Taubes's Nutrition Science Initiative seems to be winding down

[Tsukasa Buddha]

NuSI (pronounced new-see) launched in September 2012 with much fanfare, including in the pages of WIRED. It quickly raised more than $40 million from big-name donors to facilitate expensive, high-risk studies intended to illuminate the root causes of obesity. Taubes and his co-founder, physician-researcher Peter Attia, contended that nutritional science was so inconsistent because it was so expensive to do right. With a goal of raising an additional $190 million, they wanted to fund science that would help cut the prevalence of obesity in the US by more than half—and diabetes by 75 percent—by 2025.

Rehabilitating the entire field of nutrition research was always a long shot. But six years in, NuSI is nowhere near achieving its lofty ambitions. In fact, the once-flush organization is broke, president-less, and all but gone. It’s been three years since it last tweeted, two years since it’s had a real office; today NuSI consists of two part-time employees and and an unpaid volunteer hanging around while Taubes tries to conjure a second act.

...

At the heart of their mission was the decades-old question of whether all calories are, in fact, created equal. The mainstream view is that it’s simply an excess of calories that makes people fat—no matter whether those calories come from a bagel or a steak or a bowl of broccoli. Taubes and Attia subscribe to a growing minority stance, dubbed the carbohydrate/insulin or C/I hypothesis, that contends obesity is caused by an excess of insulin driving energy into fat stores. In other words, sugar makes people fat.

Taubes and Attia thought those questions needed a more streamlined research approach to get real answers. So they formed NuSI to funnel money into a rigorous new set of studies, while leaving scientists with the experimental independence that would shield their results from bias.

...

IT’S STILL TOO soon to assess what NuSI has added to the nutrition science canon. Results from the two outstanding NuSI-backed studies are due later this year. The fourth and largest one, conducted at Stanford, randomized 600 overweight-to-obese subjects into low-fat versus low-carb diets for a year and looked at whether or not their weight loss could be explained by their metabolism or their DNA. Published this February in JAMA, the study found no differences between the two diets and no meaningful relationship between weight loss and insulin secretion. The most significant finding was that it’s hard to stick to a diet for a whole year.

Linky.

Even though he did snipe back when the research ended up disagreeing with his theories, Taubes at least organized things so that the scientists were independent and seemed to recognize that he could be a quack (his term).

 

[casebro]

So two completed studies did not prove his hypothises. Which leaves two remaining studies. What are they?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

What's the point of all the money and research, when you know going in, that most people are not going to change the way they eat in the long run..
Attia and Taubes knew this going in.

We have had research out there for years that show cholesterol and ( healthy ) fat do not cause heart disease. Who has the most to lose if people stop trying to lower their cholesterol?

.....The most significant finding was that it’s hard to stick to a diet for a whole year.

A lot of obese diabetics with heart disease, don't seem to have any trouble sticking to the diet that makes them that way...

What is most troubling are all the children that are being taught to eat that way..

Who has the most to lose if people stop eating the foods that create these diseases?

 

[Roboramma]

Who has the most to lose if people stop trying to lower their cholesterol?

I don't know. Who?

A lot of obese diabetics with heart disease, don't seem to have any trouble sticking to the diet that makes them that way...

Isn't the point of those studies to try to figure out what diet makes them that way?

What is most troubling are all the children that are being taught to eat that way..

So how should we teach them to eat? We need to actually do the studies to find out, don't we?

Who has the most to lose if people stop eating the foods that create these diseases?

Probably the people selling those foods, I guess.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I don't know. Who?

Drug Companies

Isn't the point of those studies to try to figure out what diet makes them that way?

It really isn't a mystery..
How the American diet has failed

So how should we teach them to eat? We need to actually do the studies to find out, don't we?

I agree the studies should go on, but how do you get the correct information out there?
The obesity epidemic has occurred under the guidelines of the U.S. and other governments, and the advice of institutions such
as The American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association and The National Institute of Health, to name a few..

Probably the people selling those foods, I guess.

That would be my guess, as well.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Isn't the point of those studies to try to figure out what diet makes them that way?

So how should we teach them to eat? We need to actually do the studies to find out, don't we?

Technically these studies focused on weight loss intervention diets, and had the same results as the body of research already done. Unfortunately, Taubes has already spread his pseudoscientific claims to the public. There isn't a mystery as to why more people are obese given their intake, but there are still open questions about the most effective ways to get people to change their intake.

Drug Companies



It really isn't a mystery..
How the American diet has failed



I agree the studies should go on, but how do you get the correct information out there?
The obesity epidemic has occurred under the guidelines of the U.S. and other governments, and the advice of institutions such
as The American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association and The National Institute of Health, to name a few..

However, as seen in your second link, people aren't following the guidelines, so I'm not seeing how drug companies or government or professional guidelines could be to blame.

Food companies, like Coca Cola paying so that people promote exercise instead of diet change is definitely going on, though.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I agree that the individual is ultimately responsible, but we know advertising works; and we are constantly bombarded with the supposed efficacy and safety of drugs and how sugary drinks make the world a better place.

 

[TruthJonsen]

I cannot post links until I have 15 posts, but wanted to reference these 77 pro-Low Carb studies to see what everyone thinks of them:

docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ucfpvs2CmKFnae9a8zTZS0Zt1g2tdYSIQBFcohfa1w0/edit#gid=547985667

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Link

Some good info all in one place...

 

[Trebuchet]

The most significant finding was that it’s hard to stick to a diet for a whole year.

I'd have been happy to tell them that for a whole lot less than $40 Million.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Link

Some good info all in one place...

And it (obviously) cherry-picks studies. I'm wondering what the author's rubric was for including studies, or the goal of this. I tried searching for it and didn't find the author, but it looks like people are just posting it as "here are 70+ studies showing keto works", which isn't really how science works.

I know I can be accused of doing the same thing, but there is a difference between citing studies that reflect the broad body of research and expert opinion and explain the variation of results due to methodology, and simply adding up all the studies you find on Google Scholar that agree with you. You can do that about acupuncture, chiropractic, etc. Especially dubious is how it adds up all the participants at the bottom.

The summaries are also cherry-picking from the studies themselves. For example, They cite one of Hall's Nutrition Science Institute studies, "Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men", and the summary is:

A logical consequence of the carbohydrate–insulin model is that decreasing the proportion of dietary carbohydrate to fat without altering protein or calories will reduce insulin secretion, increase fat mobilization from adipose tissue, and elevate the oxidation of circulating free fatty acids (FFAs). For those participants following the Ketogenic Diet, insulin response was superior to comparative diet.

But if we look at the study:

RESULTS:
Subjects lost weight and body fat throughout the study corresponding to an overall negative energy balance of ∼300 kcal/d. Compared with BD, the KD coincided with increased EEchamber (57 ± 13 kcal/d, P = 0.0004) and SEE (89 ± 14 kcal/d, P < 0.0001) and decreased RQ (-0.111 ± 0.003, P < 0.0001). EEDLW increased by 151 ± 63 kcal/d (P = 0.03). Body fat loss slowed during the KD and coincided with increased protein utilization and loss of fat-free mass.

CONCLUSION:
The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology.

Linky.

Insulin levels were mentioned in the study as lower, but it was designed to test other aspects and was overall counter to the carb-insulin hypothesis.

Our study adds to the literature addressing the perennial
question: is a calorie a calorie? A conventional view is that the
proportion of carbohydrate to fat in the diet has a physiologically
negligible effect on EE when dietary protein and energy
intake are held constant (8). In contrast, the carbohydrate–
insulin model predicts that the KD would lead to increased EE,
thereby resulting in a metabolic advantage amounting to w300–
600 kcal/d (21, 22). Our data do not support EE increases of that
magnitude.

...

In summary, we found that a carefully controlled isocaloric KD
coincided with small increases in EE that waned over time.
Despite rapid, substantial, and persistent reductions in daily
insulin secretion and RQ after introducing the KD, we observed
a slowing of body fat loss. Therefore, our data do not support the
carbohydrate–insulin model predictions of physiologically relevant
increases in EE or greater body fat loss in response to an
isocaloric KD.

I give them credit for actually reading the study and not just the abstract, but it is on the whole rather dubious.