Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#21

Post by kowen » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 3:31 PM UTC

lacrossegm wrote: post #16

nova wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After (a very brief) look this seems to me like another Atkins-style diet Taubes' book is not a diet book, it's a thick book on all the things that are wrong on modern research on nutrition. It explains why the problem is not fats (nor greens), but refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour. Very worth your time, really.

American obsesity can correlated to eating too much salt, sugar and fat. Fast food makes it cheap and easy to get into a pattern where a significant portion of your daily intake is essentially a combination of sugar (soda, coffee, tea, etc), fat (burgers, fries, tacos, etc) and salt (flavoring, preservatives, etc.) If we went back to the diet before there was fast-food then we'd have a lot less obesity. People would…

According to The Complete Meat Cookbook, meat has been bred to be a lot more lean in the past decades.

I suspect that if we went back to the diet before there was fast-food, people would be eating more flavorful (a.k.a. fatty) meat than lean meat.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#22

Post by xiaoma » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 3:32 PM UTC

pelle wrote: post #12

jules wrote: post #11

If this is true then why are the vegetarians I know are lean and the people who eat a lot of meat are not?

The issue is not if you eat a lot of meat or not, it is if you eat a lot of carbohydrates or not. I know plenty of fat vegans including a family member who became diabetic and suffered a stroke because of it. Of course your and my experiences are both anecdotal, but I do believe I have heard studies showing that vegetarians do suffer disproportionately of heart disease. I'll try and google it.

Then why are rural Chinese who live off of a rice and noodle based diet thin, while westerners who eat far more protein and fat are enormous?

Measured against GDP, countries in which rice-based diets are common (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, etc...) have very thin, very long lived people compared with the protein crazed areas such as the US, UK, Australia, Canada.

Honestly, the only place I hear this carbohydrate-bashing crap is in English language news from places filled with fat people.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#23

Post by pelle » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 5:16 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #22

pelle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not if you eat a lot of meat or not, it is if you eat a lot of carbohydrates or not. I know plenty of fat vegans including a family member who became diabetic and suffered a stroke because of it. Of course your and my experiences are both anecdotal, but I do believe I have heard studies showing that vegetarians do suffer disproportionately of heart disease. I'll try and google it.

Then why are rural Chinese who live off of a rice and noodle based diet thin, while westerners who eat far more protein and fat are enormous? Measured against GDP, countries in which rice-based diets are common (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, etc...) have very thin, very long lived people compared with the protein crazed areas such as the US, UK, Australia, Canada. Honestly, the only place I hear this carbohydrate-ba…

According to UCSF's Lustig from "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" video in Lionhearts post it's because they don't consume hardly any fructose.

I do believe though that urban Chinese and Japanese are experiencing the same health issues we are here due to increased fructose consumption.

Traditional Inuit diets consist of 0 carbohydrates and is very high in fat. They had very low levels of obesity, heart disease and diabetes being unknown.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#24

Post by GFischer » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 5:18 PM UTC

unexpected wrote: post #18

karzeem wrote: post #2

Sorry for the threadjacking, but any HNers doing caloric restriction? I'm at a normal weight, but a checkup a few months ago revealed a personal-worst blood pressure of 128/75, so I've been on CRON since then. Latest blood pressure is 110/65.

I lost almost 85 lbs with a combination of calorie-restriction + low carb.

I'm on a diet right now (calorie restriction + low carb, too), and I lost 22 pounds (10 kg) so far (goal is losing 40 pounds/18 kg overall).

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#25

Post by xiaoma » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 5:26 PM UTC

pelle wrote: post #23

xiaoma wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why are rural Chinese who live off of a rice and noodle based diet thin, while westerners who eat far more protein and fat are enormous? Measured against GDP, countries in which rice-based diets are common (Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, etc...) have very thin, very long lived people compared with the protein crazed areas such as the US, UK, Australia, Canada. Honestly, the only place I hear this carbohydrate-ba…

According to UCSF's Lustig from "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" video in Lionhearts post it's because they don't consume hardly any fructose. I do believe though that urban Chinese and Japanese are experiencing the same health issues we are here due to increased fructose consumption. Traditional Inuit diets consist of 0 carbohydrates and is very high in fat. They had very low levels of obesity, heart disease and diabetes b…

First of all, SE Asians have had access to a great deal of fruit for millenia, and rural Chinese are no exception. Secondly, Inuit are a very poor group to try to make your point with:

"Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population"

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-do-primitive...

Edit: I don't doubt that highly processed foods that are full of fructose are dangerous. Of course eating a banana is different from getting the same amount of fructose by drinking soda.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#26

Post by anonjon » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 5:34 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #19

pelle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not if you eat a lot of meat or not, it is if you eat a lot of carbohydrates or not. I know plenty of fat vegans including a family member who became diabetic and suffered a stroke because of it. Of course your and my experiences are both anecdotal, but I do believe I have heard studies showing that vegetarians do suffer disproportionately of heart disease. I'll try and google it.

Followup to that, because vegetarians eat things that are less dense in some vital nutrients, a good health-aware vegetarian will discover they need to stay away from the high-carb veggies like potatoes because they also have no nutrient value to speak of, and filling up on potatoes means you're not filling up on things high in iron (for example). (Yes, part of the reason some vegetarians are vegetarians is because p…

"(I've resolved that if any of my children ever want to be vegetarians, I'm OK with that, but a critical precondition is that they demonstrate that they have done their homework and understand the nutritional implications. I believe it can be done safely, but it's not trivial; it takes work in our environment.)"

You legitimately have a point that there are certain nutritional deficiencies that vegans/vegetarians are more prone to.

That said, I would hope that whether or not the child is a vegan, you would have him understand the nutritional implications of what he is eating. Being an omnivore safely is also quite difficult.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#27

Post by jsdalton » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 6:31 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #19

pelle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not if you eat a lot of meat or not, it is if you eat a lot of carbohydrates or not. I know plenty of fat vegans including a family member who became diabetic and suffered a stroke because of it. Of course your and my experiences are both anecdotal, but I do believe I have heard studies showing that vegetarians do suffer disproportionately of heart disease. I'll try and google it.

Followup to that, because vegetarians eat things that are less dense in some vital nutrients, a good health-aware vegetarian will discover they need to stay away from the high-carb veggies like potatoes because they also have no nutrient value to speak of, and filling up on potatoes means you're not filling up on things high in iron (for example). (Yes, part of the reason some vegetarians are vegetarians is because p…

Sorry, question, why do you say that potatoes have no nutritional value? Everything I have found seems to indicate potatoes are high in nutritional value (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Nutrition). I have also heard it said that it is possible to subsist entirely on a diet of milk and potatoes, as many Irish families did for quite a long time.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#28

Post by Psyonic » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 6:48 PM UTC

billjings wrote: post #15

JulianMorrison wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obviously right by conservation of energy, but it's equivocating the word "in". Food is "in" when you eat it, but calories are "in" when they're digested and metabolized - that's several steps further down the pipeline.

That's part of the issue. Eating slower has been suggested to help losing weight for that reason - it gives your satiety response time to kick in. The issue with calories in minus calories out is not equivocating the word "in", though. It is that it doesn't provide a useful model of how weight gain works. "Calories in" and "Calories out" are not independent variables, they are managed by the body's various feedback s…

Honestly, you might just want to stick with the notes. The book is full of good information, don't get me wrong, but it's a tough read. It's dense and slow-going, but thorough. These notes contain everything you practically need to know, so unless you're really interested in understanding it in depth, the notes will probably do.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#29

Post by lacrossegm » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 6:53 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #20

lacrossegm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American obsesity can correlated to eating too much salt, sugar and fat. Fast food makes it cheap and easy to get into a pattern where a significant portion of your daily intake is essentially a combination of sugar (soda, coffee, tea, etc), fat (burgers, fries, tacos, etc) and salt (flavoring, preservatives, etc.) If we went back to the diet before there was fast-food then we'd have a lot less obesity. People would…

Look, you just spouted the dietary dogma in the face of a book that has dozens upon dozens of references to scientific literature. The only thing stopping me saying "hundreds" is I'm not quite sure if it gets up to 200, though I bet it does. (I don't have it in front of me to check.) Even if you're completely right (which I do not believe despite being raised on that theory), simply re-spouting it is not an adequate…

I was referring to concepts presented in "The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite" by David Kessler.

Of course, I wouldn't expect a lot of people on HN to agree, thus the down-votes.

A lot of the food industry is based on pumping the salt, sugar and fat so that we eat/buy more. So people focused on making money are more likely to side with Taubes (even if he's wrong) than with Kessler.

If I could down vote this thread, I would.

Re: Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes | Higher Thought

#30

Post by Psyonic » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 6:54 PM UTC

pelle wrote: post #14

yummyfajitas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be that vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious than meat eaters. Someone who is vegetarian (and comes from a meat eating nation) has definitely put some thought into their diet, whereas the meat eater may not have.

This study that Taubes references says that certain groups of vegetarians often identified as being healthier are frequent nut eaters: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479222 Interestingly if I recall correctly he mentions that 7th day adventists (vegetarians) have roughly the same heart disease level as Mormons (meat eaters).

as Mormons (meat eaters):

meat eaters who should be nearly vegetarians (although definitely are not, in general): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Wisdom#Meat