Good Calories, Bad Calories

IllegalArgument

Graduate Poster
IllegalArgument
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Messages
1,895
Bacon. Green Chili. Fresh Bread. Spaghetti with melted butter, garlic, parmesan, salt, pepper.
 
Ira Flatow had the guy on Science Friday this week, you can either download the podcast or listen with streaming audio.

He had a physician on as well, and the guy seemed to be agreeing with most of the author's ideas. He seems to be in the "simple carbohydrates stimulate insulin production which causes obesity" camp.

At least in the interview, he was more concerned with the mechanism of obesity rather than "weight loss".
 
It was that interview that got me interested in the book.

Another person mentioned the book, but I had blown it off as uninteresting.

The interview changed my mind.
 
Thanks for posting the links, IA. I didn't realize that the FDA's "food pyramid" had so little empirical evidence backing it up.

I found that really surprising ... and a little disturbing. I personally like to think that govt sponsored research and health literature are funded and distributed in a neutral fashion influenced only by the results of unbiased research using scientific methods. Hopefully that is true most of the time.
 
Last edited:
I do know it worked for me. First I cut out any wheat due to a suspected allergy. That made me feel better enough to get lots more active. Then I cut the rest of the carbs- rice, taters, like that. Suddenly, eating became optional. No food 'til dinner anymore. No food meant no insulin. So instead of 220 units per day, I'm down to 20 units in the evening, after dinner and the day's activity is over. I've lost 40 pounds since cutting the carbs August first. Angina gone- it was still a bother after 3 angioplasties. Sciatica gone, it was still a bother 20 years after two disc procedures. I haven't felt this good in years.
Still eating plenty of my home made Bratwurst, hamburger, pork chops. PLus fruits and veggies. Cholesterol is down, triglycerides waaay down, from 600 to 75.


Appetite control is the key to weight loss. Low carbs does it for me.
 
IllegalArgument said:
Is anyone read Good Calories, Bad Calories?
Click to expand...

No - but thanks for posting about it. I'll perhaps pick it up this weekend.

I've had severe doubts about the food pyramid forever (mostly USDA propaganda) and I was shocked when reading the National Acadamy of Sciences 'Human Nutrition' book a few years ago to realize that they, and the original researchers openly state the high cholosterol does not predispose one to coronary heart disease(CHD) !

This is based on the Framingham study - one of the largest long term heart studies ever done. Yes there is a CHD vs cholesterol correlation, but when you remove other CHD factors like age, weight, family history the correlation disappears ! My take is that high cholestoerol is more an effect that precedes CHD than a cause. Reducing cholesterol may help the 10 or 20% who are having pre-CHD problems, but what of the others ? The statin drugs have considerable toxic impact on the liver and muscle tissue and have some reported impact on memory !

I do not have a cholesterol problem, but if I did I'd certainly try a niacin &| omega-3 oil regimen. Each of these have been shown in *some* studies to a comparable impact as statins without the toxicity. Sadly no one has a patent on niacin and flax-oil so your physician won't be regularly woo'ed by the pretty drug sales skanks - what a corrupt system.

There is a Swedish physician (Uffe ??Ravnakov?) who is IMO also a rather rational cholesterol skeptic. He's published quite a few articles and rebuttals in BJM and JAMA and other well respected journals. OTOH there are some real health-wacko's out there suggesting all-fat diets and such. I can see that it is rather difficult for the average person to distinguish.

One of the NAS book surprises (to me at least) is that serum triglyceride was well correlated to carbohydrate intake. Not a great surprise really when you think that excess carbos are converted to fat and then transported (yes - oversimplified).
Another is that dietary cholesterol (from eggs and meat) is only a minor contributor to total. Most cholesterol is produced in the body.
==

I've read a couple recent papers that suggest that the type-2 diabetes and "metabolic syndrome" plague is not the epidemic that is claimed. Instead the problem is now recognized far more often, and again the physicians are encourages to treat with drugs more often.


So what does the author say ?
 
stevea said:
This is based on the Framingham study - one of the largest long term heart studies ever done. Yes there is a CHD vs cholesterol correlation, but when you remove other CHD factors like age, weight, family history the correlation disappears ! My take is that high cholestoerol is more an effect that precedes CHD than a cause. Reducing cholesterol may help the 10 or 20% who are having pre-CHD problems, but what of the others ? The statin drugs have considerable toxic impact on the liver and muscle tissue and have some reported impact on memory !
Click to expand...

He discusses the Framingham and many other studies, he points over and over that contradictory information was ignored because it didn't fit the low-fat theory.

I've read a couple recent papers that suggest that the type-2 diabetes and "metabolic syndrome" plague is not the epidemic that is claimed. Instead the problem is now recognized far more often, and again the physicians are encourages to treat with drugs more often.

So what does the author say ?
Click to expand...

The first section of the book was spent shedding light on the poor quality research supporting the low fast theories of CHD. Now, he's starting to get it to the meat, pun intented, of the carbohydrate research, though he took a one chapter digression to talk about fiber. Fiber research has some of the same poor research issues of low fat research.

As for diabetes, the author painted a compelling portrait of the difference between cultures with high refined carbohydrates intake and not. The high cultures have a much higher level of diabetes than the lower, dramatically so. Diabetes is practically non-existent in many non-Western cultures which have very low refined carbohydrates diets.

Side note, the author is not pushing a West is evil mentality, it's just a naming convention.

I have glossed over a lot of fine points which are in the book. The research is very through.
 
Last edited:
IllegalArgument said:
Not surprisingly that the Corn Refiners Association isn't happy with the book.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3661766

I would like to see some more solid criticisms of the book, most of the negative reviews have been lacking in data or emotional hand waving.
Click to expand...

I have long been a hater of HFCS. I don't like the taste, for one, and I've heard it is nasty for a variety of reasons. I joined the "High Fructose Corn Syrup is BAD!" camp a while back but I haven't actually followed up on the negative claims. I certainly don't believe anything the Corn Refiners Association tells me about it, but I am now pretty skeptical about the article I first read about it (it was in Vegetarian Times or Organic Style or some other hippy-dippy magazine like that). Is there good evidence to support the health claims against it?
 
Do you have a link to that article?

I now think there is good evidence, the book has a huge list of studies it references.

Life keeps getting in the way of my reading, so I'm only a third through. ;)
 
One and only one gentle bump.

Still working through the book, it's incredible detailed, but it a good way.

It's entertaining to watch the reviews, good and bad, because Taubes is not shy about responding directly to bad reviews.
 
Dr SUSAN JEBB: What's absolutely true is that people who consume large amounts of protein seem to feel fuller quicker than people who consume similar amounts of calories as fat.
Click to expand...
from BBC Horizon
 
Last edited:
jimtron said:
Here's one review that is somewhat critical.
Click to expand...

I bleeve this is the key:

"On Page 446, he finally tells us. Carbohydrates, he says, are addictive, and we’ve all gotten hooked. Those who try to break the habit start to crave them, just as an alcoholic craves a drink or a smoker craves a cigarette. But, he adds, if they are addictive, that “implies that the addiction can be overcome with sufficient time, effort and motivation.”

Weight loss is all appetite control. Break the 'addiction' and the appetite goes away.
I'm down 43 pounds since July 25. I usually subsist on one of my home made Bratwursts in the mid-afternoon, then a low carb dinner later. Feeling better than I have in years.
 
casebro said:
I bleeve this is the key:

"On Page 446, he finally tells us. Carbohydrates, he says, are addictive, and we’ve all gotten hooked. Those who try to break the habit start to crave them, just as an alcoholic craves a drink or a smoker craves a cigarette. But, he adds, if they are addictive, that “implies that the addiction can be overcome with sufficient time, effort and motivation.”

Weight loss is all appetite control. Break the 'addiction' and the appetite goes away.
I'm down 43 pounds since July 25. I usually subsist on one of my home made Bratwursts in the mid-afternoon, then a low carb dinner later. Feeling better than I have in years.
Click to expand...

A personal comment - I find carbs addictive. When I cut back for a long time I barely notice, but if I just had some heavy carbo within 24-48 hours I definitely find myself craving more. I noticed this years ago - I never bought sweets when single and don't miss them, but if I sampled some during the holidays I found myself seeking more the next day.

Now as for "a calorie is a calorie" - I think this needs more discussion. The equivalence of energy is certainly unquestionable, but how much biological energy can be derived from a source is a different question. Food calories are (as far as I know) measured in a conventional calorimeter which measures the energy developed as the food is completely burned. By that measure a lump of coal would contain a lot of energy, but it would certainly not provide much useful biological energy when consumed orally.

The USDA outlines rank "fiber"(fibre, cellulosic carbohydrate) at 4 Calories /gm - the same as sugar and starch, however these are not directly digestible by humans. At best gut microorganisms convert the fibre to organic acids (acetic, butyric, ...) which might provide 2 or 2.2 Cal/gm of fiber energy to humans. The conversion of proteins to amino acids and ketone bodies is a complex process that is less than lucidly transparent wrt to efficiency and losses.


A interesting abstracts & papers links ...
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7521/906-b
http://ajprenal.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/1/F423
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/6/1489


I am NOT advocating any particular diet/health regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom