5 ms·

> Energy-balance (digested food calories - energy exerted living) is magnitudes more important than the macronutrient content of your diet. That's a convenient

> Energy-balance (digested food calories - energy exerted living) is magnitudes more important than the macronutrient content of your diet. That's a convenient fallacy which is so often repeated that it is simply assumed to be true, but some -- such as Gary Taubes, Dr. Lustig (the author of this article), Dr. Eric Westman, and others -- argue the exact opposite: the macronutrient content of one's diet matters very much. Different macronutrients provoke differing endocrinological responses. Our bodies are biological, not mechanical machines, and we process carbohydrates differently than fats or protein. It isn't controversial and it shouldn't come as a shock. New research is showing that the hormone cascade brought about by certain foods -- and by adipose tissue itself -- has an enormous impact on our health. The problem is that people want to oversimplify nutrition into universal equation which assumes that everyone is the same, and they often cite epidemiological nutritional studies -- notorious for being inaccurate and unreliable -- to do so. The truth is probably more complicated: the diet that keeps one person healthy might make another fat and sick, and it's primarily dependent upon genetics, not physics. For more on this, read any of Taubes's books. They are quite compelling. Dr. Lustig has written a few himself.

jp555 13y ago
I prefer to read biochemistry books. this is my current bible http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/0495116572 http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-G... Every single hospital-ward double blind clinical trial over the last 100 years says exactly the same thing: net energy balance is what determines how fat you are, no matter the macronutrient content of the diet. Nutrition's role in lifelong health is a LOT more complicated. What your lifetime Vitamin D levels probably matters a lot. But over a lifetime, eating a diet of mostly whole foods, and in amounts scaled to activity is going to give you benefits that will completely drown out what kind of fat you ate over the last 30 years or if you ate pop tarts for breakfast. My point is, if you're fat and unfit, it's not any particular macronutrient's fault.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  I thought thyroid hormone and resting metabolism played into it to some degree. Like if you go too low on protein, the metabolism will crash and the person will get even fatter.
- bollockitis 13y ago
  > Every single hospital-ward double blind clinical trial over the last 100 years says exactly the same thing: net energy balance is what determines how fat you are, no matter the macronutrient content of the diet. Here's my problem with this: the energy balance theory is the status quo, yet for as many studies as you can dig up to support it, you'll also find conflicting observations (some of which also go back over 100 years). I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm simply saying that the hormone theory of obesity shouldn't be disregarded solely because it doesn't fit the status quo. It needs to be tested. Another problem I have is that the energy balance theory is just too convenient. It's a greay way to dismiss obesity as a simple failure of willpower, and to dismiss the obese as being morally inferior to the rest of us. In other words, our judgmental attitude toward obesity could be blinding us to its real cause. Let's test the hormone theory, and if it turns out wrong, we've only learned more about obesity. If it turns out correct, we could possibly save many lives and prevent a lot of suffering. That said, I find it absurd to believe that only energy balance matters. In effect, this predicts that despite the dozens of hormones involved in human metabolism, it all boils down to caloric content. That doesn't make any sense to me. Taubes actually wrote an interesting thought experiment on this: http://garytaubes.com/2012/11/what-would-happen-if-thoughts-and-thought-experiments-on-the-calorie-issue/ http://garytaubes.com/2012/11/what-would-happen-if-thoughts-...
  - jp555 13y ago
    Energy balance is the physics of biochemistry; there is no arguing away the laws of thermodynamics. If you get heavier, it's because you consumed more energy than you used over a period of time. There is no other way to gain or lose weight* (no matter the proportion of muscle/fat that's gained or lost). I think you are confusing weight & body composition with "health". They are interconnected but not the same thing. I believe (and it is just a belief) that a lifetime of staying lean (& strong) is the single best way to maximizes the health benefits of a diet, whatever that diet may be. You can't eat "unhealthy" amounts of any macronutrient if you're eating to stay lean (<15% body fat for men). Don't pull out the "a simple failure of willpower" straw man; I never claimed that. Hormones play a HUGE role in metabolism. My bedtime reading is how the chemical reactions they drive fit into human metabolism. you're comment seems to make them out to be "magical", which I suspect is due to your ignorance of them. I highly recommend reading up on them, just not via the media (Taubes only gives you his choice of the science), but via biochemistry text books like "Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism" http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/0495116572 http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-G... * there are extreme exceptions; liposuction is one way. :P

jp555 13y ago

I prefer to read biochemistry books. this is my current bible http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/0495116572 http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-G... Every single hospital-ward double blind clinical trial over the last 100 years says exactly the same thing: net energy balance is what determines how fat you are, no matter the macronutrient content of the diet. Nutrition's role in lifelong health is a LOT more complicated. What your lifetime Vitamin D levels probably matters a lot. But over a lifetime, eating a diet of mostly whole foods, and in amounts scaled to activity is going to give you benefits that will completely drown out what kind of fat you ate over the last 30 years or if you ate pop tarts for breakfast. My point is, if you're fat and unfit, it's not any particular macronutrient's fault.

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
I thought thyroid hormone and resting metabolism played into it to some degree. Like if you go too low on protein, the metabolism will crash and the person will get even fatter.
bollockitis 13y ago
> Every single hospital-ward double blind clinical trial over the last 100 years says exactly the same thing: net energy balance is what determines how fat you are, no matter the macronutrient content of the diet. Here's my problem with this: the energy balance theory is the status quo, yet for as many studies as you can dig up to support it, you'll also find conflicting observations (some of which also go back over 100 years). I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm simply saying that the hormone theory of obesity shouldn't be disregarded solely because it doesn't fit the status quo. It needs to be tested. Another problem I have is that the energy balance theory is just too convenient. It's a greay way to dismiss obesity as a simple failure of willpower, and to dismiss the obese as being morally inferior to the rest of us. In other words, our judgmental attitude toward obesity could be blinding us to its real cause. Let's test the hormone theory, and if it turns out wrong, we've only learned more about obesity. If it turns out correct, we could possibly save many lives and prevent a lot of suffering. That said, I find it absurd to believe that only energy balance matters. In effect, this predicts that despite the dozens of hormones involved in human metabolism, it all boils down to caloric content. That doesn't make any sense to me. Taubes actually wrote an interesting thought experiment on this: http://garytaubes.com/2012/11/what-would-happen-if-thoughts-and-thought-experiments-on-the-calorie-issue/ http://garytaubes.com/2012/11/what-would-happen-if-thoughts-...
- jp555 13y ago
  Energy balance is the physics of biochemistry; there is no arguing away the laws of thermodynamics. If you get heavier, it's because you consumed more energy than you used over a period of time. There is no other way to gain or lose weight* (no matter the proportion of muscle/fat that's gained or lost). I think you are confusing weight & body composition with "health". They are interconnected but not the same thing. I believe (and it is just a belief) that a lifetime of staying lean (& strong) is the single best way to maximizes the health benefits of a diet, whatever that diet may be. You can't eat "unhealthy" amounts of any macronutrient if you're eating to stay lean (<15% body fat for men). Don't pull out the "a simple failure of willpower" straw man; I never claimed that. Hormones play a HUGE role in metabolism. My bedtime reading is how the chemical reactions they drive fit into human metabolism. you're comment seems to make them out to be "magical", which I suspect is due to your ignorance of them. I highly recommend reading up on them, just not via the media (Taubes only gives you his choice of the science), but via biochemistry text books like "Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism" http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-Gropper/dp/0495116572 http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Nutrition-Metabolism-Sareen-G... * there are extreme exceptions; liposuction is one way. :P