Do overweight people eat less than thin people (or do they just think they do)?
A lot of people are excited about Gary Taubes' book Good Calories, Bad Calories, which claims that weight loss or gain has nothing to do with how many calories you eat but how much refined carbohydrate you eat. I heard Taubes present his ideas at a conference last year and he makes some great points. Ultimately, I agree with his conclusion--over-consumption of refined carbohydrates is a primary cause in today's epidemic of "diabesity."
But I think he over-argues his case--and some of his arguments about how and why carbohydrates lead to obesity are flawed.
For example, as proof that excess calories are not the cause of weight gain, Taubes cites studies showing that that overweight people eat the same or less than thin people. Here's the problem: The studies he cites use self-reported intake records. We know that overweight people consistently under-report the number of calories they eat. (Here's yet another study measuring this.) The more overweight you are, the more you tend to under-report.
In fact, when you put overweight people into controlled (i.e. in-patient) settings and feed them the number of calories they think or say they are eating, they reliably lose weight--regardless of whether they are eating refined carbohydrates or not. (Whether this weight loss is sustainable in the real world is another question).
I think it's more accurate to say that refined carbohydrates seduce us into eating more calories than we need. They taste good, you can consume a lot of calories before you get full, and you're hungry again sooner than you would have been had you eaten proteins, fats, or non-refined carbs. Excess calories = weight gain.
Eliminating or reducing refined carbohydrates may help realign your appetite regulation systems with your actual energy needs. Reduced calories = weight loss.
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Modified vegetable oil? Sounds like a bad idea to me | | Nutrition Data Blog | | How much omega-3 is too much? |
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Nov 18, 2009 7:29:14 AM
@Johnny, thanks for the good summary/refinement of Taubes theory. You're right: his hypothesis gets oversimplified.
But I noted with interest this week the replication in several distinct populations of initial results showing that the body's response to a low or high fat diet is highly dependent on genetic type. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/tuhs-nrr111709.php
So, it would appear that perhaps only people with certain genetic makeup are likely to do well on the Paleo diet.
Posted by: Johnny | Nov 17, 2009 11:47:46 PM
Taubes's contention is that overweight is not necessarily the result of overeating or inactivity, but that overweight and inactivity may be both symptoms of the same etiology. That etiology: consumption of poor carbohydrate quality.
Also, he touches on the propensity for activity or inactivity could be genetically predisposed. Other factors for this propensity are deranged partitioning of calories/energy based on disrupted hormonal processes, caused once again by the consumption of poor-quality carbohydrates.
The Law of Energy Conservation in an open-system like human body is not as simple as some people here imply. The body has a complex chain of hormonal signaling to adjust for any energy disturbances. The hypothesis offered:
Increased energy intake = increased energy output.
Less energy intake = less energy output.
Partitioning of energy into fat and away from muscle and organ tissues can result in starvation. And insulin has a way of partitioning AND BLOCKING energy into fat cells. As long as there is this partitioning problem, a reduced-calorie diet simply *increases* starvation of muscle and organ tissues. Perhaps this is why reduced-calorie diets often fail long-term.
Based on this hypothesis, a leap might be made to eliminate poor-quality carbohydrates and refined sugar as a step to REpartition energy back to its proper places -- muscle and organ tissues. Maybe this is why those who committed to a paleolithic (paleo) diet have found great success in weight loss and, anecdotally, sustainable weight management.
www.theleansaloon.com
Posted by: Duane Storey | Nov 10, 2009 12:33:11 AM
I think like a good scientist, Gary is not making any sweeping conclusions, and instead is waiting for proper studies to come out to attempt to invalidate his hypothesis. But obviously the body is not a car engine -- it's a complex hormonally driven system that changes in response to the inputs. Gary talks about this as his delta E hypothesis. Yes, if you eat less you would have a negative caloric balance, and you probably should lose weight -- but only if there isn't a correspond change in activity, which is what is argued in GCBC. That is, people aren't heavy necessary because they are lethargic, they often are lethargic (i.e. reduced energy expenditure) because their cells are literally starving for food (since the energy from food is being preferentially stored into fat cells by the exaggerated insulin response).
Also, my recollection is that fat people often ate the same as their lean counterparts -- Gary backs this up with studies that were double checked by the researchers. Yes, they ate more than they thought they did (via their self reporting), but on average no more than their lean peers.
Posted by: Ted Hutchinson | Oct 31, 2009 8:34:14 AM
Taubes Dartmouth lecture
http://www.dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm
Use THUMBS TAB at top of page to mover to Slide 48 about 47 minutes into the talk.
What are the final throw away words at the very end of that slide?
Then listen to
Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Where Robert Lustig explains the dangers of fructose in more detail.
If you can find the full text of
Hypothesis: Could Excessive Fructose Intake and Uric Acid Cause Type 2 Diabetes? Richard J. Johnson et al it's also worth reading.
Posted by: fit-flops | Oct 31, 2009 1:54:59 AM
Wel talking about this topic I would like to share my views... I don't think that a persons eating habit fluctuates with its weight...On the contrary body weight surely depends on the digestive system of the person...
fit-flops
Posted by: Pljo | Oct 27, 2009 12:26:49 PM
Monica, it may seem that way, that we cannot loes eight without eating less, but I have found adjustments in carb, fat and protein can allow for greater intake.
I no longer eat any grains, rice, potato, pasta, bread. I have completely (almost) eliminated dairy. No legumes or peanut butter. I am eating a huge amount of food in the form of: nuts and berries, fruits and veg., lean meat, fish and seafood. During a 2 month "challenge", using this mix of foods, I lost 17 lbs - and that was not the objective. The carbs are from fruits and veg. - unlimited. Energy from fats (good fat) and protien. The protein seems to satisfy more and the high glycemic carbs that have been eliminated reduce insulin load - which prevents that dire need for food. It has worked for me and I hardly even tried.
Posted by: Reality | Oct 24, 2009 12:51:55 AM
They do NOT eat less than thin people.
Portion sizes - i.e., how much people eat - are in fact more important than any other factor regarding recent national weight gain. Portion sizes have undeniably increased since the 1990s, when weight gain started increasing dramatically. In denial? Then try this SOURCE: http://www.divinecaroline.com/79975/49492-portion-size--vs--now
We had soda and fast food for decades prior, but again, it's only in the last 15 years that weight gain has gone up so much, directly coinciding with today's ridiculous "average" portion sizes. SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
We've also had various high fat and high carb food for ages. I've been at a healthy weight all my life EXCEPT when I increased my portion sizes during graduate school. When I reduced them, I lost weight. This is not rocket science.
Additionally, I have two male relatives who constantly eat enormous portion sizes. One prefer fat, the other prefers carbs. It doesn't matter, because - guess what - they are both borderline obese.
By contrast, my fiance and mom eat much smaller portion sizes. Guess what - they are thin.
I have eaten smaller portion sizes before and after graduate school. Guess what - I am thin.
FACT: Most people grossly, GROSSLY underestimate how many calories they take in per day. Calories increase as you increase portion sizes. It didn't matter whether I ate my portions mostly in carbs or fat - when I ate fewer, I lost weight, and when I ate more regardless of carb or fat, I gained.
The carb and fat focus is absolutely asinine these days, and that is why the nation's obesity rate continues to go upward. You people can deny how much you think you eat all you want, but the fact remains that people are simply eating more of everything.
Foods haven't changed; the size of them has. Again, we had high fat and high carb and high fructose corn syrup foods and sodas in the '70s and '80s as well; people are just consuming more of it.
And the more people make excuses and try to convince themselves they aren't consuming as much as they think they are, the more they will have this problem.
Posted by: James Reno | Oct 20, 2009 6:08:27 PM
I think sometimes people with weight problems overlook not what they eat, but what they drink. Alcohol, Fruit Juice, and Soda are the main culprits that come to mind as things you might not think of, but if you drink them on a daily basis, really add up. I cut all those out and drink only water for the most part. Between this and eating mostly raw and vegan have lost 30 lbs and am keeping it off.
To Your Health!
James Reno (editor)
Raw-Food-Repair.com
Posted by: Tony M | Oct 19, 2009 12:35:55 PM
The devotion to the thermodynamic theory of weight loss is silly. The body is not a machine. It's a system with the capacity to regulate itself. That's why our body 'slows down' when we consume less food and we get hungry after are active.
The theory also does not stand up to experimental scrutiny, as tests have shown that people on high fat/low carb diets have lost more weight than people on low fat/high carb diets, even at times when they consumed more calories.
I suspect that many of the people responding to Taubes are responding to the NY Times magazine article from 2002 rather than the book, which considerably extends and refines the argument. Others seem to be responding what they assume he wrote.
What he did was identify the physiological process by which fat is stored in the body and what causes fat to be utilized. There is no metaphor here. There is no controversy here, eating carbs, especially highly refined carbs leads to increased insulin levels which leas to increased fat storage. Taubes offers reams of support based on diet, diabetes, animal husbandry, anthropology. You may quibble here or there or want to shift the emphasis here or there, but the case he makes is overwhelming.
I have reached the point when I hear someone claim “We know it’s just calories in/ calories out” I know that they know nothing at all about the subject.
Posted by: Family Nutritionist http://familynutritionist.blogspot.com | Oct 16, 2009 11:33:40 AM
Feeling "starving" right after eating or exercising is not moral failing. It's a useful trait -- if a famine is in the forecast.
The first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) is never violated. It CAN be a challenge to figure out exactly how many calories are eaten, and where they go (poop? muscle? fat? work? heat?) and why. Caloric underreporting doesn't explain anything away. The important question is how to improve one person's health.
And 100 Calories is just a light snack, or a small extra helping at dinner. It's only 5% of a 2000-calorie diet. But 100 calories every day for a year is more than 36000 Calories of fat -- more than 10 pounds.
The published studies do not prove whether high-fat, high-protein, high-carb, or "balanced" diets are best for everyone. Those feeding and lifestyle studies don't come with 100% gold-standard scientific falsifiable hypotheses about the best diet for the masses. They do suggest that different diets might fit different people differently. But who knows for sure?
We can monitor our own health and make our best guesses. What works for me might work for you. If under-reporting calories is a problem, a non-calorie-count diet might work better for you. Certainly, many paleo dieters have found this out (without breaking any natural laws). I don't count calories myself, and eat a more Mediterranean-like diet, which seems to be working for me. One of those choices, or neither, might work well for you.
Taubes was onto something with that book, but he never claimed to be onto everything!
Posted by: Monica Reinagel | Oct 16, 2009 9:10:55 AM
I know from personal experience that any book or big idea will inevitably be reduced to it's least elegant and most simplistic version--by detractors and promoters alike!
In the book, Taubes has room for a lot more subtlety and ambiguity. But, having heard him speak, I can say that his stump speech is fairly un-subtle, to the effect that energy balance is not a factor in whether we gain or lose weight.
The perils of over-simplification cut both ways: Neither the law of thermodynamics nor the insulin hypothesis is sufficient to explain the observable phenomena.
Energy balance (calories in vs. calories out) clearly plays a role in weight homeostasis, but it's clearly not the ONLY factor.
Posted by: Doug | Oct 15, 2009 7:48:46 PM
Apparently nobody feels it necessary to actually read Taubes book before criticizing what he says. He PLEADS (I'd put that in a red 36 point font if I could) in his book for researchers to do studies to actually determine the facts. There have not been as many studies as everyone seems to think and the studies that were done had mixed results.
The official recommendations since McGovern and the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs in 1977 has been low fat/more carb. That policy was set over the objections of testifying scientists. At the time they weren't saying that the recommendations were wrong, just that there wasn't any PROOF. McGovern didn't want to spend the time or money to actually do the studies. That has not changed in the last 30 odd years.
Taubes does not have a degree in biochemistry or even nutrition. He was trained as a physicist, engineer and journalist. His specialty is debunking bad science. And what we have here folks is some very bad science.
Posted by: Joseph Gentzel | Oct 15, 2009 3:40:49 PM
I just watched Coke's new roll out video on its reduced calorie product. Sugar loaded Coke claiming that reduced calories will result in weight loss. A losing strategy for sure, but one that is promoted by many. The insanity continues and is politically correct.
Calorie reduction as it's presently promoted will not decrease or prevent the incidence of being overweight and it is already 66% nationally. How many think that a product loaded with sugar will decrease overweight incidence? According to many, us fat slobs will simply drink more of those adorable little cans anyway. Somehow its always us. I guess because we are the fat ones, but we have a lot of company, like 200 million others who are fat also.
If you want to see their sound bites and video you can go to:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=multimedia_detail&newsId=20091014005941&newsLang=en&contentGroupId=1865472
Posted by: Nik | Oct 15, 2009 12:50:50 PM
I think many people here are making the issue more complicated than it needs to be. It's true that the body is a complicated machine and the "eat more to gain, eat less to lose" theory is a gross oversimplification.
The correct argument in my opinion is not that overweight people EAT LESS than their healthy counterparts, but that they EAT LESS OFTEN. So, the average overweight person will cut calories during the day, thinking they are doing themselves a favor. This leads to both a slowing of the metabolism and a huge craving for carbs and fat at night. Since your metabolism slows naturally at night, binging before bed is the easiest way to gain weight, as nearly everything is preferentially stored as fat.
So if you want to start losing fat by reducing caloric intake, eat between 4 - 6 meals a day. I personally eat the big 3 and an afternoon mini-meal. This way you keep your metabolism up throughout the day. Also, if you eat at a comfortable pace, your body should tell you that it's full after 15-20 minutes. This is a great way to control your calories without counting!
Posted by: David Brown | Oct 15, 2009 8:57:52 AM
Monica and several others who commented here missed Taubes point which is: Americans were told to reduce their caloric intake and exercise more to lose weight. Specifically, they were told to reduce fat intake. Many followed this advice and lost weight at first. Then they lost control of their appetites and gained it all back and then some. The gross national waistline increased as a result.
Taubes never said that everybody who is fat gets fat by eating a low-fat diet. But many do. The standard dietary/exercise advice does not work for them. It does work for people who can tolerate carbohydrates and are fat simply because they overeat for pleasure's sake. Or they eat poor quality carbohydrates which causes appetite derangement as noted above.
I urge Monica and other Taubes critics to Google "The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning at Losing" and listen to what Chris Gardner, PhD, a researcher from Stanford University has to say about how insulin resistant and insulin sensitive people respond to high carbohydrate intake. At about the 40 minute mark on the video Dr. Gardner "...discussed a few papers showing that people who are insulin sensitive actually do better on high-carb diets than they do on low-carb diets, whereas those who are insulin resistant do just the opposite."(1)
Readers of this blog might also want to take a look at an article entitled "High-Protein/Low-Carb Diet Effective for Weight Loss in Type 2 Diabetes, But Merits Remain Unsubstantiated."(2) In the article Richard Feinman, PhD, from the Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York noted "...In an open discussion with other experts on diabetes and diet...that the science is not controversial but policy regarding dietary control in diabetes is."
In the end, the central message presented by Taubes is this: high-fat intake does not cause obesity or heart disease. Rather, it helps regulate appetite so that insulin resistant people can lose weight without experiencing feelings of starvation. Insulin sensitive people simply need to cut back on their refined carbohydrate intake and eat better quality carbs to achieve weight loss.
Posted by: fat preacher | Oct 15, 2009 12:05:38 AM
First, the bad news. Americans are getting fatter at an alarming pace. Why? I know it's tempting to say "Americans are getting fatter because they are gluttons." The full story, however, is more nuanced. If you eat too much of anything, your body will store it as fat. Even good things, like Almond Joys. That's the bad news.
So, is there any good news? Yes, there is. Although our bodies are very efficient fat storage machines, even they can't keep up with us if we eat waaaay too many calories waaaaay too fast. So, while we might be getting fatter, we probably are not getting fatter as fast as we deserve to be. Wonderful, isn't it? Getting away with something is such a good feeling!
fatbaptistpreachers.blogspot.com/2009/02/good-news-on.html
Posted by: Jacob | Oct 14, 2009 11:47:44 PM
I follow the paleo diet as well and feel fantastic. I recommend anyone wanting to follow the paleo diet to get a hold of Loren Cordains book 'The Paleo Diet' (thepaleodiet.com) and the 'Paleo Cookbooks' (www.paleocookbook.com). Both of these books have helped me with underatanding the paleo diet and not feeling limited with food choices.
Posted by: Jon | Oct 14, 2009 11:24:19 PM
@TRON
You are claiming that the simple fuel tank analogy doesn't dominate weight gain in humans. Since you (or Taube) are proposing a more complicated model for weight gain, the burden is on you to prove that metabolic effects are significant.
Do you have references to any studies that have measured metabolic rates in two groups of people with the same energy intakes, but different diet compositions?
Also, consider the size of the difference in basal metabolism versus energy burned during exercise. Energy usage during exercise is surely independent of diet and much larger than any such difference in basal metabolism.
I believe that insulin is a red herring, at least for weight gain, holding energy consumption and exercise constant. A large insulin response may stimulate excessive appetite leading to the intake of more calories, but any effect on fat storage is irrelevant because, once again, simple energy accounting laws dictate how much fuel remains stored after a given number of calories are eaten and burned.
Is it possible the low-carb group simply didn't digest all of the fat they consumed? That would be a simpler explanation if the low-carb group really did lose more weight in any study.
Posted by: David Whyte | Oct 14, 2009 7:51:18 PM
The part of the title "Or do they think that they do". Some interesting research has come out about the "full feeling" It appears that overweight people don't get the "full feeling" as healthy weight people.
Therefore this could lead to the underestimation of what they are eating.
Further review of this can be found here:
http://blog.zestos.co.nz/2009/09/leptin-and-weight-loss.html
Posted by: Tron | Oct 14, 2009 7:15:43 PM
Monica writes: "I think it's more accurate to say that refined carbohydrates seduce us into eating more calories than we need. They taste good, you can consume a lot of calories before you get full, and you're hungry again sooner than you would have been had you eaten proteins, fats, or non-refined carbs. Excess calories = weight gain."
There are a number of studies of people following a restricted carbohydrate diet losing more weight than people on a low-fat diet while eating MORE calories. Are you saying that the low-carb groups consistently over-report calories while the low-fat group under-reports?
Further, Taubes invokes the actual physiology and biochemistry of our bodies. The more refined-carbohydrates we eat - the higher our blood glucose - the higher the insulin response - the higher the deposition of fat and the inability of our fat stores to mobilize. If we keep it up, we are prone to become hyperinsulinemic and insulin resistant - leading to a vicious cycle of weight gain and further insulin resistance. We become more efficient at storing calories as fat.
Monica writes: "reduced calories = weight loss." This statement is not true. Our bodies may respond to the reduction in calories by slowing down metabolism...in other words, our bodies are homeostatic creatures that regulate metabolism. In just about every animal model, the animal adjusts to differences in intake and/or expenditure. We're not thermodynamic black boxes or garbage cans where you just dump calories in and the person gains weight. Intake and expenditure are not independent variables...they are biologically linked and I think this is one of the reasons why diets don't work.
Posted by: Richard Daines | Oct 14, 2009 7:14:48 PM
Insulin response? What does that mean? If food is stored as fat because of this response then one needs to eat less and burn that fat off. What a lot of fantasy. It is simple, excess calories equal stored food (fat in most cases). If you are very efficient in sequestering calories as fat then a modified diet seems in order, people have been blaming their "glands" for decades.
Posted by: matt | Oct 14, 2009 6:36:03 PM
Look at all these excuses overweight people come up with. "No, really! I don't eat that much!"
Yeah, right. Admitting you eat too much is the first step to be able to lose weight. And all this fuss over no-carb this, south-beach that, and all the emphasis on certain diets and particular foods and nutrients are distractions- eat less and you will lose weight!
Posted by: Darya | Oct 14, 2009 6:14:12 PM
Great points, Monica. I think Taubes work is ground-breaking but, as you say, somewhat over-simplifies the issues.
Insulin is clearly important, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors at work.
For people looking to learn more about eating habits and portion control, I strongly recommend reading studies by Brian Wansink and his book, Why We Eat More Than We Think.
Posted by: Jon | Oct 14, 2009 4:44:55 PM
It is a good point to make that with regard to weight gain/loss, total calories is pretty much all that matters, holding exercise constant.
From an engineering point of view, our bodies are just engines that consume, store, and burn fuel. The amount we store (i.e., how much fat we have) is precisely related to how much we consume and burn.
It is a matter of the law of conservation of energy that if we fix the total energy input, regardless of what kind of food it is, as well as the rate of energy used, we will store -- or deplete stores of -- energy in fat at the same rate (ignoring the small effect of energy storage in other body parts, such as protein).
Posted by: Ben | Oct 14, 2009 4:08:17 PM
Richard... you need to read Taubes' book... its not as simple as you state it... and the biggest confounding issue is insulin response. Read the book... you'll see that even fat... which has pound for pound more calories than carbs... has very little to do with weightloss/gain.
Posted by: Tatiana | Oct 14, 2009 4:03:20 PM
As a professional Health and Wellness Coach, we gently remind our clients to look at the whole picture; the lifestyle, history, preferences, past experience, current situation, to obtain a better picture of where to go next in an individual program dedicated to losing the weight. No 2 clients are alike! And yes, calories both quality and quantity count.
Tatiana Abend www.bodyvisionsl.com
Posted by: Joseph Gentzel | Oct 14, 2009 3:39:19 PM
Monica said: "Reduced calories = weight loss."
If that were true would, not the results, except in anecdotal accounts, of calorie restricted diets with or without exercise be better?
Posted by: Richard | Oct 14, 2009 3:17:29 PM
To gain weight your burn rate of calories has to be less than the intake and in order to loose weight your burn rate has to exceed the number of calories taken in. It's a very simple equation based on the conservation of mass. Confounding issues are water lose and gain and muscle loss and gain which also result in the the old bathroom scale twitching up and down. Refined, calorie dense foods are, of coure, going to lead to over intake of calories and should probably be avoided for a number of reasons but it still about how much passes over the lips and into the gut.
Posted by: Mark McPherson | Oct 14, 2009 2:56:08 PM
Monica wrote, "Taubes cites studies showing that that overweight people eat the same or less than thin people. Here's the problem: The studies he cites use self-reported intake records."
Taubes completely agrees that there is a need for a controlled study (so us fat people can't sneak in the Snickers bars, or under-report what we ate). However, as fat person, I myself have often wondered why I am my size, yet I do not eat prodigious amounts of food, thus causing me to have great interest in Taubes' finding that it is the QUALITY (the kind) of food we eat that makes fat... not the caloric value.
Monica wrote, "I think it's more accurate to say that refined carbohydrates seduce us into eating more calories than we need."
Yes, I completely agree, as from own experience, eating refined carbs drives up my insulin response, thus causing me to feel lethargic (may be it's the other way around... I'm not sure), thus I want (need) something sweet to help perk me up. It becomes a cycle.
Monica wrote, "Excess calories = weight gain".
No, read the book again, as this has been a misapplication of the law of thermodynamics and has been perpetuated since the 1950's (see Ancel Keys). Calories are not calories, as they are not alike, as they are metabolized differently.
Monica wrote, "Reduced calories = weight loss."
Of course, as when there is almost nothing going in, there is nothing to metabolize into fat. The problem is we have thought that the opposite is also true (i.e. Excess calories = weight gain), but, again, that is under an assumption that "a calorie is a calorie" which Taubes disagrees with.
I am so grateful that Taubes has taken a critical look at the science of obesity over the last 100+ years, as the beliefs of today are simply not working. Yes, it's easy to find fault with "fat people under-reporting how much they're actually eating", as somehow that just seems to "explain everything away", but Taubes has exposed us to a lot more science that makes a powerful case for completely re-examining, if not dumping, the prevailing beliefs of today.
Posted by: Ben | Oct 14, 2009 2:22:34 PM
Speaking from my own experiences and having read Taubes' book... he's right on the money. I've taken Taubes' principals and combined the Paleo Diet with the proportions that Barry Sears recommends... its not magic... its just genetically perfect for me. All other dieting is a waste of time and willpower.
It seems the point you're trying to make is splitting hairs... while excess calories DO = weight gain... (who can argue against that?) minimal carbs ALSO = weight gain. This is Taubes' point... to suggest that he's trying to be sneaky is doing a disservice to this extremely commendable researcher.
Posted by: wifezilla | Oct 14, 2009 1:54:13 PM
Fat people are just bad at math then?
Somehow counting and restricting calories, measuring all foods, and exercising daily I didn't lose weight but gained until I was close to 300 lbs.
Yet, cutting carbohydrates, NOT counting calories, and exercising way less than previously I now am closer to 200 lbs.
Maybe carbohydrates specifically target your math centers. Or just maybe Gary Taubes is right.
Posted by: greg | Oct 14, 2009 1:52:59 PM
Monica, I think your statement of the role of the hyper-palatability of modern, highly processed, sugars and carbs on weight gain is dead on.
I wonder (as you have) why Taubes (and his adherents) seem to be so reductionist on the issue. Why must it be so simple that there is only one explanation of weight-gain and obesity and that explanation is physiological. Why can't there be a host of causes including biological, environmental, sociological, socio-economic, along with physiological factors that influence weight gain? The harm such a reductionist view does is that it makes it difficult to recognize that as there are such a multitude of causes, then so to are there are a multitude of corrective actions that can be taken to return to healthy weight.
But as for analyzing Taubes position, he seems to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, he suggests the seductive hypothesis that the obese are not in fact eating more than others. This lets the reader reach the implication we can lose weight without necessarily having to eat less! Hallelujah!
But in other places he hedges and allows that weight-gain is/can be/might be associated with excess calorie consumption but that this leaves open the question of causality; are you obese because you eat too much or do you eat too much because you are obese.
What is his actual position? The cynic in me wonders if wants to keep it a bit ambiguous, keep suggesting that excess calories do not cause weight gain in order to sell some books/stay in the news. Certainly it is a wonderful hypothesis... if only it were true.
