10 ms·

If you haven't read either of Taubes's books, please do. I highly recommend Why We Get Fat[1]. It's a spectacular piece of scientific journalism. If that's too

If you haven't read either of Taubes's books, please do. I highly recommend Why We Get Fat[1]. It's a spectacular piece of scientific journalism. If that's too much for you, try one of his talks on the same topic[2]. When I first encountered the idea that we do not get fat from eating too much and that calories weren't responsible, I thought it ludicrous—the body can't disobey the laws of physics! Thermodynamics! But after seriously thinking about the idea, I realized Taubes was providing a far more complete understanding of metabolism. The human body doesn't run on calories, it runs on food. Yes, we can easily learn the caloric content of food, but that's largely irrelevant. What's important is how food affects the body, not its raw energy content. I see this misconception time and time again, especially among smart people who like to reduce the human body to merely a physical machine, often ignoring the whole biology thing. I think the hormone theory of obesity is correct and I think these studies will prove it. But even if they show otherwise, this type of research is long overdue and we all stand to benefit from the results. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 [2]: http://youtu.be/ywRV3GH5io0 http://youtu.be/ywRV3GH5io0

ilovecomputers 12y ago
> I see this misconception time and time again, especially among smart people who like to reduce the human body to merely a physical machine, often ignoring the whole biology thing. Like the people behind Soylent?
grecy 12y ago
I'm going to wholeheartedly disagree with you. I've posted here about this before - I got involved with weight watchers through my two roomates as moral support for them, and have personally seen and been involved with many hundreds of people losing many thousands of punds - and keeping it off (that was over 10 years ago). I've always thought of weight-loss like everything else we learn and do in life - start out simple and make it achievable while getting "beginner" results, then work your way up making it more and more complicated. When you're 6 and learning to count, you are not taught differentiation and complex numbers. When you're learning to surf, nobody would through you in at the world's biggest wave. When you learn a new language, you don't learn the most complicated conjugations first. Losing weight starts simply by reducing the amount of energy you're eating (calories) to a level lower than your body is using on a daily basis. I don't care if you eat raw sugar or fat, as long as you eat slightly less calories than your body is using for a prolonged period of time. (yes, you'll likely feel like shit if you eat raw sugar or fat, so I don't recommend it). Like you said, the body must obey the laws of thermodynamics. The longer you keep that up, the more weight you will lose. I genuinely believe anything else at the "beginner" stage is noise and over complication. The mere fact so many books exist on the topic, and so many "new" theories come out each year is proof that it's too complicated for beginners. Once you have some good "beginner results" and are losing weight consistently you will and start to move from morbidly obese to just obese down to a somewhat healthy range. THEN you can start making it more complicated, and start focusing on WHAT you're eating, not simply how much. It's an advanced topic that isn't required for the basics. (just like you don't need complex numbers to count the number of marbles in your bag, or almost all other functions required in a normal adult life.)
- monting 12y ago
  Do you know how difficult it is in comparison, to lose weight using a low carb approach? Even if it's more difficult for some, it'll be easier for others.
  - grecy 12y ago
    >Difficult What do you mean difficult? Just put less energy in your mouth than you're using. Want a Big Mac? Great! a beer here or there? no worries. Personally, I find it much more difficult to vet the "type" of food I'm eating. On average, just eat less energy than you're using. For most obese and morbidly obese people that's still an enormous amount of energy, so much so, they can continue to eat some pretty bad shit for a long time.
    - demallien 12y ago
      Here's the thing. Your advice has been constantly given to people wanting to lose weight for half a century. During that period, despite the people receiving the advice wanting to lose weight, the population has become massively obese. Makes me wonder why you're so cock-sure of yourself. Anyway, Taubes deals very effectively with the argument you're presenting. The gist is that the number of kilo joules consumed does not have a particularly good correlation with fat stored, because the fat storage mechanism is mediated by insulin, which is heavily influenced by the consumption of carbohydrates.
      - grecy 12y ago
        > Makes me wonder why you're so cock-sure of yourself. Because I've seen it work for hundreds and hundreds of people, and I know for a fact Weight Watchers (which is 100% what I'm talking about) has worked for millions of people. > The gist is that the number of kilo joules consumed does not have a particularly good correlation with fat stored, because the fat storage mechanism is mediated by insulin, which is heavily influenced by the consumption of carbohydrates. You're going to honestly tell me if I only put 9 gallons in my tank every day, but I burn 10 every day that I won't "run out" and burn up my reserve tank? You're wanting to make it so complicated you can't see the simplicity in front of you.
CloudKernel 12y ago
"When Leibel had participants in one study drink formulas with the same number of calories but hugely different proportions of fat and carbohydrates, he saw no difference in the amount of energy they burned." The study by Leibel mentioned in the article would seem to suggest that various sources of energy affect the body equally.
rayiner 12y ago
Saying that losing weight is about less calories in versus than calories out is like saying that flight is about developing more lift than your weight. Yes, that's the general principle, but it glosses over all the hard parts.
- grecy 12y ago
  Right. I didn't say this was easy, I said it was simple
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Everything is simple if you get to redefine the problem to whatever you want it to be.
- visarga 12y ago
  Calorie counting is more than balancing a budget of calories over the length of a day. It creates an ability to discriminate about foods and portion types - how many calories in an apple, a slice of bread, a cup of milk-coffee or a beer? I know all of these because I have slowly learned them over the course of months. It does make a change when you go shopping and when you pick the size of your portion. Also, it allows for intelligent management of cravings. For example, you have 500 calories left, and it's 16:00. You could eat a slice of pizza and that would be it. But you could also eat two slices of bread with cheese (250) and in the evening have a moderate snack of 250. You see, that's how you can play chess with your hunger. You can plan ahead, you can use your intelligence in a domain that was governed by blind impulse before. You don't need to refrain from any type of food - you just have to couny it. Want french fries with steak while on a diet? Want some pizza? It's ok, but it's going to cost you. A beer (0.5l) is 180 calories - maybe some mineral water would be ok instead of the beer? But you can still have the beer, just have to eat less pizza. The fact that you can eat anything makes the regime more humane. That's just something I deduced from my own experience. TL;DR In time, better tracking and better planning become internalised and when you do stop counting, you're left with a bunch of good habits about eating that will protect you for the rest of your life.
  - 12y ago
dllthomas 12y ago
I strongly agree with part of this, and am reservedly skeptical about the rest. What I agree with is disputing "calories make us fat because thermodynamics". Yes, of course the laws of physics still apply, and energy in minus energy out has to equal stored energy... but there are all kinds of ways energy is entering and leaving the system. I do think that calories eaten and expended are an important part of the equation - having seen some people lose weight through simply restricting portion size - but I am unconvinced that it is (or is not) typically the most important piece. I am convinced that "... because thermodynamics" is a poor argument for it being the only thing that matters.
- scotty79 12y ago
  If you eat less calories than you burn it is absolutely sure way to lose weight ... because thermodynamics. It might not be a good way for a lots of people because they just can't stand being hungry.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    This is the kind of inanity I'm talking about. (Calories eaten, calories burned, calories stored in fat cells) is not a closed system, so thermodynamics doesn't have a lot to simplistically say about it. There's also chemical energy stored in other forms, there's calories excreted, there's thermal energy in and out. Yes, there is clearly an extreme at which thermodynamics will force fat to be burned, but thermodynamics alone does not tell us whether that is meaningful when the goal is promoting long-term health (of which losing weight is, for most people, a meaningful piece).
    - scotty79 12y ago
      I get that calories leave body in various forms but they get inside just in one. And if you eat less calories than you loose then you are bound to loose weight. No matter what crap you eat. It might not be pleasent. It might not be healthy but I think that it's almost surely more healthy than gut surgery and by transitivity than staying obese.
icelancer 12y ago
> The human body doesn't run on calories, it runs on food. This and other "the human body is immune from the effects of thermodynamics" arguments are... well, wrong. Otherwise there is a breakthrough in physics waiting to be found and potential unlimited energy.
- bollockitis 12y ago
  > This and other "the human body is immune from the effects of thermodynamics" arguments are... well, wrong. Otherwise there is a breakthrough in physics waiting to be found and potential unlimited energy. I think you misunderstood me. I was simply saying that food is more than the sum of its caloric content. I am not implying that the human body is magically immune from the laws of physics.
rmobin 12y ago
Anyone who reads Taubes should also consider Stephan Guyenet's critique of his arguments: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/brief-response-to-taubess-food-rewad.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/brief-response... I used to believe in the refined-carb/insulin hypothesis of Taubes, and I even lost weight on it, but I've ditched that model in favor of Stephan's more complete food reward hypothesis - the idea that more rewarding and palatable foods lead to increased calories ingested in certain individuals and hence lead to fat gain. One approach to weight loss then is to lower the reward value of the diet. One way to do that is low carb, another way is low fat, another way is vegetarian, another way to use gentler cooking methods and less seasoning, the list goes on. But many successful diets that people have used are very well explained by food reward. edit> I also believe calorie counting and intermittent fasting are very powerful tools used in conjunction with a reduced reward diet. Eating less calories with minimal hunger and losing fat is the holy grail, and these tools are helping me do that in a very effective way.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Personally, I find Guyenet's reward hypothesis to be nothing more than a rebranding of typical fat-shaming ("just control what you eat, fatso; and why don't you exercise some more?"). However, that doesn't mean I don't think there is a psychological component to obesity; I just think that psychological component is mediated more by the gut biome than by anything else. The biggest problem in nutrition research is that almost all the research is useless for drawing conclusions. The second biggest problem is researchers wrap their identities around their pet theories, so they are immediately blinded to any competing hypotheses (note: I consider Guyenet in this category, but I also put Taubes in this category, and I think Taubes has done more to progress nutrition in the past 50 years than just about anybody else because he is loud and he doesn't tolerate crappy science). The third biggest problem is people want to believe there is only one cause and therefore one solution. There is no question in my mind that the catastrophic insulin-flooded hormonal environment caused by "6-11 servings of grains a day in 5-6 small meals spread throughout the day" is a large percentage of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but it's not all of it. Literal addiction to sugar is a piece of it. Ignorance is part of it. Deceptive marketing and inappropriate marketing to kids is a part of it. The list goes on. I like David Katz' analogy[1]: What we're all up against—in our efforts to find health—may be likened to a flood. A vast, obesigenic flood. A flood of highly processed, energy-dense, nutrient-dilute, hyper-palatable, glow-in-the-dark, betcha'-can't-eat-just-one kind of foods; a flood of marketing dollars encouraging us to eat ever more of the very foods that propel us toward obesity and chronic disease; a flood of gadgets and gizmos that do all of the things muscles used to do; a flood of agricultural policies that subsidize corn to fatten cows rather than vegetables and fruits to vitalize people; a flood of obligations that leave no time for attention to health. There are only two ways of dealing with this: build a levee to contain the flood and turn the tide, or captain a ship (or arc) across the floodwaters. One is all about us; the other is all about you. I also like Yoni Freedhoff's comment about it, that people like to point to a sandbag (such as limiting marketing) and say "that won't solve the problem". It takes a lot of sandbags to hold back a flood[2]. Having spent 30 years obese before learning enough about biochemistry to be able to correct my metabolic disorder, one thing I know: we don't need any more fat shaming. It is deplorable and counter-productive. I'll just leave you with one woman's feelings about Guyenet and the realities of dealing with hormonally-induced eating[3]. She is one of the most knowledgable people I've read on-line, with a breadth of knowledge that I find humbling. 1. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/09/13/were-not-fat-because-were-lazy http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/09/1... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLAgnWCIDs&list=UUu_u-P3cBFO7D-sAjxd_I-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLAgnWCIDs&list=UUu_u-P3cBF... 3. http://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/2014/08/food-reward-hypothesis-insulting-joke.html http://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/2014/08/food-reward-hypothesi...
EC1 12y ago
As someone who has tracked their calories every single day for over two years. Every meal. Every piece of food that enters my mouth. How does my body not run on calories? I meticulously calculated, tracked, and adjusted my macros to a point where I have a hard number at which I know what % of fat I'll lose, over a specific period of time.
asadkn 12y ago
If you do the research yourself, you will quickly realize how the citation works when people are trying to sell you something. Scientific research is cited when it supports their statements, and is ignored when it counters their beliefs. It's almost too easy to cite weak scientific studies to prove almost any belief you hold these days, in weight loss business. Taubes is as good as Atkins - people and media love to hear and write about something different. I am sure the HN crowd already is aware of that. Despite the hate Stephan Guyenet has been receiving by Taubes fans, he does a great job at explaining why what Taubes is promoting isn't scientifically sound or absolute: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... For everyone who enjoy making references to Insulin without context, considering it an absolute storage hormone, here's a gem: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=711 http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=711

ilovecomputers 12y ago

> I see this misconception time and time again, especially among smart people who like to reduce the human body to merely a physical machine, often ignoring the whole biology thing. Like the people behind Soylent?

grecy 12y ago

I'm going to wholeheartedly disagree with you. I've posted here about this before - I got involved with weight watchers through my two roomates as moral support for them, and have personally seen and been involved with many hundreds of people losing many thousands of punds - and keeping it off (that was over 10 years ago). I've always thought of weight-loss like everything else we learn and do in life - start out simple and make it achievable while getting "beginner" results, then work your way up making it more and more complicated. When you're 6 and learning to count, you are not taught differentiation and complex numbers. When you're learning to surf, nobody would through you in at the world's biggest wave. When you learn a new language, you don't learn the most complicated conjugations first. Losing weight starts simply by reducing the amount of energy you're eating (calories) to a level lower than your body is using on a daily basis. I don't care if you eat raw sugar or fat, as long as you eat slightly less calories than your body is using for a prolonged period of time. (yes, you'll likely feel like shit if you eat raw sugar or fat, so I don't recommend it). Like you said, the body must obey the laws of thermodynamics. The longer you keep that up, the more weight you will lose. I genuinely believe anything else at the "beginner" stage is noise and over complication. The mere fact so many books exist on the topic, and so many "new" theories come out each year is proof that it's too complicated for beginners. Once you have some good "beginner results" and are losing weight consistently you will and start to move from morbidly obese to just obese down to a somewhat healthy range. THEN you can start making it more complicated, and start focusing on WHAT you're eating, not simply how much. It's an advanced topic that isn't required for the basics. (just like you don't need complex numbers to count the number of marbles in your bag, or almost all other functions required in a normal adult life.)

monting 12y ago
Do you know how difficult it is in comparison, to lose weight using a low carb approach? Even if it's more difficult for some, it'll be easier for others.
- grecy 12y ago
  >Difficult What do you mean difficult? Just put less energy in your mouth than you're using. Want a Big Mac? Great! a beer here or there? no worries. Personally, I find it much more difficult to vet the "type" of food I'm eating. On average, just eat less energy than you're using. For most obese and morbidly obese people that's still an enormous amount of energy, so much so, they can continue to eat some pretty bad shit for a long time.
  - demallien 12y ago
    Here's the thing. Your advice has been constantly given to people wanting to lose weight for half a century. During that period, despite the people receiving the advice wanting to lose weight, the population has become massively obese. Makes me wonder why you're so cock-sure of yourself. Anyway, Taubes deals very effectively with the argument you're presenting. The gist is that the number of kilo joules consumed does not have a particularly good correlation with fat stored, because the fat storage mechanism is mediated by insulin, which is heavily influenced by the consumption of carbohydrates.
    - grecy 12y ago
      > Makes me wonder why you're so cock-sure of yourself. Because I've seen it work for hundreds and hundreds of people, and I know for a fact Weight Watchers (which is 100% what I'm talking about) has worked for millions of people. > The gist is that the number of kilo joules consumed does not have a particularly good correlation with fat stored, because the fat storage mechanism is mediated by insulin, which is heavily influenced by the consumption of carbohydrates. You're going to honestly tell me if I only put 9 gallons in my tank every day, but I burn 10 every day that I won't "run out" and burn up my reserve tank? You're wanting to make it so complicated you can't see the simplicity in front of you.

CloudKernel 12y ago

"When Leibel had participants in one study drink formulas with the same number of calories but hugely different proportions of fat and carbohydrates, he saw no difference in the amount of energy they burned." The study by Leibel mentioned in the article would seem to suggest that various sources of energy affect the body equally.

rayiner 12y ago

Saying that losing weight is about less calories in versus than calories out is like saying that flight is about developing more lift than your weight. Yes, that's the general principle, but it glosses over all the hard parts.

grecy 12y ago
Right. I didn't say this was easy, I said it was simple
- tptacek 12y ago
  Everything is simple if you get to redefine the problem to whatever you want it to be.
visarga 12y ago
Calorie counting is more than balancing a budget of calories over the length of a day. It creates an ability to discriminate about foods and portion types - how many calories in an apple, a slice of bread, a cup of milk-coffee or a beer? I know all of these because I have slowly learned them over the course of months. It does make a change when you go shopping and when you pick the size of your portion. Also, it allows for intelligent management of cravings. For example, you have 500 calories left, and it's 16:00. You could eat a slice of pizza and that would be it. But you could also eat two slices of bread with cheese (250) and in the evening have a moderate snack of 250. You see, that's how you can play chess with your hunger. You can plan ahead, you can use your intelligence in a domain that was governed by blind impulse before. You don't need to refrain from any type of food - you just have to couny it. Want french fries with steak while on a diet? Want some pizza? It's ok, but it's going to cost you. A beer (0.5l) is 180 calories - maybe some mineral water would be ok instead of the beer? But you can still have the beer, just have to eat less pizza. The fact that you can eat anything makes the regime more humane. That's just something I deduced from my own experience. TL;DR In time, better tracking and better planning become internalised and when you do stop counting, you're left with a bunch of good habits about eating that will protect you for the rest of your life.
- 12y ago

dllthomas 12y ago

I strongly agree with part of this, and am reservedly skeptical about the rest. What I agree with is disputing "calories make us fat because thermodynamics". Yes, of course the laws of physics still apply, and energy in minus energy out has to equal stored energy... but there are all kinds of ways energy is entering and leaving the system. I do think that calories eaten and expended are an important part of the equation - having seen some people lose weight through simply restricting portion size - but I am unconvinced that it is (or is not) typically the most important piece. I am convinced that "... because thermodynamics" is a poor argument for it being the only thing that matters.

scotty79 12y ago
If you eat less calories than you burn it is absolutely sure way to lose weight ... because thermodynamics. It might not be a good way for a lots of people because they just can't stand being hungry.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  This is the kind of inanity I'm talking about. (Calories eaten, calories burned, calories stored in fat cells) is not a closed system, so thermodynamics doesn't have a lot to simplistically say about it. There's also chemical energy stored in other forms, there's calories excreted, there's thermal energy in and out. Yes, there is clearly an extreme at which thermodynamics will force fat to be burned, but thermodynamics alone does not tell us whether that is meaningful when the goal is promoting long-term health (of which losing weight is, for most people, a meaningful piece).
  - scotty79 12y ago
    I get that calories leave body in various forms but they get inside just in one. And if you eat less calories than you loose then you are bound to loose weight. No matter what crap you eat. It might not be pleasent. It might not be healthy but I think that it's almost surely more healthy than gut surgery and by transitivity than staying obese.

icelancer 12y ago

> The human body doesn't run on calories, it runs on food. This and other "the human body is immune from the effects of thermodynamics" arguments are... well, wrong. Otherwise there is a breakthrough in physics waiting to be found and potential unlimited energy.

bollockitis 12y ago
> This and other "the human body is immune from the effects of thermodynamics" arguments are... well, wrong. Otherwise there is a breakthrough in physics waiting to be found and potential unlimited energy. I think you misunderstood me. I was simply saying that food is more than the sum of its caloric content. I am not implying that the human body is magically immune from the laws of physics.

rmobin 12y ago

Anyone who reads Taubes should also consider Stephan Guyenet's critique of his arguments: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/brief-response-to-taubess-food-rewad.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/11/brief-response... I used to believe in the refined-carb/insulin hypothesis of Taubes, and I even lost weight on it, but I've ditched that model in favor of Stephan's more complete food reward hypothesis - the idea that more rewarding and palatable foods lead to increased calories ingested in certain individuals and hence lead to fat gain. One approach to weight loss then is to lower the reward value of the diet. One way to do that is low carb, another way is low fat, another way is vegetarian, another way to use gentler cooking methods and less seasoning, the list goes on. But many successful diets that people have used are very well explained by food reward. edit> I also believe calorie counting and intermittent fasting are very powerful tools used in conjunction with a reduced reward diet. Eating less calories with minimal hunger and losing fat is the holy grail, and these tools are helping me do that in a very effective way.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
Personally, I find Guyenet's reward hypothesis to be nothing more than a rebranding of typical fat-shaming ("just control what you eat, fatso; and why don't you exercise some more?"). However, that doesn't mean I don't think there is a psychological component to obesity; I just think that psychological component is mediated more by the gut biome than by anything else. The biggest problem in nutrition research is that almost all the research is useless for drawing conclusions. The second biggest problem is researchers wrap their identities around their pet theories, so they are immediately blinded to any competing hypotheses (note: I consider Guyenet in this category, but I also put Taubes in this category, and I think Taubes has done more to progress nutrition in the past 50 years than just about anybody else because he is loud and he doesn't tolerate crappy science). The third biggest problem is people want to believe there is only one cause and therefore one solution. There is no question in my mind that the catastrophic insulin-flooded hormonal environment caused by "6-11 servings of grains a day in 5-6 small meals spread throughout the day" is a large percentage of the cause of the obesity epidemic, but it's not all of it. Literal addiction to sugar is a piece of it. Ignorance is part of it. Deceptive marketing and inappropriate marketing to kids is a part of it. The list goes on. I like David Katz' analogy[1]: What we're all up against—in our efforts to find health—may be likened to a flood. A vast, obesigenic flood. A flood of highly processed, energy-dense, nutrient-dilute, hyper-palatable, glow-in-the-dark, betcha'-can't-eat-just-one kind of foods; a flood of marketing dollars encouraging us to eat ever more of the very foods that propel us toward obesity and chronic disease; a flood of gadgets and gizmos that do all of the things muscles used to do; a flood of agricultural policies that subsidize corn to fatten cows rather than vegetables and fruits to vitalize people; a flood of obligations that leave no time for attention to health. There are only two ways of dealing with this: build a levee to contain the flood and turn the tide, or captain a ship (or arc) across the floodwaters. One is all about us; the other is all about you. I also like Yoni Freedhoff's comment about it, that people like to point to a sandbag (such as limiting marketing) and say "that won't solve the problem". It takes a lot of sandbags to hold back a flood[2]. Having spent 30 years obese before learning enough about biochemistry to be able to correct my metabolic disorder, one thing I know: we don't need any more fat shaming. It is deplorable and counter-productive. I'll just leave you with one woman's feelings about Guyenet and the realities of dealing with hormonally-induced eating[3]. She is one of the most knowledgable people I've read on-line, with a breadth of knowledge that I find humbling. 1. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/09/13/were-not-fat-because-were-lazy http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/09/1... 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLAgnWCIDs&list=UUu_u-P3cBFO7D-sAjxd_I-w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLAgnWCIDs&list=UUu_u-P3cBF... 3. http://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/2014/08/food-reward-hypothesis-insulting-joke.html http://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/2014/08/food-reward-hypothesi...

EC1 12y ago

As someone who has tracked their calories every single day for over two years. Every meal. Every piece of food that enters my mouth. How does my body not run on calories? I meticulously calculated, tracked, and adjusted my macros to a point where I have a hard number at which I know what % of fat I'll lose, over a specific period of time.

asadkn 12y ago

If you do the research yourself, you will quickly realize how the citation works when people are trying to sell you something. Scientific research is cited when it supports their statements, and is ignored when it counters their beliefs. It's almost too easy to cite weak scientific studies to prove almost any belief you hold these days, in weight loss business. Taubes is as good as Atkins - people and media love to hear and write about something different. I am sure the HN crowd already is aware of that. Despite the hate Stephan Guyenet has been receiving by Taubes fans, he does a great job at explaining why what Taubes is promoting isn't scientifically sound or absolute: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h... For everyone who enjoy making references to Insulin without context, considering it an absolute storage hormone, here's a gem: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=711 http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=711