The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

[blutoski]

Taubes has recently gone what I call 'full Duesberg' - undaunted by being unable to collect scientific support for his hypothesis, he has doubled down. He's set up his own research to crank out the results he wished he could find in the literature.

For those who are interested: Taubes' research nonprofit (Nutrition Science Initiative) has a website here: [nusi.org]

 

[jimbob]

I was talking to my wife the other day, and came up with another analogy: I referred to Taubes as the 'L Ron Hubbard of diets'. An outsider who published best selling books, tons of references that look impressive to people new to the subject matter, iconoclastic "the experts are all fools and killing innocent people" mythology, and a very dedicated Following that You Don't Want To Mess With.

Thank you - I had gathered that impression, but that is a particularly succinct description.

 

[xjx388]

To be honest, I don't know much about Taubes as I don't usually listen to non-scientist opinions about diet and other matters.

What I do know is that the Obesity Society and the American Society of Bariatric Physicians endorse the LC diet as the most effective.

 

[blutoski]

To be honest, I don't know much about Taubes as I don't usually listen to non-scientist opinions about diet and other matters.

What I do know is that the Obesity Society and the American Society of Bariatric Physicians endorse the LC diet as the most effective.

That's news to me, although I'm not sure what you mean by 'endorse' ? These types of statements are absent from both organizations' many position papers and seems to contradict several other policy statements.

If anything, the Obesity Society's policy statements appear to implicitly support volumetrics. eg: Sep 2014 [Energy Density] policy paper.

Dietary energy density has emerged in recent years as one of the most consistent influences on satiety and energy intake. A number of studies have shown that when the macronutrient content of foods was varied, but the energy density was kept constant, the effects of fat, carbohydrate, and protein on satiety were similar. On the other hand, the energy density of foods is a robust and significant determinant of satiety and energy intake regardless of macronutrient composition

etc...

ETA: But if they have published endorsements, I'd love to read them, to understand their reasoning, so if you have links, I'd be much obliged.

ETA: This is the closest I could find on the ASBP policy papers: [Guidelines for Overweight and Obesity Evaluation Management]

Dietary therapy
ASBP recognizes that multiple studies exist of the advantages and
disadvantages of different nutritional weight loss plans.37,38,39 These types of
nutritional therapy may include any combination of macronutrient guidelines,
including controlled calorie, controlled fat, controlled carb, adequate protein
and any combination of fixed meal plan programs and free choice meal
planning. It is unlikely that one diet is optimal for all overweight and
obese people. Dietary guidance should be individualized to allow for
specific food preferences and individual approaches to reducing energy
intake.

 

[Nihilianth]

I don't think I see a problem with that. It sounds reasonable, as long as the obesity was indeed due to addictive overeating and not to some one of the other (apparently much rarer) physical conditions that have come up in the thread.

Also blutoski, thanks for answering my question. I've been trying to look up what my personal recommended daily calorie intake should be, but all the numbers I'm finding on the web seem pretty high. (I'm trying to lose just 5 stubborn pounds, so I might just cut myself down to 1500 or so a day, with the exercise routine I've been doing, until it's done. I'm getting pretty impatient.)

Some kind of treatment program for the addictive tendencies and/or underlying negative habits causing a person's obesity sounds like a reasonable criterion for them receiving continued benefits. I would not, however, personally be comfortable with including surgery in those requirements.

5 pounds? Don't sweat it. (No pun intended! )

Seriously, 5 pounds is water weight for most people. Even if you do cut out 5 actual pounds of fat, the second you go off your diet, you can easily get it right back. I wouldn't worry about 5 pounds. Or even 10 pounds, really.

 

[Nihilianth]

I'm not an expert at all, but I have read and watched a fair bit on this recently. I tried to explain a little bit of "why we get fat" to you in the post you quoted. But here's a pretty good animation taken from the anti-Super Size Me documentary "Fat Head" that might help clear up the concept.

The short of it is that not all calories are equal, which is the fatal mistake we make when we merely talk about calories. It is the reason why the "calories in calories out" idea doesn't make sense and definitely doesnt help people that want to lose weight. The fact is the body responds to different kinds of calories in different ways. It is not controversial that there are "good" carbohydrates and "bad" carbohydrates. The bad carbs being things like sugar, better carbs being things like oats. Oats are said to be a lower GI food, and sugar is a high GI food. The gycemic index is to do with how fast the carbohydrates will covert to glucose in the gut. Sugar converts quickly and for that reason can provide a quick burst of energy, while something like oats converts much slower and so the rate of energy provided by the glucose is at a more sustained period of time.

It is well understood that consuming a high GI substance like sugar may give you a burst of energy but you use it up quickly, and so you get hungry again faster. This is why its uncontroversial to say that you should significantly reduce sugar intake if you want significant change in reducing body fat, that you should eat low GI carbohydrates to provide longer lasting energy "so you feel full for longer." We know that the hormone insulin drives fat storage and stimulates fat cells to take in glucose. Insulin is released prominently when we eat carbs, because carbs convert to glucose and that needs to be dealt with. If we eat too many foods that spike our insulin too much for too long our body can't cope and we can become insulin resistant, which can lead to diabetes. All that insulin can lead to obesity/weight gain because insulin causes the fat cells to become greedy and not release their energy easily when you need it like it's meant to. Meanwhile, your body thinks it's starving and it tells your brain to eat more despite having all this stored fat.

So now you've now got a metabolic disorder, and are much more inefficient at fat regulation. Someone that doesn't have this problem can eat much more than you, while you can still put on weight eating less. If someone with a metabolic disorder follows the typical guidelines for a healthy diet, the very diet that may have got them into the situation in the first place, they will continue to base their diet on carbohydrates. Even if they reduce simple sugars, they may consume foods that can have the same or even higher GI than sugar has. We even have the Heart Association saying foods are "heart healthy" that are high GI and significantly spike your insulin levels. They might have some success but only because there's less energy for the insulin to push into the fat cells. They keep their fat levels low since that's what they are told to do, so their body is crying out for energy which is why so many rebound and can't keep the diet up. When it comes to exercise, exercise itself doesn't burn many calories. What it will do is increase the appetite, which will then cause them to want to eat more. So they'll eat the same foods that was causing them to get fatter, except they'll eat more of it. Since they are still eating a high carb diet they will still crave sugar and so also be more prone to cheating. The reduction in appetite alone on a low carb diet is a non-trivial aspect of weight control, even if it really did come down to "calories in calories out" the recommend high carb low fat diet is still a very bad idea.

In regards to losing weight because you're in a calorie deficit diet, I'm going to quote from someone on another forum: 'Taubes often used the example of a growing child. A child grows because of growth hormone, and then eats more to compensate. We could retard this growth by caloric restriction, however it would not stop growth hormone itself. The growth will still be driven by GH, we'd only restrict the materials needed for this growth to be realized. In a similar fashion, we could reduce obesity by caloric restriction, but it wouldn't stop the cause of obesity, we'd simply restrict the materials needed to sustain obesity. On the other hand, if we stopped the cause of obesity directly, the materials needed to sustain obesity would not be needed anymore, and caloric reduction would spontaneously occur.'




I recommend you give him more of a shot than this. The person immediately misrepresents him, ironically while also talking about strawmen.

Here is the first few obvious failures on the part of the writer you linked me to:

1. He implies Taubes is saying the laws of physics don't have anything to do with weight gain. That is not what Taubes is saying. He is saying that it is not as simple as "calories in calories out" and the "law of thermodynamics" is not being applied correctly to the human body when people argue against what he is saying. It reminds me of evolution being said to break the law of thermodynamics, which it does, so long as you make false assumptions as to how the earth/universe works.

2. He says Taubes believes reducing calorie intake cannot work. This is also not accurate. As should should be clear from the example I gave earlier, it is not that reducing your calories won't necessarily cause weight loss it's just that it isn't getting to the root cause of why you are putting on weight. When we are growing we have growth hormone flowing through us and we eat more food to compensate for that. We can stunt our growth by reducing our caloric intake, but that doesnt mean eating was the reason for us growing, it was the growth hormone. We ate more because the growth hormone needed us to eat more.

3. He talks about how some people are more efficient at storing calories than others, and even says Taubes is right when he says people get fat due to the way their fat is regulated, but then says that it's all still about how many calories you consume anyway. If you took two people with very similar body types and gave them the same food and they did the same exercise then the assumption of "calories in calories out" means we would have to assume they both get fat, or both lose weight, at more or less the same rate. Why? Because they would both be consuming more or less than the calories they were burning. Yet as this person already recognises some people have bodies that are very efficient at storing calories and handling fat regulation, and some are not. If an obese persons body is inefficient at storing fat and has a metabolic disorder, then telling them they are just eating too much completely misses the point of why it is happening. They may well be eating more, which could be due to their metabolic disorder making them eat more (the same way a growing child filled with growth hormone is driven to eat), or they could be eating the same thing a sedentary slim person eats who has a body that has a healthy metabolism. If it is the former, then just like with a growing child, maybe eating more is the symptom not the cause of their obesity. This is why its absurdity to reduce obesity and gaining fat merely to terms of "calories in calories out", which ends up being practically meaningless and hardly tells you anything.

4. Skipping ahead he seems to be unaware of just how debunked the idea that fat's cause heart disease, especially in recent years.

This article does not seem like it is written by someone who has more than a superficial understanding of what Taubes is saying, or there is some intentional or subconscious tendency to misunderstand him.



I know, its a bad typo habbit.

Edx, you have won this thread! Excellent job. I did extremely poorly in attempting to cover all of your points in the past in this thread. Thank you.

 

[The Atheist]

Edx, you have won this thread!

You're a very soft judge.

I'd have blutoski by a couple of light years, but only because he's posting facts and not some nonsense spouted by someone looking to sell his secret.

 

[rustypouch]

Edx, you have won this thread! Excellent job. I did extremely poorly in attempting to cover all of your points in the past in this thread. Thank you.

I wouldn't agree. I come here to get away from woo and claims that lack evidence.

 

[Edx]

You're a very soft judge.

I'd have blutoski by a couple of light years, but only because he's posting facts and not some nonsense spouted by someone looking to sell his secret.

What is nonsense about what I said?

People can understand not all calories are processed the same, and some people process calories more efficiently, but for some reason aren't able to abandon the "calories in calories" out mindset. I don't see what is so "nonsensical" about the idea that maybe we are misidentifying the cause of obesity as eating too much, and making the same mistake we'd make if we looked at teenage growth spurts being caused by eating too much rather than growth hormone.

 

[The Atheist]

I know, it's really difficult to give up science, maths and facts.

Also, see the post prior to yours.

 

[Edx]

I know, it's really difficult to give up science, maths and facts.

Also, see the post prior to yours.

Um, I'm not sure what I'm meant to be looking at. What am I missing? Does the body respond equally to whatever you eat? Does the body deal with carbohydrates, fat and protein in exactly the same way? If you could feed two identical twins the same calories and match energy expenditure, but you have one eat 90% sugar and the other 90% fat, after 5 years are we to think they would both have the same metabolism and accumulate the same amount of body fat?

 

[Nihilianth]

I wouldn't agree. I come here to get away from woo and claims that lack evidence.

Ok. SAy you eat 2000 calories worth of candy bars

Compare that to 2000 calories worth of broccoli.

Which is better for you?

Obviously, the calories in the sugury candy bars is compeltely worthless, and the sugars without the fiber will cause that person to be fatter, and less healthy.

Meanwhile, the broccoli is an excellent source of general, overall nutrition full of fiber, vitamins, and minerals that are necessary for overall general healthiness that will keep everything in balance, from your blood sugar levels, to your iron in your blood, and is an excellent source of antioxidants as well.

So no. It is by no means at all "woo" when a person says that not all calories are made equally. It is NOT "woo" to say how your body processes carbohydrates into sugars. And how badly too much sugar can harm your blood sugar levels and cause diabetes. It is also not "woo" when a person says that certain foods can be highly addictive. It is not "woo" to say that once a person is obese, their body chemistry drastically changes, and becomes a hell of a lot harder and more complicated to reduce weight than just simply saying: "Calories in, calories out, derp!"

Claiming something is "woo" without actually saying or proving why, is a non-starter.

 

[jimbob]

Ok. SAy you eat 2000 calories worth of candy bars

Compare that to 2000 calories worth of broccoli.

Which is better for you?

Obviously, the calories in the sugury candy bars is compeltely worthless, and the sugars without the fiber will cause that person to be fatter, and less healthy.

Meanwhile, the broccoli is an excellent source of general, overall nutrition full of fiber, vitamins, and minerals that are necessary for overall general healthiness that will keep everything in balance, from your blood sugar levels, to your iron in your blood, and is an excellent source of antioxidants as well.

So no. It is by no means at all to say it is "woo" when a person says that not all calories are made equally. It is NOT "woo" to say how your body processes carbohydrates into sugars. And how badly too much sugar can harm your blood sugar levels and cause diabetes.

Claiming something is "woo" without actually saying or proving why, is a non-starter.

But you are confusing a diet for general health (varied diet better) with the more specific case of the contribution of diet to weight.

It is obviously easier to get calories from more energy-dense foods so one is more likely to overeat, but again that is a subtly different question.

Blutoski has posted credible references.

 

[marplots]

So no. It is by no means at all "woo" when a person says that not all calories are made equally. It is NOT "woo" to say how your body processes carbohydrates into sugars. And how badly too much sugar can harm your blood sugar levels and cause diabetes. It is also not "woo" when a person says that certain foods can be highly addictive. It is not "woo" to say that once a person is obese, their body chemistry drastically changes, and becomes a hell of a lot harder and more complicated to reduce weight than just simply saying: "Calories in, calories out, derp!"

Claiming something is "woo" without actually saying or proving why, is a non-starter.

"Calories" are not things that are made. They are a unit of measure. It is the purpose of the unit to be equivalent to allow for comparisons. This is why an inch is an inch, even though an extra inch on one end of a knife might kill you and on the other end not.

The misapplication is in measuring calories in two different ways. The one way is a generic, broadly based measurement used to compare foodstuffs with each other. The other way is in measuring how many calories are extracted by some specific person from that foodstuff.

Saying the "calories" are unequal is wrong. What is unequal is the ability to extract how many calories are there - the efficiency of the person consuming the food.

There are many more calories in food than we report. Xylose, a sugar found in vegetable fiber, is not digested by humans. Even though it has measurable calories (and you can measure this with a calorimeter), we generally do not count these on package labels. But they are still calories.

The critical thing is that no matter what your diet is, a reduction in the number of calories available to you will result in weight loss.

 

[Nihilianth]

But you are confusing a diet for general health (varied diet better) with the more specific case of the contribution of diet to weight.

It is obviously easier to get calories from more energy-dense foods so one is more likely to overeat, but again that is a subtly different question.

Blutoski has posted credible references.

Yes. One is likely to overeat eating calorie dense foods such as a candybar. But that's wasn't the point of htat exercise.

Edx made a post about the QUALITY of certain calories over others in response to the overly-simplistic "calories-in-calories-out" argument. Healthy dieting is far more complex than that. If one reaches the point of obesity, losing weight becomes even more complex yet, as your body chemistry is different, and your attidtude towards food is totally different.

 

[Nihilianth]

"Calories" are not things that are made. They are a unit of measure. It is the purpose of the unit to be equivalent to allow for comparisons. This is why an inch is an inch, even though an extra inch on one end of a knife might kill you and on the other end not.

The misapplication is in measuring calories in two different ways. The one way is a generic, broadly based measurement used to compare foodstuffs with each other. The other way is in measuring how many calories are extracted by some specific person from that foodstuff.

Saying the "calories" are unequal is wrong. What is unequal is the ability to extract how many calories are there - the efficiency of the person consuming the food.

There are many more calories in food than we report. Xylose, a sugar found in vegetable fiber, is not digested by humans. Even though it has measurable calories (and you can measure this with a calorimeter), we generally do not count these on package labels. But they are still calories.

The critical thing is that no matter what your diet is, a reduction in the number of calories available to you will result in weight loss.

This is another thread where I am going to use baseball statistics as an analogy, if you will bear with me for a moment.

I understand that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. I get that. But there are other factors in the foods you eat than just simply "calories."

In baseball, a "Plate Appearance" is a "Plate Appearance." What you DO with that plate appearance matters. You can either strike out, or you can get a walk, the catcher can interfere with the batter, you can get hit by a pitch, you can hit a single, a double, a triple, or a homerun. The opposing team can commit an error in the field. Or you can trip and fall and injure yourself while running to first.

When a person says that "not all calories are equal," what they are talking about is the nutritional value of a particular type of food. What Edx posted about, was the nutritional value of carbs and sugars vs the nutritional value of things like fiber and vitamins.

A hitter in baseball can have 500 plate appearances, just like a person can consume 2000 calories.

But one person can have a .350 batting average, .400 OBP, .500 SLG, with 40 homeruns, 30 stolen bases, and 150 runs scored. Another can have a .200 batting average, a .300 OBP, with 3 homeruns, 0 stolen bases, and 26 runs scored in a season. One person will remain in the majors, the other will be sent back down to the minors, likely to never be called back up again.

One person can eat a 2000 calorie diet full of fiber, vitamins, minerals, and proteins over the course of a year. Another person can eat a 2000 calorie diet full of sugars and carbs over the course of the year. Who is much likelier to start getting fat, and generally be unhealthy? Who is more likely to begin developing addictive behavior after that year? Who is more likely to start consuming more and more calories each day beyond a year? One will remain healthy, the other will likely become obese, and their mind and body will never be the same again.

So no. It is not at all helpful to sit there and simply say: "Calories in, calories out. It's easy!" No. It is much harder, and more complex than that. And it is even harder for someone who is already at the point of obesity. You are treating, not just their physical condition. You must also treat their mental condition as well if you want any hope of getting them healthy again, and to stay healthy. It is NOT easy. If it were "easy," then obesity would not hardly be an issue to begin with.

 

[rustypouch]

Ok. SAy you eat 2000 calories worth of candy bars

Compare that to 2000 calories worth of broccoli.

Which is better for you?

Obviously, the calories in the sugury candy bars is compeltely worthless, and the sugars without the fiber will cause that person to be fatter, and less healthy.

Meanwhile, the broccoli is an excellent source of general, overall nutrition full of fiber, vitamins, and minerals that are necessary for overall general healthiness that will keep everything in balance, from your blood sugar levels, to your iron in your blood, and is an excellent source of antioxidants as well.

So no. It is by no means at all "woo" when a person says that not all calories are made equally. It is NOT "woo" to say how your body processes carbohydrates into sugars. And how badly too much sugar can harm your blood sugar levels and cause diabetes. It is also not "woo" when a person says that certain foods can be highly addictive. It is not "woo" to say that once a person is obese, their body chemistry drastically changes, and becomes a hell of a lot harder and more complicated to reduce weight than just simply saying: "Calories in, calories out, derp!"

Claiming something is "woo" without actually saying or proving why, is a non-starter.

Firstly, as previous mentioned, hats off to blutoski for his excellent references. Where yours is a journalist with an engineering background.

I don't think anyone's arguing that certain foods aren't more nutritious or satiating than others, or that the body deals with refined sugars differently than protein.

What is woo is your denial of basic physics, and your mockery of the idea that if someone eats less than they burn it won't affect their weight. It's an idea that I think might work for the Million Dollar Challenge.

No matter the source, if someone eats under their daily expenditure, they will lose weight. It might not be healthy or sustainable, but it's the way things work.

It's possible to lose weight eating mostly twinkies http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
or nothing but McDonalds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/mcdonalds-diet_n_4557698.html

 

[jimbob]

I'm sure many people would lose weight on this diet


possibly terminally.

 

[Nihilianth]

Firstly, as previous mentioned, hats off to blutoski for his excellent references. Where yours is a journalist with an engineering background.

I don't think anyone's arguing that certain foods aren't more nutritious or satiating than others, or that the body deals with refined sugars differently than protein.

What is woo is your denial of basic physics, and your mockery of the idea that if someone eats less than they burn it won't affect their weight. It's an idea that I think might work for the Million Dollar Challenge.

No matter the source, if someone eats under their daily expenditure, they will lose weight. It might not be healthy or sustainable, but it's the way things work.

It's possible to lose weight eating mostly twinkies http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
or nothing but McDonalds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/mcdonalds-diet_n_4557698.html

That isn't at all the argument I was making. I am not saying that if you consume less calories than you burn, you will not lose weight.

My argument throughout this thread, was in defeating the notion that it is somehow "easy" to lose weight in a world full of refined sugary crap that makes you feel less satisfied than if the world were full of nutrient-rich foods that stick with you throughout your day.

It may be true that consuming less calories on a Twinkie diet than you burn, will cause you to lose weight. But it isn't anywhere near as easy to say that as you make it out to be. Those Twinkies are full of sugar, and it causes all sorts of chemical changes in your body, that also severely affects your brain chemistry. This causes other adverse effects, such as addictive behavior. And let's face it: You body certainly does treat those sugary Twinkies FAR differently than it would if you are fibrous broccoli instead. Even if the number of calories consumed were the same. I utterly fail to see why there is anything whatsoever that is wrong in saying this. How is this "woo?"

 

[Nihilianth]

And forgive me if I am wrong, but I also do not think that is what Taubes was saying either. At all. That's a strawman.

What Taubes seems to be saying, and what I am saying, is that the sorts of foods you consume matters in losing weight. Not just simply the amount of calories. You should be attempting to treat the root cause of obesity, which seems to be "addiction to far too much sugars and carbs, and not enough fiber and vitamins."