 12 lbs by eating almost 5000 Cal a day, but did not.
Yes, it works. How many people do you know who are willing to eat this
way? 5% or less? About the same amount as regular dieting?

Most, I think, wouldn't even consider it because of fear of getting a
heart
attack. However, I do think that a lot of people would enjoy eating that
way
if it weren't ingrained in them that it would kill them.

I love Taubes' book, and it clarifies a lot of things that I
questioned
about losing weight and conventional wisdom. If it helps everyone to
believe that low carb eating is good for you and will not damage health,
that's a good accomplishment. But I don't believe we are going to see
less
obesity and diabetes, because people are not willing to change their
lifestyle.

I don't think it's so much a change of lifestyle issue as you do (perhaps
in
older people it is more that way, though). The fact is most people still
believe fat is bad for you. It's what people believe that must change
before
a lifestyle change can occur.

I think it's both. I mean, I'm 47, so I don't know if I count as
"older people" or not... I'm hoping not! But even if you're very sold
on the benefits of low carb, it takes a pretty big leap of faith to go
against pretty much *everything* that you've been taught your entire
life.

Well, if you're really sold then it is no longer such a big leap of faith.
Perhaps it is if you just "want to be sold", though.

It takes some serious getting used to (and I think this every
single time I make bacon for breakfast). So even if you believe,
there are those years of conditioning.

And I think that the other part is that the world in general is not
exactly supportive of a low-carb lifestyle. I mean, as a recent
convert to this, if you go and read the low-carb blogs and so on, it's
like a diet graveyard of products that are no longer produced after
the real low-carb hype diet down circa 2004. Products that do exist
are largely things that IMO are some of the worst things that you can
eat, like Atkins bars and other junk filled with maltitol and so on
(yes, there are some great low-carb products out there, but not so
many). If we lived in a low-carb world instead of a low-fat world,
people would be both more willing and find it easier to change their
lifestyles.


Actually, most of those low-fat products are so good for you either. Also,
if you do your own cooking, LC is easy to follow. Still, you're right that
the world at large doesn't make being a LCer exactly easy. So much negative
talk and bad knowledge around...and people with attitude without
knowledge....