6 ms·

>This thread is going to be hilarious. There's nothing quite so beautiful as people who read the same half dozen pop science books arguing about nutrition, a st

>This thread is going to be hilarious. There's nothing quite so beautiful as people who read the same half dozen pop science books arguing about nutrition, a stupidly complex science about which almost no universal statements can be made (with one and only one exception[2]). I'm confused, you argue that nutrition is a "stupidly complex science" and as far as I can tell, are insinuating that most of these people who read "pop science books" on nutrition will be overconfident in their knowledge/understanding on the issue. But in your second reference to your blog you argue on one side of the issue, specifically taking the side against popular authors like Taubes. If the science is so utterly complex, why do you simply take the side arguing against ketosis diets (in that they are not superior to simply following calories in, calories out logic?) Are you more informed because you read blogs like Guyenet's instead of books by Taubes? From a blind perspective, I wouldn't say that Guyenet is strikingly more scientific than Taubes. I'm not sure what the line about Guyenet being a "sciency scientist", but supposedly Taubes not, is about. On the one hand you argue against casual confidence in nutritional science based on popular science writings, and on the other you take a high level of confidence yourself in certain theories...based on popular science writings. hmmm. From your blog: >Net calories is, therefore, a forcing element in this system. It's funny how you argue against simplifications, but this one of the biggest made in any dietary context. Calories in, calories out, is only relevant to the weight loss issue in one direction. You can't burn more energy than you take in, but you do not necessarily store in fat energy that you take in but don't specifically burn out. So the argument is that with a ketosis diet, you can intake extra calories and not get heavier, so long as they are protein/fat calories. This is backed up by fairly strong empirical evidence, which as your blog suggests, is more important than knowing the dangerous and deceptive complexities of the exact chemistry of the human body. Go with what works, and for most people, losing weight on a low-carb diet will be a helluva lot easier than on a low calorie, high-carb diet, your personal experience notwithstanding. And: >"Calories in minus calories out, ultimately, settles the body weight balance." In that this is not unreasonably universal advice, but that it should just be the default diet advice instead of "low calories" for weight loss, that statement is incorrect. It is ridiculously easier to lose weight on a low-carb diet and sustain it than on a simply low calorie diet. For most people. If you enjoy persistent food cravings and low energy levels, and potentially deleterious effects on your long term health (from low fat diets.), then sure, eat a high-carb diet.

jacques_chester 14y ago
> It's funny how you argue against simplifications, but this one of the biggest made in any dietary context. I was wondering when someone would point this out. Oh wait, I already did that: " I’m about to do what every smart person likes to do: drastically simplify a complex phenomenon." and "Well, if it please the court: I’m guilty of this too. I’ve simplified enormously." The point of that particular song and dance was that the ultimate cause of long term weight is net caloric balance. That's the one, simple, verifiable truth about nutrition that everybody agrees on. Everything else is a bunfight. Any hypothesis which sincerely proposes that net caloric balance does not necessarily determine long term average weight must explain by what biological mechanism the conservation of matter and energy is being violated. > Go with what works, and for most people, losing weight on a low-carb diet will be a helluva lot easier than on a low calorie, high-carb diet, your personal experience notwithstanding. You have no idea what my macros are, you're just assuming. For me protein is the number one priority and I let the rest of the chips fall where they may. Lots of people swear by keto. Swing past /r/keto and you'll find a success story every day. You can also swing past /r/paleo, /r/loseit and so on and so forth. I don't really care about how the caloric deficit is imposed. In my case it was through intermittent fasting. What matters is that it was imposed. Funnily enough, I thought of that point too: "The key to weight control is finding the dietary template that you can stick to for the rest of your life. That will be different for different people. Some folks are happy with calorie counting a la John Walker. Some people are happy with paleo, primal or ketogenic diets. Others swear by zones or low fat and so on."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnsonB 14y ago
  >The point of that particular song and dance was that the ultimate cause of long term weight is net caloric balance. That's the one, simple, verifiable truth about nutrition that everybody agrees on. Everything else is a bunfight. Any hypothesis which sincerely proposes that net caloric balance does not necessarily determine long term average weight must explain by what biological mechanism the conservation of matter and energy is being violated. Consider this complete hypothetical, just to prove a point. Suppose that one individual's body functioned like this, due to a bizarre genetic mutation: Any excess calories this person ate under a high-carb diet would be turned into fat. Any excess calories eaten in a zero-carb diet would be turned into pure muscle mass, burned off in a raised metabolism, or are simply excreted. Simply put, this shows that calories in/out can remain true, but only a fraction of what you need to consider to keep your weight under control, and this is essentially the assertion by Taubes et al., backed up by significant empirical evidence that these diets actually work, even if you disagree with the biochemistry of his arguments. In addition, there are issues like how hungry you feel (more likely to consume excess calories) under each diet, even after consuming enough calories to maintain a healthy body weight, and therefore how sustainable each diet is. What you should care about when trying to lose weight is how fat you get under a certain diet, period. Not calories in/out, just everything. So while you can say that "in the end calories in/out is the ultimate rule that determines weight gain, everything else is an inaccurate generalization," you're missing everything else that could potentially interfere with your control of calories in/out. It's like saying "The only thing that determines whether I can drive to my destination in my car or not is if I have enough fuel for the journey, so I don't need to concentrate on things like remembering to inflate the tires or inserting the keys into the ignition." Excuse the left-field analogy, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. The truth is that Taubes et al. never disagreed with and add enormousness value to the line "Calories in/out" by saying "Yes but low carbs and eat a lot of fats!". Again, as a rule for most people, or a helpful generalization. >You have no idea what my macros are, you're just assuming. For me protein is the number one priority and I let the rest of the chips fall where they may. Well I stated it as a contradiction just to hedge that your diet wasn't similar or overlapping with ketosis diets. If it is, one could argue the point that a lot of the success people have with non-keto diets is at least partially because they actually are following a ketosis diet, albeit inadvertently. >Lots of people swear by keto. Swing past /r/keto and you'll find a success story every day. You can also swing past /r/paleo, /r/loseit and so on and so forth. I agree that different individuals can have success under a variety of diets. My argument is that the default diet advice should be low carb, high fat, etc., rather than just low calorie. Although I would say most paleo diets are actually a very strict keto diets themselves, and almost all are low-carb anyway.

jacques_chester 14y ago

> It's funny how you argue against simplifications, but this one of the biggest made in any dietary context. I was wondering when someone would point this out. Oh wait, I already did that: " I’m about to do what every smart person likes to do: drastically simplify a complex phenomenon." and "Well, if it please the court: I’m guilty of this too. I’ve simplified enormously." The point of that particular song and dance was that the ultimate cause of long term weight is net caloric balance. That's the one, simple, verifiable truth about nutrition that everybody agrees on. Everything else is a bunfight. Any hypothesis which sincerely proposes that net caloric balance does not necessarily determine long term average weight must explain by what biological mechanism the conservation of matter and energy is being violated. > Go with what works, and for most people, losing weight on a low-carb diet will be a helluva lot easier than on a low calorie, high-carb diet, your personal experience notwithstanding. You have no idea what my macros are, you're just assuming. For me protein is the number one priority and I let the rest of the chips fall where they may. Lots of people swear by keto. Swing past /r/keto and you'll find a success story every day. You can also swing past /r/paleo, /r/loseit and so on and so forth. I don't really care about how the caloric deficit is imposed. In my case it was through intermittent fasting. What matters is that it was imposed. Funnily enough, I thought of that point too: "The key to weight control is finding the dietary template that you can stick to for the rest of your life. That will be different for different people. Some folks are happy with calorie counting a la John Walker. Some people are happy with paleo, primal or ketogenic diets. Others swear by zones or low fat and so on."

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
JohnsonB 14y ago
>The point of that particular song and dance was that the ultimate cause of long term weight is net caloric balance. That's the one, simple, verifiable truth about nutrition that everybody agrees on. Everything else is a bunfight. Any hypothesis which sincerely proposes that net caloric balance does not necessarily determine long term average weight must explain by what biological mechanism the conservation of matter and energy is being violated. Consider this complete hypothetical, just to prove a point. Suppose that one individual's body functioned like this, due to a bizarre genetic mutation: Any excess calories this person ate under a high-carb diet would be turned into fat. Any excess calories eaten in a zero-carb diet would be turned into pure muscle mass, burned off in a raised metabolism, or are simply excreted. Simply put, this shows that calories in/out can remain true, but only a fraction of what you need to consider to keep your weight under control, and this is essentially the assertion by Taubes et al., backed up by significant empirical evidence that these diets actually work, even if you disagree with the biochemistry of his arguments. In addition, there are issues like how hungry you feel (more likely to consume excess calories) under each diet, even after consuming enough calories to maintain a healthy body weight, and therefore how sustainable each diet is. What you should care about when trying to lose weight is how fat you get under a certain diet, period. Not calories in/out, just everything. So while you can say that "in the end calories in/out is the ultimate rule that determines weight gain, everything else is an inaccurate generalization," you're missing everything else that could potentially interfere with your control of calories in/out. It's like saying "The only thing that determines whether I can drive to my destination in my car or not is if I have enough fuel for the journey, so I don't need to concentrate on things like remembering to inflate the tires or inserting the keys into the ignition." Excuse the left-field analogy, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. The truth is that Taubes et al. never disagreed with and add enormousness value to the line "Calories in/out" by saying "Yes but low carbs and eat a lot of fats!". Again, as a rule for most people, or a helpful generalization. >You have no idea what my macros are, you're just assuming. For me protein is the number one priority and I let the rest of the chips fall where they may. Well I stated it as a contradiction just to hedge that your diet wasn't similar or overlapping with ketosis diets. If it is, one could argue the point that a lot of the success people have with non-keto diets is at least partially because they actually are following a ketosis diet, albeit inadvertently. >Lots of people swear by keto. Swing past /r/keto and you'll find a success story every day. You can also swing past /r/paleo, /r/loseit and so on and so forth. I agree that different individuals can have success under a variety of diets. My argument is that the default diet advice should be low carb, high fat, etc., rather than just low calorie. Although I would say most paleo diets are actually a very strict keto diets themselves, and almost all are low-carb anyway.