4 ms·

The reasoning in that line shows the classic misunderstanding that has led us here. As Taubes says, saying you get fat because you eat too much doesn't explain

The reasoning in that line shows the classic misunderstanding that has led us here. As Taubes says, saying you get fat because you eat too much doesn't explain anything. Of course you need to eat more calories that you expend to gain weight. But why do people do it, and why didn't they do it before? Taubes says we eat too much because we eat carbs. If people had eaten a carb-free diet since 1970 we wouldn't be seeing that spike in calorie intake. Therefore the fact that calorie intake increased is in complete support of Taubes and Lustig's ideas. Carbs increase insulin secretion, which encourages fat cells to take in blood sugar and turn it into fat, and discourages the body from burning fat for fuel.

yummyfajitas 15y ago
What if we increased carb consumption far above the levels of today (from 43% of our diet to, I dunno, 54%)? Would we be even fatter than we are now? https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usda.gov%2Fpublications%2Ffoodsupply%2Ffoodsupply1909-2004report.pdf https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usd... History tells us the answer. In the early part of the 20'th century, we ate nothing but carbs. We weren't fat.
- gojomo 15y ago
  Were the early-20th-century carbs the same carbs as today? (Corn and potatoes aren't the same as sugar-cane and HFCS.)
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    You might try reading the report I linked to. The big difference is that we eat more calories, less carbs, more fat and more sugar.
    - anthonyb 15y ago
      Your report just has "Carbs" - nothing to do with what sort they were. That could be flour, sugar, or potatoes, and they stay relatively constant, there's no decline (p18). There's a big increase in the amount of fat consumed, but I suspect a large part of the difference is going to be lifestyle, too. Around the turn of the century people walked a lot more and did a lot more manual labour.
      - yummyfajitas 15y ago
        See table 4 and 5. It doesn't give breakdowns of sugar vs HFCS or corn vs wheat, but it does separate sweeteners from potatoes from grains. Regardless - total calories went up. Carbs stayed almost constant in absolute terms (a slight decrease) and decreased in relative terms. Fat increased in both absolute and relative terms. I guess carbs must be the culprit!
        anthonyb 15y ago
        Ok, I see that now, and it fits with what I know - if your blood glucose is saturated, then any extra fat and sugar you eat goes straight to your arse. Interesting that whole milk dropped off so sharply in the 1970s and 80s - about the time that 'fat is bad' started up? From what I've read, low fat milk contributes to heart disease too - something about the level of fat-soluble vitamins?

yummyfajitas 15y ago

What if we increased carb consumption far above the levels of today (from 43% of our diet to, I dunno, 54%)? Would we be even fatter than we are now? https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usda.gov%2Fpublications%2Ffoodsupply%2Ffoodsupply1909-2004report.pdf https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnpp.usd... History tells us the answer. In the early part of the 20'th century, we ate nothing but carbs. We weren't fat.

gojomo 15y ago
Were the early-20th-century carbs the same carbs as today? (Corn and potatoes aren't the same as sugar-cane and HFCS.)
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  You might try reading the report I linked to. The big difference is that we eat more calories, less carbs, more fat and more sugar.
  - anthonyb 15y ago
    Your report just has "Carbs" - nothing to do with what sort they were. That could be flour, sugar, or potatoes, and they stay relatively constant, there's no decline (p18). There's a big increase in the amount of fat consumed, but I suspect a large part of the difference is going to be lifestyle, too. Around the turn of the century people walked a lot more and did a lot more manual labour.
    - yummyfajitas 15y ago
      See table 4 and 5. It doesn't give breakdowns of sugar vs HFCS or corn vs wheat, but it does separate sweeteners from potatoes from grains. Regardless - total calories went up. Carbs stayed almost constant in absolute terms (a slight decrease) and decreased in relative terms. Fat increased in both absolute and relative terms. I guess carbs must be the culprit!
      - anthonyb 15y ago
        Ok, I see that now, and it fits with what I know - if your blood glucose is saturated, then any extra fat and sugar you eat goes straight to your arse. Interesting that whole milk dropped off so sharply in the 1970s and 80s - about the time that 'fat is bad' started up? From what I've read, low fat milk contributes to heart disease too - something about the level of fat-soluble vitamins?