Taubes Article in "New Scientist"

"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message
...
"Roger Zoul" writes:

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?

In his book, he cites numerous studies where obese people were put on
"balanced," semi-starvation diets in the 1800-calorie neighborhood, or
even extreme low-calorie diets of under 1000 calories, and failed to
lose any significant weight. There is evidence that, for people whose
hormones are in fat-storage mode--what we know as high insulin, low
glucagon mode--their bodies conserve energy during caloric deficits by
slowing down various metabolic processes, giving off less heat, and
becoming more lethargic.

Yes, everyone has to have *some* calorie level at which he'll lose
weight, but that's not the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom
is that it takes 3500 calories to make a pound of fat, therefore if
you're currently maintaining your weight, and you cut calories by
500/day, you'll lose one pound a week, period, for certain, end of
story. Likewise, if you increase 500/day, you'll gain a pound a week.
And this is all completely regardless of what you eat or anything to do
with your hormones, because A Calorie Is A Calorie, after all.

That's what Taubes is objecting to, and what he spends hundreds of pages
citing numerous studies to counter.

I don't think citing numerous examples of "a calorie is not a calorie" is
justification for this statement:

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

Do you see where he says "rarest cases"? I think he means that most people
won't / don't tolerate caloric restrction long enough to lose significant
weight and to maintain that weight loss indefinitely.

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.

On Jan 19, 9:24*am, "Tom G." wrote:
* *I think most people kind of knew that hormones are screwed up if a person
is obese.

This hypothesis is incomplete without an explanation why this hormonal
affliction is so geographically and socio-economically selective.

"Kaz" wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 9:24 am, "Tom G." wrote:
I think most people kind of knew that hormones are screwed up if a person
is obese.

This hypothesis is incomplete without an explanation why this hormonal
affliction is so geographically and socio-economically selective.

I believe that hormone dysfunction comes about as a life long negative
feed back loop of poor habits. The hormone problems can be made worse by
gaining more weight, but can also be improved by losing.
It is true that being lucky enough to live in the right area that has
lots of food, and the money to pay for it, would give a person a better
opportunity to gain weight and screw up their hormones.

Roger Zoul wrote:
"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message
...
"Roger Zoul" writes:

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?
In his book, he cites numerous studies where obese people were put on
"balanced," semi-starvation diets in the 1800-calorie neighborhood, or
even extreme low-calorie diets of under 1000 calories, and failed to
lose any significant weight. There is evidence that, for people whose
hormones are in fat-storage mode--what we know as high insulin, low
glucagon mode--their bodies conserve energy during caloric deficits by
slowing down various metabolic processes, giving off less heat, and
becoming more lethargic.

Yes, everyone has to have *some* calorie level at which he'll lose
weight, but that's not the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom
is that it takes 3500 calories to make a pound of fat, therefore if
you're currently maintaining your weight, and you cut calories by
500/day, you'll lose one pound a week, period, for certain, end of
story. Likewise, if you increase 500/day, you'll gain a pound a week.
And this is all completely regardless of what you eat or anything to do
with your hormones, because A Calorie Is A Calorie, after all.

That's what Taubes is objecting to, and what he spends hundreds of pages
citing numerous studies to counter.

I don't think citing numerous examples of "a calorie is not a calorie" is
justification for this statement:

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

Do you see where he says "rarest cases"? I think he means that most people
won't / don't tolerate caloric restrction long enough to lose significant
weight and to maintain that weight loss indefinitely.

My problem with Taubes' statement about is that he makes it seem as though
is "eating less and moving more" won't work, period.

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

This isn't the same and "Eating Less AND Moving More"




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.




In general, I believe that the number of people who CAN or DO make "eat
less, move more" work for them is relatively small, and thus they are
rare cases (by definition of rare).

You and Taubes can both be "approximately right". You yourself caution
that "Many many people have made that work, at least over some period of
time."

I am amazed that this small snipped of the first paragraph of the
article has raised so much comment, and I am certain that almost nobody
had bothered to actually read the whole article to place the
introductory statement in context.

Since the entire article probably requires a trip to the bookstore or
library, I am sure that the entire article will remain unread.

On Jan 22, 8:12*am, Jim wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message
...
"Roger Zoul" writes:

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?
In his book, he cites numerous studies where obese people were put on
"balanced," semi-starvation diets in the 1800-calorie neighborhood, or
even extreme low-calorie diets of under 1000 calories, and failed to
lose any significant weight. *There is evidence that, for people whose
hormones are in fat-storage mode--what we know as high insulin, low
glucagon mode--their bodies conserve energy during caloric deficits by
slowing down various metabolic processes, giving off less heat, and
becoming more lethargic.

Yes, everyone has to have *some* calorie level at which he'll lose
weight, but that's not the conventional wisdom. *The conventional wisdom
is that it takes 3500 calories to make a pound of fat, therefore if
you're currently maintaining your weight, and you cut calories by
500/day, you'll lose one pound a week, period, for certain, end of
story. *Likewise, if you increase 500/day, you'll gain a pound a week..
And this is all completely regardless of what you eat or anything to do
with your hormones, because A Calorie Is A Calorie, after all.

That's what Taubes is objecting to, and what he spends hundreds of pages
citing numerous studies to counter.

I don't think citing numerous examples of "a calorie is not a calorie" is
justification for this statement:

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

Do you see where he says "rarest cases"? *I think he means that most people
won't / don't tolerate caloric restrction long enough to lose significant
weight and to maintain that weight loss indefinitely.

My problem with Taubes' statement about is that he makes it seem as though
is "eating less and moving more" won't work, period.

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

This isn't the same and "Eating Less AND Moving More"

* 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.

In general, I believe that the number of people who CAN *or DO make "eat
less, move more" work for them is relatively small, and thus they are
rare cases (by definition of rare).

You and Taubes can both be "approximately right". You yourself caution
that "Many many people have made that work, at least over some period of
time."

I am amazed that this small snipped of the first paragraph of the
article has raised so much comment, and I am certain that almost nobody
had bothered to actually read the whole article to place the
introductory statement in context.

Since the entire article probably requires a trip to the bookstore or
library, I am sure that the entire article will remain unread.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I have to agree with Roger. The statement "Neither eating less nor
moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest
cases." , as presented by Taubes, is simply untrue. I agree that
there are some people who are metabolically resistant to losing and
will have great difficulty losing weight compared to others. The
bigger problem by far is that people will not stick to a regimen of
eating less and moving more, which is likely what he was thinking, but
not what he wrote. That's why it fails in most cases. If you
actually do it, it does work. At the extreme, you have JC's example
of concentration camps.

For some obvious contemporary proof, how about the show "The Biggest
Loser"? They've had several seasons now. I watched it the first
season and occasionally later. The basic plan was reduced eating and
lots of exercise. These obese people were all losing weight, and at
very substantial rates. With a dozen or so contestants, if this
approach did not lead to reversing obesity except in "the rarest
cases", what were we seeing?

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message
...
"Roger Zoul" writes:

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?
In his book, he cites numerous studies where obese people were put on
"balanced," semi-starvation diets in the 1800-calorie neighborhood, or
even extreme low-calorie diets of under 1000 calories, and failed to
lose any significant weight. There is evidence that, for people whose
hormones are in fat-storage mode--what we know as high insulin, low
glucagon mode--their bodies conserve energy during caloric deficits by
slowing down various metabolic processes, giving off less heat, and
becoming more lethargic.

Yes, everyone has to have *some* calorie level at which he'll lose
weight, but that's not the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom
is that it takes 3500 calories to make a pound of fat, therefore if
you're currently maintaining your weight, and you cut calories by
500/day, you'll lose one pound a week, period, for certain, end of
story. Likewise, if you increase 500/day, you'll gain a pound a week.
And this is all completely regardless of what you eat or anything to do
with your hormones, because A Calorie Is A Calorie, after all.

That's what Taubes is objecting to, and what he spends hundreds of pages
citing numerous studies to counter.

I don't think citing numerous examples of "a calorie is not a calorie" is
justification for this statement:

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

Do you see where he says "rarest cases"? I think he means that most
people won't / don't tolerate caloric restrction long enough to lose
significant weight and to maintain that weight loss indefinitely.

My problem with Taubes' statement about is that he makes it seem as
though is "eating less and moving more" won't work, period.

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

This isn't the same and "Eating Less AND Moving More"

Jim,

Please read this and tell me what it says to you:

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.

As it stands, I think he is saying that "neither eating less nor moving more
will reverse the course of obesity in all but a few cases."

I think that's nonsense. If you're going to tell me that I need to read an
article or a book to get proper context, then I suggest you have lost all
perspective. Words have meaning and Taubes should be able to express what he
thinks is the truth. It would only have taken perhaps a few more words to
reflect more accurately what is more likely the case.


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.

In general, I believe that the number of people who CAN or DO make "eat
less, move more" work for them is relatively small, and thus they are rare
cases (by definition of rare).


I believe that it will work for most people if they do it. My point is that
most people either dont' / won't do it.
We need to be honest here and I feel Taubes isn't doing that.


You and Taubes can both be "approximately right". You yourself caution
that "Many many people have made that work, at least over some period of
time."

I am amazed that this small snipped of the first paragraph of the article
has raised so much comment, and I am certain that almost nobody had
bothered to actually read the whole article to place the introductory
statement in context.

An introductory statement should provide it's own context or risk being
completely untrue. You're not going to convince me that it's not possible
to make an more accurate statement within a similar number of words. So, if
one doesn't do that, what exactly is one attempting to do {ie, what is
Taubes up to here?}?


Since the entire article probably requires a trip to the bookstore or
library, I am sure that the entire article will remain unread.

So, in saying this you seem to be attempting to excuse Taubes' sloppy
writing.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 22, 8:12 am, Jim wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:
"Aaron Baugher" wrote in message
...
"Roger Zoul" writes:

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?
In his book, he cites numerous studies where obese people were put on
"balanced," semi-starvation diets in the 1800-calorie neighborhood, or
even extreme low-calorie diets of under 1000 calories, and failed to
lose any significant weight. There is evidence that, for people whose
hormones are in fat-storage mode--what we know as high insulin, low
glucagon mode--their bodies conserve energy during caloric deficits by
slowing down various metabolic processes, giving off less heat, and
becoming more lethargic.

Yes, everyone has to have *some* calorie level at which he'll lose
weight, but that's not the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom
is that it takes 3500 calories to make a pound of fat, therefore if
you're currently maintaining your weight, and you cut calories by
500/day, you'll lose one pound a week, period, for certain, end of
story. Likewise, if you increase 500/day, you'll gain a pound a week.
And this is all completely regardless of what you eat or anything to do
with your hormones, because A Calorie Is A Calorie, after all.

That's what Taubes is objecting to, and what he spends hundreds of
pages
citing numerous studies to counter.

I don't think citing numerous examples of "a calorie is not a calorie"
is
justification for this statement:

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

Do you see where he says "rarest cases"? I think he means that most
people
won't / don't tolerate caloric restrction long enough to lose
significant
weight and to maintain that weight loss indefinitely.

My problem with Taubes' statement about is that he makes it seem as
though
is "eating less and moving more" won't work, period.

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

This isn't the same and "Eating Less AND Moving More"

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.

In general, I believe that the number of people who CAN or DO make "eat
less, move more" work for them is relatively small, and thus they are
rare cases (by definition of rare).

You and Taubes can both be "approximately right". You yourself caution
that "Many many people have made that work, at least over some period of
time."

I am amazed that this small snipped of the first paragraph of the
article has raised so much comment, and I am certain that almost nobody
had bothered to actually read the whole article to place the
introductory statement in context.

Since the entire article probably requires a trip to the bookstore or
library, I am sure that the entire article will remain unread.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I have to agree with Roger. The statement "Neither eating less nor
moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest
cases." , as presented by Taubes, is simply untrue. I agree that
there are some people who are metabolically resistant to losing and
will have great difficulty losing weight compared to others. The
bigger problem by far is that people will not stick to a regimen of
eating less and moving more, which is likely what he was thinking, but
not what he wrote. That's why it fails in most cases. If you
actually do it, it does work. At the extreme, you have JC's example
of concentration camps.

For some obvious contemporary proof, how about the show "The Biggest
Loser"? They've had several seasons now. I watched it the first
season and occasionally later. The basic plan was reduced eating and
lots of exercise. These obese people were all losing weight, and at
very substantial rates. With a dozen or so contestants, if this
approach did not lead to reversing obesity except in "the rarest
cases", what were we seeing?


Thank you. Even though I didn't watch "The Biggest Loser", Taubes'
statement will be seen as obviously untrue to almost anyone who reads it and
then rest of what he says won't be taken seriously. It's a real shame too,
because it would be so easy to say different things that would manage to
keep this readers reading.

On Jan 21, 7:11 am, Aaron Baugher wrote:
"Roger Zoul" writes:
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?

In his book, he cites numerous studies where obese people were put on
"balanced," semi-starvation diets in the 1800-calorie neighborhood, or
even extreme low-calorie diets of under 1000 calories, and failed to
lose any significant weight. There is evidence that, for people whose
hormones are in fat-storage mode--what we know as high insulin, low
glucagon mode--their bodies conserve energy during caloric deficits by
slowing down various metabolic processes, giving off less heat, and
becoming more lethargic.

I'm not in ``fat storage mode'', yet my body does exactly the above.
Conserving energy during a caloric deficit is normal.

Yes, everyone has to have *some* calorie level at which he'll lose
weight, but that's not the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom
is that it takes 3500 calories to make a pound of fat, therefore if
you're currently maintaining your weight, and you cut calories by
500/day, you'll lose one pound a week, period, for certain, end of
story.

That conventional wisdom is idiotic. Because there is in fact a range
of caloric intake within which a body maintains weight. Gaining weight
doesn't just require light overeating, but big overeating that the
metabolic adaptation is unable to compensate. Likewise, losing weight
by decreasing intake requires a serious decrease in intake, one which
the metabolic slowdown is unable to compensate.

If there had to be a perfect balance down to the precision of a single
calorie, with no adaptive response, then nobody would ever maintain
weight. On the contrary, people's weights remain remarkably stable in
spite of fluctuating energetic output and fluctuating, unmetered
intake.

Likewise, if you increase 500/day, you'll gain a pound a week.
And this is all completely regardless of what you eat or anything to do
with your hormones, because A Calorie Is A Calorie, after all.

The real situations is more like this: if you first overeat to the
point that you're just the verge of gaining weight, to the point where
your metabolism is doing all that it can to burn off the excess, then
from this baseline, an additional 500 kcal/day will cause you to gain
a pound per week. So the actual increase in intake will have to be X +
500, where X is a term that varies with individual.

That's what Taubes is objecting to

If that's the case, he's objecting to some idiotic strawman version of
energy balance (output is independent of intake), not to the an
intelligent version which takes into account metabolic adaptation
(intake affects output).

The bottom line is not about calories in minus calories out, and a
calorie is a calorie. You can't escape the law of conservation of
energy. If you think you can, I have a machine to sell you, from whose
perpetual motion you can extract unlimited amounts of energy.

On Jan 21, 11:49*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
The convential wisdom is that someone maintaining at 3500 calories
per day can go to 3000 and lose a pound a week. *

Funny how nobody who spouts the conventional wisdom can actually
demonstrate it working.

"
This hypothesis is incomplete without an explanation why this hormonal
affliction is so geographically and socio-economically selective."

It ties directly to the availability of easily digested carbohydrates.