Taubes Article in "New Scientist"

On Jan 31, 7:13*pm, Mark Filice wrote:
In article ,
says...





If Taubes had simply said:

ATTEMPTS to get people to eat less and excercise more haven't reversed
the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases. or People TRYING to
eat less and excercise more hasn't reversed the course of obesity in
any but the rarest cases.

then we wouldn't be having this discussion. *As for reading the whole
article, I'd be happy to, but I'm not going to become a paid
subscriber to the website to do so.

I don't see it as just a nit. * There is a very big difference
scientifically between

A - People can't lose weight except in the rarest cases despite eating
less and excercising more.

B- People can't lose weight except in the rarest cases because they
don't stay on the diet and excercise program.

It isn't hard that hard to be clear, especially in an article for a
scientific magazine. * *Isn't this guy supposed to be a writer?

I'm inclined to cut Taubes some slack. I've read "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs", and he
can write. Even Tom Brady throws an errant pass now and again.

My vote is "B". I've been there--every weekday morning at the gym for 90+
minutes. Cycling, strength training with weights--swimming from time to time. I
had a written workout plan and followed it to the letter. Combined that with a
food plan of a protein shake for breakfast, one for lunch, and a protein bar for
a snack. Then eat dinner with the family.

I lost a lot of weight and firmed up quite a bit over a 2-year period. Then I
suffered a broken ankle (not at the gym). Stopped going to the gym (I did try
one visit, but it was a hassle). After rehab I simply didn't go back.

Gained all the weight back and then some.

It gets boring eating the same all the time. It gets boring seeing the same
people at the gym doing the same exercises and never noticing any changes. Even
the most determined person is likely to stop the routine.

Health clubs make money because the sign up people for a 2-year contract knowing
that the person will probably pay for 20+ months worth of dues without every
using the facility.

I don't buy into the notion that "people can't lose weight except in the rarest
cases despite eating less and exercising more." I think that it is the other way
around. People do lose weight combining caloric restriction and increased
exercise. But they don't continue with the regimen because it gets boring and it
is too easy to yield to the temptation of going back to their old ways.

I'm going to get back into the gym thing soon. But this time it is simply to get
the blood pumping. I know that it will speed up the weight loss as well.

Mark
280/228/200- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Thank you. My issue here is not so much with Taubes, but with those
that apparently seek to somehow defend the statement at face value and
at the same time refuse to even answer the clarifying question of
whether they think it is indeed rare for obese people to lose weight
by actually eating less and exercising more, even in the short term.

I'm with you. From everything I've seen, not only isn't it rare, but
most people do lose weight. It's just that they don't stay with the
diet/exercise. And it's a major difference from a scientific
standpoint.

Susan writes:

Aaron Baugher wrote:

In reflexology terms, they're in the arches. A web search should
turn up pictures showing exactly where. There are also points on
either side of the navel, about two inches up and two inches out from
center. The adrenals themselves are closer to the back then the
front (mounted right above the kidneys), but it's hard to reach them
there to see if they're sore.

As someone who's on occasion suffered from severe adrenal
insufficiency, I can assure you that it's not at all difficult to tell
if they're sore without touching them. They cause a deep, persistent
low back ache.

True. I think I've just had it long enough to take that ache for
granted.



--
Aaron -- 285/253/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:

My problem with Taubes' statement about is that he makes it seem as
though is "eating less and moving more" won't work, period. However,
most of us know that it will if you can find a way to do it. Many many
people have made that work, at least over some period of time. There
certainly may be a sizable group of people who cannot get that to work. I
think paragraphs like the one he wrote there hurt his credibility rather
than help it.

My problem with your statement is that it implies it's a simple matter of
choice. One of the things reading Taubes changed in my head was the huge
numbers of animal studies involved. After reading the fifitieth study
about how rats gained or lost weight, one stops thinking in terms of
willpower at all.


I don't think anything in my statement implies a simple matter of choice.
Some people can find a way to make it work and other can't. It's not a
judgment call at all.

I took away from Taubes a different notion than you have, it's not that
"eating less and moving more" doesn't work, it's that lower levels of
serum insulin are the *cause* of "eating less and moving more". It
happens *naturally* if you give the rat the right inputs.

I have a piece of crap pickup truck that the previous owner tried to soup
up as my backup vehicle and for hauling home bales of hay and straw and
such. If I feed it regular gas, it is very difficult to start, knocks a
lot, backfires, doesn't shut off for a minute or two after I shut it off,
and gets horrible mileage (down to 5 mph!) If I feed it high-octane
stuff, all these symptoms improve. It's got nothing to do with the truck
"finding a way" to improve.

Trucks aren't humans...or rats.

Aaron Baugher wrote:
"Ophelia" writes:

the adrenal reflex points are very sore,

What are these please?

In reflexology terms, they're in the arches. A web search should turn
up pictures showing exactly where. There are also points on either
side of the navel, about two inches up and two inches out from
center. The adrenals themselves are closer to the back then the
front (mounted right above the kidneys), but it's hard to reach them
there to see if they're sore.

Oh no problem there, my David often massages my feet)

Thanks Aaron, I shall investigate

Spoiled O )

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:

My problem with Taubes' statement about is that he makes it seem as
though is "eating less and moving more" won't work, period. However,
most of us know that it will if you can find a way to do it. Many many
people have made that work, at least over some period of time. There
certainly may be a sizable group of people who cannot get that to work.
I think paragraphs like the one he wrote there hurt his credibility
rather than help it.

My problem with your statement is that it implies it's a simple matter of
choice. One of the things reading Taubes changed in my head was the huge
numbers of animal studies involved. After reading the fifitieth study
about how rats gained or lost weight, one stops thinking in terms of
willpower at all.


I don't think anything in my statement implies a simple matter of choice.
Some people can find a way to make it work and other can't. It's not a
judgment call at all.

I took away from Taubes a different notion than you have, it's not that
"eating less and moving more" doesn't work, it's that lower levels of
serum insulin are the *cause* of "eating less and moving more". It
happens *naturally* if you give the rat the right inputs.

I have a piece of crap pickup truck that the previous owner tried to soup
up as my backup vehicle and for hauling home bales of hay and straw and
such. If I feed it regular gas, it is very difficult to start, knocks a
lot, backfires, doesn't shut off for a minute or two after I shut it off,
and gets horrible mileage (down to 5 mph!) If I feed it high-octane
stuff, all these symptoms improve. It's got nothing to do with the truck
"finding a way" to improve.

Trucks aren't humans...or rats.




Humans are not gods that transcend their biological nature.