3 ms·

Gary Taubes (the author of those books) is about as far from a serious scientist, or even science communicator, as one can get without being an obvious charlata

by tpush 4y ago

Gary Taubes (the author of those books) is about as far from a serious scientist, or even science communicator, as one can get without being an obvious charlatan. Saying 'the science got it all wrong!' while citing pop-sci books from Amazon is a bit ironic.

dmix 4y ago
Do you have a specific complaint here? Or what specifically he got wrong in his books? Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss? Or is this just a pithy attack on reading books by journalists who summarizes scientific research? I’m always open to be shown wrong. Otherwise I don’t really care about defending this specific author. I found his to be the best summary on the subject among multiple books, articles, and studies.
- evol262 4y ago
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/
  - dmix 4y ago
    So the sample neither exercised enough nor reduced their caloric intake, so it neither supports nor discredits caloric restrictions? Sounds about par for the course.
    - evol262 4y ago
      No, the point of this study is "those who claimed they reduced caloric intake but did not lose weight did not actually reduce it -- they're poor at estimations, so they got it wrong, and this actually works".
      - dmix 4y ago
        That's one hell of a weak study
- ajuc 4y ago
  > Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/ > Results: At 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, which represented 7% of their initial weight; they began to regain weight after 12 months. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0 and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Among the 80% of participants who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets; attendance was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). The diets improved lipid-related risk factors and fasting insulin levels. This is just one example, there's a lot more (you can start from looking at related studies on the linked page, for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15181047/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15181047/). The first big study was already done in 60s and it was never refuted AFAIK: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0026049564900988 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002604... But the findings aren't fashionable or convenient, so people tend to ignore them and cherry-pick any study that has more convenient results with miracle diets.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Thanks I’ll dig into it. Looks like a decent study.
  - dmix 4y ago
    A few points after reading: - "The four diets [1] also allowed for a dose–response test of carbohydrate intake that ranged from 35 to 65% of energy." A keto diet is "5-10%" carbs, so that's a very significant difference. I doubt you could get into ketosis with a 35% carb diet and they didnt even bother measuring ketosis since there wasn't actually a specific low-carb group. - "Carbohydrate-rich foods with a low glycemic index were recommended in each diet." Always good but a recommendation is super difficult to do in practice unless you rigidly sequester carbs youre going to fail. Other keto studies provided the actual food, these people were just given percentages. Finally the low fat vs high fat not making a difference is actually still in line with Keto diets. The idea is you shouldn't overly worry about fat content. So even if high fat did nothing for weight loss that's not a problem. [1] The diet groups (note how none are low carb): - Low-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 65% carbs - Low-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 202) = 55% carbs - High-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 45% carbs - High-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 201) = 35% carbs

by tpush 4y ago

dmix 4y ago

Do you have a specific complaint here? Or what specifically he got wrong in his books? Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss? Or is this just a pithy attack on reading books by journalists who summarizes scientific research? I’m always open to be shown wrong. Otherwise I don’t really care about defending this specific author. I found his to be the best summary on the subject among multiple books, articles, and studies.

evol262 4y ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/
- dmix 4y ago
  So the sample neither exercised enough nor reduced their caloric intake, so it neither supports nor discredits caloric restrictions? Sounds about par for the course.
  - evol262 4y ago
    No, the point of this study is "those who claimed they reduced caloric intake but did not lose weight did not actually reduce it -- they're poor at estimations, so they got it wrong, and this actually works".
    - dmix 4y ago
      That's one hell of a weak study
ajuc 4y ago
> Or some studies you can point me to connecting a low calorie diet with sustained weight loss? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19246357/ > Results: At 6 months, participants assigned to each diet had lost an average of 6 kg, which represented 7% of their initial weight; they began to regain weight after 12 months. By 2 years, weight loss remained similar in those who were assigned to a diet with 15% protein and those assigned to a diet with 25% protein (3.0 and 3.6 kg, respectively); in those assigned to a diet with 20% fat and those assigned to a diet with 40% fat (3.3 kg for both groups); and in those assigned to a diet with 65% carbohydrates and those assigned to a diet with 35% carbohydrates (2.9 and 3.4 kg, respectively) (P>0.20 for all comparisons). Among the 80% of participants who completed the trial, the average weight loss was 4 kg; 14 to 15% of the participants had a reduction of at least 10% of their initial body weight. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets; attendance was strongly associated with weight loss (0.2 kg per session attended). The diets improved lipid-related risk factors and fasting insulin levels. This is just one example, there's a lot more (you can start from looking at related studies on the linked page, for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15181047/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15181047/). The first big study was already done in 60s and it was never refuted AFAIK: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0026049564900988 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002604... But the findings aren't fashionable or convenient, so people tend to ignore them and cherry-pick any study that has more convenient results with miracle diets.
- dmix 4y ago
  Thanks I’ll dig into it. Looks like a decent study.
- dmix 4y ago
  A few points after reading: - "The four diets [1] also allowed for a dose–response test of carbohydrate intake that ranged from 35 to 65% of energy." A keto diet is "5-10%" carbs, so that's a very significant difference. I doubt you could get into ketosis with a 35% carb diet and they didnt even bother measuring ketosis since there wasn't actually a specific low-carb group. - "Carbohydrate-rich foods with a low glycemic index were recommended in each diet." Always good but a recommendation is super difficult to do in practice unless you rigidly sequester carbs youre going to fail. Other keto studies provided the actual food, these people were just given percentages. Finally the low fat vs high fat not making a difference is actually still in line with Keto diets. The idea is you shouldn't overly worry about fat content. So even if high fat did nothing for weight loss that's not a problem. [1] The diet groups (note how none are low carb): - Low-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 65% carbs - Low-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 202) = 55% carbs - High-Fat, Average- Protein Group (N = 204) = 45% carbs - High-Fat, High-Protein Group (N = 201) = 35% carbs