A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Good Calories Bad Calories - Bad Science



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 10th, 2008, 02:40 PM posted to alt.support.diet
Sudden Disruption[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Good Calories Bad Calories - Bad Science

So, ARE some calories better than others? Is this the magic answer? I
doubt it. Gary Taubes raises some good questions, but answers few in
this book.

Here's a link to my complete review...

http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/

My question is this, what part of the diet community is actually
following his advice? Anyone have any stats? What effects do these
books have on people's lives?

Sudden Disruption

--
Explore the Sudden-Centric Cyberverse...
http://www.sudden.net

  #2  
Old July 12th, 2008, 01:35 AM
David Brown David Brown is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by WeightlossBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudden Disruption[_2_] View Post
Gary Taubes raises some good questions, but answers few in this book. My question is this, what part of the diet community is actually following his advice? Anyone have any stats? What effects do these books have on people's lives?
While I have no information regarding the percentage of over weight people who are using carbohydrate restriction to control their weight, here is a recently published comparison study that confirms the superior effectiveness of low-carb eating for weight loss: The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial JAMA. 2007;297:969-977.

Here's comment by Dr. John Briffa, a London Physician:

"Today sees the publication of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in which the effectiveness of four diets was assessed over a year-long period [1]. Researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine ascribed women to eat either the Atkins’ diet (low carb), Zone diet (carb, protein and fat in the ratio of 40:30:30), LEARN diet (based on standard food pyramid) and the Ornish diet (low fat, high carb).

At the end of the year it was revealed that the most effective regime was the Atkins diet, with an average weight loss of 10.4 lbs. Average weight loss on the Zone, LEARN and Ornish diets were 3.5, 5.7, 4.8 lbs respectively. Note here that the effectiveness of the Atkins diet was approximately double that of higher carb diets (Ornish and LEARN).

But that’s not all, because the Atkins’ diet ... brought about significant improvements in one or more health measurements such as blood triglyceride levels, ‘healthy’ high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels and blood pressure. Taken as a whole, the Atkins’ diet beat the other ones hands down.

This result may come as a surprise to those who continue to tout the ‘benefits’ of a low fat diet. However, we can be pretty sure these findings are precisely what individuals who use low and lower-carb diets in practice would expect. I, personally, have found lower-carb diets broadly beneficial not just in terms of weight loss, but in normalizing physiology and biochemistry too."

To learn how Taubes' book has affected people struggling with weight loss issues, I suggest you Google "Gary Taubes Low-carb forums."
  #3  
Old July 14th, 2008, 08:37 PM posted to alt.support.diet
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Good Calories Bad Calories - Bad Science

Sudden Disruption wrote:

So, ARE some calories better than others?


Absolutely. If that weren't true there would be no supporters
of either low carb or low fat diet plans.

Is this the magic answer?


There is no magic answer. The absolute best that can be
acheived is loss without hunger but with immediate regain
trend as soon as the diet is quit. Anyone looking for a
magic answer, no matter what type, is going to fail.

I doubt it.


That's nice. It doesn't appear that you've read the book
though.

Gary Taubes raises some good questions, but answers few in
this book.


Of course. That'sd the *purpose* of his book. His book
is not a scientific work that suggests a solution. It's a
journalistic work that shows exactly how bad the science
used to support low fat diets is.

Here's a link to my complete review...


A blogspot spammer. I'll pass on the link thanx.

My question is this, what part of the diet community is actually
following his advice? *Anyone have any stats? *What effects do these
books have on people's lives?


Since his advice does not describe an eating system your
questions don't make sense.
  #4  
Old July 14th, 2008, 09:29 PM posted to alt.support.diet
Kaz Kylheku
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default Good Calories Bad Calories - Bad Science

On 2008-07-12, David Brown davebnepatyahoo.com wrote:
At the end of the year it was revealed that the most effective regime
was the Atkins diet, with an average weight loss of 10.4 lbs. Average
weight loss on the Zone, LEARN and Ornish diets were 3.5, 5.7, 4.8 lbs


Losing 10.4 pounds in an entire year is pitifully little, never mind
3.5, keeping in mind that the subjects in this study were all obese.

According to a description of the study, the participants were
``311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic,
premenopausal women''.

A woman of typical muscle mass should be at BMI 20, so the worst of these
subjects needed to lose about half their body weight: a hundred pounds or more!

The meagre weight loss over an entire year indicates that during the study,
they didn't get a proper grip on their overeating.

A calorie-controlled diet, if adhered to properly, would have had much better
results. The subjects in the study were all fat enough that a loss of
/at least/ two pounds per week would have been realistic.

respectively. Note here that the effectiveness of the Atkins diet was
approximately double that of higher carb diets (Ornish and LEARN).


Someone on the Atkins diet would be depleted of glycogen, which makes
an obvious weight difference, since glycogen is hydrated.
Supposedly, the difference can be several pounds.

Just by eating less, you can lose weight without losing any body fat, lean mass
or glycogen. By queuing less material for digestion, within a few days, your
gut will be more empty. The digestive system can hold a lot, supposedly.

The abdomens of people who stuff themselves carry many pounds of material at
various stages of processing. Reduce the stuffing, and within a couple of
days, the abdominal inventory will dwindle, translating to pounds shed.

But that?s not all, because the Atkins? diet ... brought about
significant improvements in one or more health measurements such as


Which is it? One, or more? If one, which one?

blood triglyceride levels, ?healthy? high density lipoprotein (HDL)
cholesterol levels and blood pressure. Taken as a whole, the Atkins?
diet beat the other ones hands down.


On average, the subjects were still obese at the conclusion of the study.
Quite probably, they didn't improve their body compositions; they only emptied
their guts and lost some body water, by somewhat toning down the voraciousness
of their overeating.

To lose fat, you must reduce calories to below your maintenance range. For
people who have adapted their bodies to an exorbitant calorie intake, this
reduction has to be quite severe before anything will happen. A metabolism
that had been demanded to deal with 6000 calories per day for years will gladly
take a breather if given a chance.

This result may come as a surprise to those who continue to tout the
?benefits? of a low fat diet.


The results are no surprise to people who understand energy.

Someone at BMI 40, who manages to lose only a couple of pounds in an entire
year, cannot really said to have been on any kind of diet.

However, we can be pretty sure these
findings are precisely what individuals who use low and lower-carb
diets in practice would expect.


At best, all you can say is that stuffing your face with low-carb food seems
to be less dangerous than stuffing your face with high-carb food.

Carbohydrate material, particularly the refined kind, is potentially harmful
due to its rapid absorption. This rapid absorption can create an emergency
state within the body, the response to which is the storage of fat.
But this is caused by overeating; it's not an inherent problem with
carbohydrate. You can in fact safely eat a lot more carbohydrate in a day than
what the low-carb nutcases propose, as long as you don't overeat, and as long
as you don't consume it all at once.

There are healthy, slim populations in the world, who eat remarkably
differently from each other; what they all have in common is that they don't
stuff themselves.

If you don't eat more than 1600 calories per day (man) or 1200 (woman), and
your nutritional needs are met, it doesn't matter if the bulk of the energy
comes from fat, protein or carbohydrate material.
  #5  
Old July 15th, 2008, 12:15 AM posted to alt.support.diet
Sudden Disruption[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Good Calories Bad Calories - Bad Science

Doug Freyburger

Absolutely. If that weren't true there would be no supporters
of either low carb or low fat diet plans.


That's naive! The history of food and medicine is FULL of ineffective
solutions supported by large groups. Do I really need to name a few?

There is no magic answer.


Not YET. But counting calories and stomach-limiting technologies are
getting close.

That's nice. It doesn't appear that you've read the book
though.


I struggled through ALL 460 pages.

A blogspot spammer. I'll pass on the link thanx.


And you accuse ME of judging without reading!

Kaz Kylheku


Excellent response to David above, but you missed a very important
point which may actually be key to the problem.

If you look at humans as rats in a cage, you'll discover our behavior
is similar. We eat more and gain weigh as more food is thrown in the
cage. The last fifty years has seen "available" food more than double
with food available at more places, in more forms and in larger
quantities. We have more food in our cage.

Since the Atkins diet is also the most restrictive of these four
(carbs AND to some degree fat), it decreases the available food
"thrown in the Atkins cage" and has a more dramatic effect of limiting
actual calories. And like you say, none of these diets are very
effective and 311 subjects if far to small a study to be useful.

A calorie-controlled diet, if adhered to properly, would have had much better
To lose fat, you must reduce calories to below your maintenance range.


I agree completely.

For people who have adapted their bodies to an exorbitant calorie intake, this
reduction has to be quite severe before anything will happen.


Which Taubes seems to have ignored.

Thanks for the excellent defense.

We are desperately in need of good science.

Even if some refuse to read it.

Sudden Disruption
--
Explore the Sudden-Centric Cyberverse...
http://suddendisruption.blogspot.com/
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Calories, Bad Calories Bob Low Carbohydrate Diets 3 June 25th, 2008 06:40 PM
Calories Explained.(alphabetical list of calories in food) [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 March 23rd, 2008 09:33 AM
Nice Reader Review of Taubes Book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" Jim Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 October 1st, 2007 05:24 PM
Nice Reader Review of Taubes New Book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" Jim Low Carbohydrate Diets 11 September 30th, 2007 01:10 PM
Taubes: Good Calories, Bad Calories Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 7 September 13th, 2007 05:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.