4 ms·

I agree, fat does not make you fat, but carbs will not make you fat either. Excessive calories make you fat. Excess calories from any macronutrient will make yo

by b3b0p 15y ago

I agree, fat does not make you fat, but carbs will not make you fat either. Excessive calories make you fat. Excess calories from any macronutrient will make you fat, including fat. Can you please provide real studies, that do not involve Taubes that say or prove otherwise? Real studies, not blog posts. Pubmed or similar. Here is a list of studies (some relevant, some not, but still interesting) that you may find interesting regarding diet, fat loss, etc: http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/nv8ip/do_you_have_any_bookmarks_to_pubmedscientific/c3c904n http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/comments/nv8ip/do_you_have_a... Also, you might be interested to read Martin Berkhan's low carb taliban's blog post. He is very highly regarded and everything he advises, does, and advises his clients are backed by real studies and science. http://www.leangains.com/2009/02/low-carb-talibans.html http://www.leangains.com/2009/02/low-carb-talibans.html I'm not the most knowledgeable on these subjects, but I really believe stating, "It's carbs." is an outright lie, unless you can back up this with some sort of study or studies or legit real world proof.

frankc 15y ago
I'm not sure why you would say not Taubes. The reason people like him is because of how relentless he is in quoting real studies and interviewing the actual authors of those studies. There are like 200 pages of notes in the back of GCBC.
- b3b0p 15y ago
  Yes, I know this, but have you or anyone you know or can link to that has actually gone through and reviewed the studies in full? Not just picking out certain pieces or statements? From people I have talked to that have, they stated that he had taken out parts of the studies that agreed with his theories or were able to see how the studies were flawed and not setup correctly to begin with. I'm just stating what I have been told and believe it since it was people in the fitness community that are highly regarded and much more knowledgable than I. Edit: Spelling.
  - frankc 15y ago
    Have you done the same for every study that points to calories in/calories out? In fact, there aren't many such studies actually. Somehow this was given the benefit of being the null hypothesis, which is an underserved benefit in my opinion and many others including Taubes. One of the other things he does in GCBC is go through the anthropological evidence as well. We know quite well that our ancestors ate a very high fat/low carv diet because they mainly ate the organ meat. I don't think that is actually in dispute. Its also part of the foundation of the whole paleo/primal movement. At the end of the day, Taubes might be wrong about some or all of what he thinks. But the reason why he is generally well liked on HN, a community of very smart, very analytical people, is because Taubes is highly analytical and highly rigorous in his approach. This isn't some woo-woo magic stuff. I've never met a more methodically and rigorously researched book than GCBC. I can't review every study he cites because that would take 5 years at least.
    - derleth 15y ago
      > calories in/calories out This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.
      - hackinthebochs 15y ago
        Your body reacts differently to different macronutrients. Thermodynamics isn't the last word here.
      - frankc 15y ago
        Not in the way you think it is. It's true that if you gain weight then you must have consumed more calories than you burned. It is not true that if you consume more calories than you burn that you will gain weight. This is not a closed system. You could literally poop out the difference. As far as it goes, it is a useless statement anyway. The point of calories in/calories out rhetoric is not about the physics; it's about how animals regulate their weight. You could make the same case that body temperature is about heat in/heat out but that would be missing the point of how humans regulate body temperature. The criticism of calories in/calories out is in this vein. Do you think you control your body temperature by consciously monitoring heat transfer? Then what makes you thinks complex animals control their body weight and composition by consciously controlling their calorie usage and intake?

by b3b0p 15y ago

frankc 15y ago

I'm not sure why you would say not Taubes. The reason people like him is because of how relentless he is in quoting real studies and interviewing the actual authors of those studies. There are like 200 pages of notes in the back of GCBC.

b3b0p 15y ago
Yes, I know this, but have you or anyone you know or can link to that has actually gone through and reviewed the studies in full? Not just picking out certain pieces or statements? From people I have talked to that have, they stated that he had taken out parts of the studies that agreed with his theories or were able to see how the studies were flawed and not setup correctly to begin with. I'm just stating what I have been told and believe it since it was people in the fitness community that are highly regarded and much more knowledgable than I. Edit: Spelling.
- frankc 15y ago
  Have you done the same for every study that points to calories in/calories out? In fact, there aren't many such studies actually. Somehow this was given the benefit of being the null hypothesis, which is an underserved benefit in my opinion and many others including Taubes. One of the other things he does in GCBC is go through the anthropological evidence as well. We know quite well that our ancestors ate a very high fat/low carv diet because they mainly ate the organ meat. I don't think that is actually in dispute. Its also part of the foundation of the whole paleo/primal movement. At the end of the day, Taubes might be wrong about some or all of what he thinks. But the reason why he is generally well liked on HN, a community of very smart, very analytical people, is because Taubes is highly analytical and highly rigorous in his approach. This isn't some woo-woo magic stuff. I've never met a more methodically and rigorously researched book than GCBC. I can't review every study he cites because that would take 5 years at least.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > calories in/calories out This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics.
    - hackinthebochs 15y ago
      Your body reacts differently to different macronutrients. Thermodynamics isn't the last word here.
    - frankc 15y ago
      Not in the way you think it is. It's true that if you gain weight then you must have consumed more calories than you burned. It is not true that if you consume more calories than you burn that you will gain weight. This is not a closed system. You could literally poop out the difference. As far as it goes, it is a useless statement anyway. The point of calories in/calories out rhetoric is not about the physics; it's about how animals regulate their weight. You could make the same case that body temperature is about heat in/heat out but that would be missing the point of how humans regulate body temperature. The criticism of calories in/calories out is in this vein. Do you think you control your body temperature by consciously monitoring heat transfer? Then what makes you thinks complex animals control their body weight and composition by consciously controlling their calorie usage and intake?