Taubes -not eating and moving stuff

Cubit · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 1725

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

I'm restarting this thread because I have gotten past halfway in Gary
Taubes' book. While he still presents both sides of arguments, he has
explained the theory that obesity is a disease of body fat metabolism. The
problem happening in the body fat may be that the fat cells take in energy
and refuse to release it. In the homeostasis of the body this creates an
imbalance. The body responds by eating more and moving less. However, the
key cannot be telling someone to eat less and move more because they will
fail to fix the problem -because the problem is in a localized phenomenon in
the body, the body fat.

Based on the book he was not making a misstatement.

Further, he talks about the possibility that increased caloric intake can
lead to increased activity and metabolism in a person who is in weight
equilibrium.

The issue deals with the practical realities of a person dealing with their
weight, and not extreme cases like starvation in a concentration camp or a
TV show like "The Biggest Loser."

I'm having some difficulty with this because I am a calorie counter.
However, the book is thorough in documented studies and alternative
theories.

If he said the above quote, which I took from the old thread, he could make
a strong case for it.

My personal results are not typical, and easily fall into the rarest cases
category.

Cubit
320/152/160
male 5' 8"
LC since 12/2003

Archived from group: alt>support>diet>low-carb

jcderkoeing · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 97

>
> My personal results are not typical

Your personal results are most definitely typical for those that eat less.

trader4 · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 781

On Feb 1, 8:32 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
> >"Neither eating less nor moving
>
> more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases."
>
> I'm restarting this thread because I have gotten past halfway in Gary
> Taubes' book. While he still presents both sides of arguments, he has
> explained the theory that obesity is a disease of body fat metabolism. The
> problem happening in the body fat may be that the fat cells take in energy
> and refuse to release it. In the homeostasis of the body this creates an
> imbalance. The body responds by eating more and moving less. However, the
> key cannot be telling someone to eat less and move more because they will
> fail to fix the problem -because the problem is in a localized phenomenon in
> the body, the body fat.
>
> Based on the book he was not making a misstatement.

In the statement, he didn't say "telling people to eat less and
exercise more." If he did, there wouldn't be all this discussion. OK,
according to Taubes obesity is caused by a disease of body fat
metabolism.
Now, once again, inquiring minds want to know, based on Taubes book,
can you tell us which way it works?

A - Obese people can't lose weight when eating less and exercising
more at all, even in the short term, except for the rarest cases,
because of this disease

B - Obese peope can lose weight, at least in the short term, say for
several months when they are actually eating less and exercising more,
but then put it back on when they go off the diet/exercise?

If Taubes hasn't established that clearly in his book, especially
after using that provocative opening statement, then I'd say it's
rather strange and he hasn't made much of a case.

>
> Further, he talks about the possibility that increased caloric intake can
> lead to increased activity and metabolism in a person who is in weight
> equilibrium.
>
> The issue deals with the practical realities of a person dealing with their
> weight, and not extreme cases like starvation in a concentration camp or a
> TV show like "The Biggest Loser."
>

You don't have to go to extreme cases to see that eating less and
exercising more works. How about many third world countries, where
people consume a lot less calories and get a lot of exercise, farming,
hauling water, walking instead of driving a car, etc.? They are no
where near concentration camp levels, but certainly well below the
calories and quantities we eat here in the US. BTW, in many of those
cases, the diet can be high in carbs, eating rice, grain, etc. Yet,
we don't see many obese people. Does Taubes explain that? . Why is
this disease prevalent here, but not there? And why when these people
come to the US or similar western countries, do the obesity levels
rise dramatically, so that before long, they and their offspring have
similar obesity problems to the population here at large?

> I'm having some difficulty with this because I am a calorie counter.
> However, the book is thorough in documented studies and alternative
> theories.
>
> If he said the above quote, which I took from the old thread, he could make
> a strong case for it.
>
> My personal results are not typical, and easily fall into the rarest cases
> category.

The rarest cases based on that you can lose weight at all or that
you've kept it off for the long term?

>
> Cubit
> 320/152/160
> male 5' 8"
> LC since 12/2003

Hollywood · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 132

On Feb 1, 7:32 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
> >"Neither eating less nor moving
>
> more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases."
>
> I'm restarting this thread because I have gotten past halfway in Gary
> Taubes' book. While he still presents both sides of arguments, he has
> explained the theory that obesity is a disease of body fat metabolism. The
> problem happening in the body fat may be that the fat cells take in energy
> and refuse to release it. In the homeostasis of the body this creates an
> imbalance. The body responds by eating more and moving less. However, the
> key cannot be telling someone to eat less and move more because they will
> fail to fix the problem -because the problem is in a localized phenomenon in
> the body, the body fat.

> If he said the above quote, which I took from the old thread, he could make
> a strong case for it.
>
> My personal results are not typical, and easily fall into the rarest cases
> category.

How about we finish the book, then make up our mind? Otherwise, we
start 100 post arguments based on unfinished reading.

Trust me on this. It comes together pretty tightly by the end.

You might be a rare case. But you also reduced carbohydrates along
with
calories and increased activity. Might not be as rare as you'd like to
think.

Cubit · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 1725

"Hollywood" wrote in message @i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 7:32 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
>> >"Neither eating less nor moving
>>
>> more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases."
>>
>> I'm restarting this thread because I have gotten past halfway in Gary
>> Taubes' book. While he still presents both sides of arguments, he has
>> explained the theory that obesity is a disease of body fat metabolism.
>> The
>> problem happening in the body fat may be that the fat cells take in
>> energy
>> and refuse to release it. In the homeostasis of the body this creates an
>> imbalance. The body responds by eating more and moving less. However,
>> the
>> key cannot be telling someone to eat less and move more because they will
>> fail to fix the problem -because the problem is in a localized phenomenon
>> in
>> the body, the body fat.
>
>> If he said the above quote, which I took from the old thread, he could
>> make
>> a strong case for it.
>>
>> My personal results are not typical, and easily fall into the rarest
>> cases
>> category.
>
> How about we finish the book, then make up our mind? Otherwise, we
> start 100 post arguments based on unfinished reading.
>
> Trust me on this. It comes together pretty tightly by the end.
>
> You might be a rare case. But you also reduced carbohydrates along
> with
> calories and increased activity. Might not be as rare as you'd like to
> think.

Fair enough.

Doug Freyburger · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 168

On Feb 1, 7:32 pm, "Cubit" wrote:
>
> >"Neither eating less nor moving
> more reverses the course of obesity in any but the rarest cases."
>
> I'm restarting this thread because I have gotten past halfway in Gary
> Taubes' book. While he still presents both sides of arguments, he has
> explained the theory that obesity is a disease of body fat metabolism. The
> problem happening in the body fat may be that the fat cells take in energy
> and refuse to release it. In the homeostasis of the body this creates an
> imbalance. The body responds by eating more and moving less. However, the
> key cannot be telling someone to eat less and move more because they will
> fail to fix the problem -because the problem is in a localized phenomenon in
> the body, the body fat.
>
> Based on the book he was not making a misstatement.

So you think he means this:

Get an obese person to lose *weight* by eating less and moving more,
and the result is *not* a person no longer obese. The result is an
obese
person who ways less. The fact that there is a BMI range labelled
"obese" on the charts does not mean that's what the word actually
means. Obesity is a tendancy by the body to store new fat and to
drive the dieter off any maintenance plan no matter how easy.

Thinking in those terms I completely agree. On many occasions I've
offered two alternate definitions for the word "cure":

1) The small meaning - If you no longer take medication and you no
longer have symptoms, then you have found a cure. For example some
diabetics with a small amount of damage can control their disease
with diet alone but if they go off their prescribed diet their
symptoms
(on the meter or otherwise) return.

2) The big meaning - If you can return you your previosu ways and
don't need medication to keep the symptoms away, then you have
found a cure. For example, a vanishingly small number of people can
lose weight on a diet and then without struggle keep it off for
decades.

Simply put, for someone whose body tends to store fat, eating less
and moving more only achieves number one above, what I call the
small meaning. They must follow a high effort program *forever*.

ASD and ASDLC get a steady stream of people who seem to think
that eating less and moving more is a low effort plan that can be
done by anyone. It's idiotic advice - If it were true there would be
very few fat people. One diet once in your life and you'd be cured
forever of obesity. It does NOT happen that way. For nearly all
obese people who lose by dieting, their body never, *ever*, stops
working at returning the fat storage back to its peak.

Dieting is treating the symptom not the cause - It can and does
trigger loss of stored fat but it does nothing to address why that fat
was stored in the first place. If it treated the cause, then
maintenace
would not be a struggle for anyone.

A simple low carb model is to view certain high carb foods as poisons
or addiction triggers. Avoid them like a 12-step program and the fat
drops off and stays off. Eat those high carb foods and you drop back
into the cycle of addictive behavior and fat gain. The trouble is
there
is a lot of grey zone between the end of the spectrum with beef and
brocolli and the end of the spectrum with pasta and hard candy.

Cubit · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 1725

I'm up to page 444.

It seems pretty clear at this point how I could have prevented the diseases
of the Western diet including obesity and type 2 diabetes in myself.

I'm not crystal clear on how to repair a body that has already been damaged.

One of the scientists quoted in the early part of the book had the opinion
that it took about 20 years for full manifestation of the diseases of
civilization after changing to the modern diet. I'm thinking there may be
epigenetic changes involved. If so, simple diet changes may not be enough.

Principal Skinner · Joined: 01 Feb 2008 Posts: 6

"Cubit" wrote in message $Ch6.6256@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> I'm up to page 444.
>
> It seems pretty clear at this point how I could have prevented the
> diseases of the Western diet including obesity and type 2 diabetes in
> myself.
>
> I'm not crystal clear on how to repair a body that has already been
> damaged.
>
> One of the scientists quoted in the early part of the book had the opinion
> that it took about 20 years for full manifestation of the diseases of
> civilization after changing to the modern diet. I'm thinking there may be
> epigenetic changes involved. If so, simple diet changes may not be
> enough.

I got this book out of my library a week ago, along with some of the Eades
books. After reading about the lengthy read times for several of you on this
group, I am thinking of taking the Taubes book back early. I don't have a
science or medical background, but I think I could digest it, given enough
time. Unfortunately, that is one thing I am short of at this stage of my
life. So my question - how long has it taken those of you who have read it
to get to the end? I bought the Atkins book and read that (and recently
re-read it), and have started going through some of the Eades books (recipe
books plus a diet book; I am sure many of you know those titles but I don't
remember them).

At this point I think I am going to just stick with the Eades books, and
maybe one day will pick up the Taubes book. But, maybe you all can convince
me to give it a shot. I don't need to be convinced of the benefits of LC - I
am already there and have been living it (again) for the past five months. I
would be reading it more for refuting my non-LC friends, family, etc claims
that what I am doing is "unhealthy". Perhaps there is a more efficient way
to gather that knowledge (ammo) than by reading the Taubes book?

Mark Filice · Joined: 13 Oct 2007 Posts: 26

In article , Principal Skinner says...
>
>At this point I think I am going to just stick with the Eades books, and
>maybe one day will pick up the Taubes book. But, maybe you all can convince
>me to give it a shot. I don't need to be convinced of the benefits of LC - I
>am already there and have been living it (again) for the past five months. I
>would be reading it more for refuting my non-LC friends, family, etc claims
>that what I am doing is "unhealthy". Perhaps there is a more efficient way
>to gather that knowledge (ammo) than by reading the Taubes book?
>
You don't need Taubes to tell you what you already know--LCing is the way to go.
I have read his book (and re-read many sections), and it is a nice lesson in
history on how the Govt. ultimately came up with the infamous food pyramid. It
documents how "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" very well in scientific
research when it comes to nutrition.

If you are LCing, you are eating meat, vegetables, salads, etc. What could be
more healthy than that? No one can reasonably argue with that.

In a discussion with someone the other day on this very subject, I told her that
since I eliminated the white stuff in my diet since August I have:

Lowered my triglycerides by 50%
Lowered my glucose levels by 25%
Lowered my overall cholesterol by 27%
Raised my HDL Cholesterol level by 15%
Cut my blood pressure medications by 50%
Lost 35 lbs--approx. 6" from my waist

So I asked her if giving up the white stuff was so bad, why are my numbers so
good?

It helps my case that she is overweight. She was eating a bagel and drinking
some type of carb-laden fruit beverage.

Mark
280/228/200

Cubit · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 1725

"Principal Skinner" wrote in message $47aa3c4f$d844daae$9598@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Cubit" wrote in message
> $Ch6.6256@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>> I'm up to page 444.
>>
>> It seems pretty clear at this point how I could have prevented the
>> diseases of the Western diet including obesity and type 2 diabetes in
>> myself.
>>
>> I'm not crystal clear on how to repair a body that has already been
>> damaged.
>>
>> One of the scientists quoted in the early part of the book had the
>> opinion that it took about 20 years for full manifestation of the
>> diseases of civilization after changing to the modern diet. I'm thinking
>> there may be epigenetic changes involved. If so, simple diet changes may
>> not be enough.
>
> I got this book out of my library a week ago, along with some of the Eades
> books. After reading about the lengthy read times for several of you on
> this group, I am thinking of taking the Taubes book back early. I don't
> have a science or medical background, but I think I could digest it, given
> enough time. Unfortunately, that is one thing I am short of at this stage
> of my life. So my question - how long has it taken those of you who have
> read it to get to the end? I bought the Atkins book and read that (and
> recently re-read it), and have started going through some of the Eades
> books (recipe books plus a diet book; I am sure many of you know those
> titles but I don't remember them).
>
> At this point I think I am going to just stick with the Eades books, and
> maybe one day will pick up the Taubes book. But, maybe you all can
> convince me to give it a shot. I don't need to be convinced of the
> benefits of LC - I am already there and have been living it (again) for
> the past five months. I would be reading it more for refuting my non-LC
> friends, family, etc claims that what I am doing is "unhealthy". Perhaps
> there is a more efficient way to gather that knowledge (ammo) than by
> reading the Taubes book?
>

Since you have the book, you might try just reading the Prolog at the
beginning. It tells you what the journey through the book will be.

Even when I have finished the book, I do not expect to be able to use it
effectively against the low fatters. I tried to explain to someone the
influence of George McGovern's committee on the low fat experiment, but I
could only get the person to say that there are two sides to things.

I'm not sure how limited your time is. I learned new things, and have had
to unlearn some things.

This book should be like a cancer in the low dietary fat world. It will
take time to kill that world.

Cubit · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 1725

Ah!
Done.
The book ends at page 460 of 601+.

PAGE 454

Page 454 has his conclusions based on the detailed research, analysis, and
hypotheses presented throughout the book.

There is the danger that by skipping the core of the book you may dismiss
these ten conclusions. Bear in mind that after reading the whole thing he
has me hook, line, and sinker.

Cubit
320/152/160

Jim · Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 29

Cubit wrote:
> Ah!
> Done.
> The book ends at page 460 of 601+.
>
> PAGE 454
>
> Page 454 has his conclusions based on the detailed research, analysis, and
> hypotheses presented throughout the book.
>
> There is the danger that by skipping the core of the book you may dismiss
> these ten conclusions. Bear in mind that after reading the whole thing he
> has me hook, line, and sinker.
>
> Cubit
> 320/152/160
>
>
>
But if you read just those ten items, on less than a page, you will get
a distorted idea of what the book is about, and what the diet "untruth"
is and how it got there.

Hollywood · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 132

On Feb 6, 5:01 pm, "Principal Skinner"
wrote:

> At this point I think I am going to just stick with the Eades books, and
> maybe one day will pick up the Taubes book. But, maybe you all can convince
> me to give it a shot. I don't need to be convinced of the benefits of LC - I
> am already there and have been living it (again) for the past five months. I
> would be reading it more for refuting my non-LC friends, family, etc claims
> that what I am doing is "unhealthy". Perhaps there is a more efficient way
> to gather that knowledge (ammo) than by reading the Taubes book?

Taubes is only essential for knowing how we got to where we are:
a low fat world, filled with calorie in/calorie out, eat less, move
more
simple recommendations that simply don't seem to work.

Protein Power or Protein Power Life Plan are much more practical on
the microscale of how to fix what's not working for you. Taubes is a
fairly comprehensive review of the history of diet research and the
research that's out there. It's a great read. It makes me feel angry.
And evangelical. And a whole lot of other things I didn't really want
to get into (like arguing with low fatters, a generally non-productive
state of affairs). Not essential reading for someone looking to eat
more healthfully, lose weight, control their diabetes, or whatever
it is that brings people to low carb. It's essential reading from a
public policy/medical/epidemiological/information cascade point
of view. If you're not particularly interested in those, send it back
so someone else can read it.

I loved the book. But I don't recommend it widely. A
nice "Taubes for Dummies" or "Complete Idiot's Guide to Taubes"
would probably come in handy. I heard that Ladies Home Journal
had an article in January, but I can't find it.

Last thing: Low fat diets advocates and their insistence that
low carb doesn't work: Think of it as Evolution in Action.

Doug Freyburger · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 168

"Cubit" wrote:
>
> It seems pretty clear at this point how I could have prevented the diseases
> of the Western diet including obesity and type 2 diabetes in myself.

With viral diseases the long term solution works - Focus on
prevention in the next generation by preventing contagion and
by developing vaccines. What a "vaccine" would be that prevents
obesity is I don't know. Such a vaccine is too late for me but I
would cheer it on for young folks.

The experience with treating every viral disease in history is
clear - The best that can be done is to bolster the immune system
and treat symptoms. Some day there may be anti-viral medications
that really work but so far they are pretty pitiful. Not that I
turned
them down the last time I had influenza back in Dec 1999-Jan 2000.

> I'm not crystal clear on how to repair a body that has already been damaged.

I offer a pair of very biased alternative definitions:

Diabetes - A metabolic disorder mostly insulin based where the
body can not properly control blood sugar levels.

Obesity - A metabolic disorder mostly insulin based where the
body can not prevent fat from being pumped incorrectly into
storage.

Using these two very biased definitions it can be clear that
preventing either takes the same strategy - Low carb to keep
insulin release low long term. It also suggests that any treatment
plan for obesity needs to be viewed as similar - Level of damage
tells whether it can be ignored (never except in the prevention
phase), controlled by diet (it seems like as few diabetics are
able to do this as obese people who can keep their loss off
forever), controlled by medications (so far any obesity treatment
medications have been laughable compared to glucophage and
so on but it seems like the vast majority of diabetics end up on
shots 5+ years after dignosis so laughable is relative and can be
applied to both at different scales).

> One of the scientists quoted in the early part of the book had the opinion
> that it took about 20 years for full manifestation of the diseases of
> civilization after changing to the modern diet. I'm thinking there may be
> epigenetic changes involved. If so, simple diet changes may not be enough.

The observation is in plenty of the popular low carb books.

Aaron Baugher · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 492

"Principal Skinner" writes:

> At this point I think I am going to just stick with the Eades books,
> and maybe one day will pick up the Taubes book. But, maybe you all can
> convince me to give it a shot. I don't need to be convinced of the
> benefits of LC - I am already there and have been living it (again)
> for the past five months. I would be reading it more for refuting my
> non-LC friends, family, etc claims that what I am doing is
> "unhealthy". Perhaps there is a more efficient way to gather that
> knowledge (ammo) than by reading the Taubes book?

The Eades books, especially "Protein Power Life Plan," are very good,
and certainly a faster read. They do a good job of explaining how the
basic biology works. However, some of the things they know come from
their experience of treating thousands of patients with their diet: "We
know this works because we've done it." That's not going to convince
anyone who doesn't already trust them; low-fatters will just say they're
trying to sell a product. (As if anyone isn't.) They don't cite other
sources to back up every single thing they say, because much of their
knowledge comes from their own work.

Taubes, on the other hand, being an outsider, has a more objective
viewpoint, which should make his arguments stronger for skeptics. He
goes through each of the competing hypotheses about obesity, diabetes,
and heart disease one by one, showing how they became popular,
presenting the evidence for them, and shooting holes in that evidence
where possible. He cites enormous amounts of research; far more
research supports low-carb (and condemns low-fat) than I had any idea
existed. All those citations should make it the best source for info to
convince your friends, assuming they're willing to listen at all. (Most
people aren't; and will just get irritated with your evangelism.)

GCBC is a long book, but he doesn't ramble; practically every page has a
great point or citation. It's too packed to be a page-turner for me,
but it's not really hard reading either. It's just dense with info. As
far as I know, it's far and away the most important book ever written on
diet and the diseases of civilization. (If it's not, someone please
tell me what book is, so I can get that one too.)

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

more Taubes stuff Davis blogged about him today. Bernstein mentioned him on his last night. I still haven't finished the book myself yet... --

TAUBES Op-Ed in 1-27 NYT Just a heads up on a op-ed piece from Taubes on the Vytorin trials and cholesterol What’s Cholesterol Got to Do With It? -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

More on Taubes Book I found a little more information, or "PR" distribution on the Taubes book from a Google search. Links and quotes are below. Long articles or interviews are simply linked. Blurb on the publisher's website.

Question about Taubes' conclusions I'm not very knowledgeable about lo-carb. I had read Eades before, but Taubes' book is the first thing I've read that was convincing to me, at least tentatively. So this is a question for the experienced hands here who have read everything. It seems to

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 which just gives a blurb and the first couple of hundred words. It lo