4 ms·

> But if a fat person simply eats less, no matter the macronutrient content, he or she will lose weight. This is well documented, and even Taubes doesn't disagr

> But if a fat person simply eats less, no matter the macronutrient content, he or she will lose weight. This is well documented, and even Taubes doesn't disagree with that. A low-carb diet doesn't have to be intentionally low calorie. That's the point. Eating very low carb allows the body to adjust hunger levels to match existing fat stores. If you're fat and you allow your body to do its job, you won't be as hungry because you have plenty of energy stored up and the body is eager to use it. In other words, we've evolved to survive times of plenty and times of famine, and our modern diet with extremely high carb intake throws this system out of whack. Low calorie is just forced starvation and although you will always lose weight this way, it's an uphill battle because you're fighting the body's fat regulation mechanism. You might be eating high-carb but low calorie, causing insulin spikes, extreme hunger, and protein wasting. It's not an easy diet to follow and it might even be counterproductive. This is the theory anyway. This queston has been posted to Taubes many times over though, and he himself can explain it a lot better than I can. If you're interested in the topic, this is definitely worth a read: 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-...

wdewind 12y ago
> Low calorie is just forced starvation and although you will always lose weight this way, it's an uphill battle because you're fighting the body's fat regulation mechanism. You might be eating high-carb but low calorie, causing insulin spikes, extreme hunger, and protein wasting. It's not an easy diet to follow and it might even be counterproductive. This is based on a false dichotomy of dieting sustainably low carb or unsustainably starving yourself. Let's say we have someone who is 6' and 260lbs. To get to that state you need to consistently eat a diet of around 4000 calories. If that person eats 2000 calories of ANYTHING for the rest of their life, which should be completely sustainable, they will not only lose the weight (down to about 180 lbs), they will keep it off. On the other hand, if that person continues to eat 4000 calories but they change their diet entirely to a ketogenic diet, guess what: they will still be fat. The point is that when we are dealing with the 30% of Americans who are now obese, the low hanging fruit is in simply eating less. There may or may not be a suboptimization in macronutrient composition, I'm not saying that's definitely wrong. I'm just saying there's more low hanging fruit than that.

wdewind 12y ago

> Low calorie is just forced starvation and although you will always lose weight this way, it's an uphill battle because you're fighting the body's fat regulation mechanism. You might be eating high-carb but low calorie, causing insulin spikes, extreme hunger, and protein wasting. It's not an easy diet to follow and it might even be counterproductive. This is based on a false dichotomy of dieting sustainably low carb or unsustainably starving yourself. Let's say we have someone who is 6' and 260lbs. To get to that state you need to consistently eat a diet of around 4000 calories. If that person eats 2000 calories of ANYTHING for the rest of their life, which should be completely sustainable, they will not only lose the weight (down to about 180 lbs), they will keep it off. On the other hand, if that person continues to eat 4000 calories but they change their diet entirely to a ketogenic diet, guess what: they will still be fat. The point is that when we are dealing with the 30% of Americans who are now obese, the low hanging fruit is in simply eating less. There may or may not be a suboptimization in macronutrient composition, I'm not saying that's definitely wrong. I'm just saying there's more low hanging fruit than that.