Complete Notes to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

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

#31

Post by Psyonic » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 6:58 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…

The funny thing is that Taubes book basically recommends you do away with those things anyway: who likes burgers without the bun? fries are out, shakes are out, tacos without the shell? no thanks, etc, etc.

Where he differs, he has a lot more science to back it up.

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

#32

Post by bobdole2695 » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 8:12 PM UTC

jsdalton wrote: post #27

jerf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Survive does not mean thrive.

The Irish have also had a long time to adapt to that diet. They're much less carb sensitive than others. Hence the difference between people from cultures who've eaten a traditionally low-carb diet vs those eating a high-carb diet. Native Americans suffer greatly, but those who traditionally farmed (Asians who eat rice for example) are healthy.

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

#33

Post by lacrossegm » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 8:53 PM UTC

Psyonic wrote: post #31

jerf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The funny thing is that Taubes book basically recommends you do away with those things anyway: who likes burgers without the bun? fries are out, shakes are out, tacos without the shell? no thanks, etc, etc. Where he differs, he has a lot more science to back it up.

I'm not so sure about the science.

This quote is taken from the wiki article on Gary Taubes

"Although Taubes has no formal training in nutrition or medicine, his book was praised as "raising interesting and valuable points" by Dr. Andrew Weil, while Dr. Mehmet Oz and trainer Jillian Michaels who appeared on the same program disagreed with Taubes on many questions. [6]"

I think we have to question the science when he states that exercise is an inefficient tool for weight loss.

Taubes is against refined carbs (OK, that does make sense) but is a bit of a nutter on other causes and solutions to obesity.

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

#34

Post by karzeem » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 9:06 PM UTC

jessep wrote: post #5

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'd love to hear about your experience, as I'm intrigued by the idea of trying caloric restriction but am somewhat stymied by the details. Specifically, how did you transition to a restricted diet? How have you felt, both emotionally and physically, throughout the process? What is a typical day like in terms of intake? Where do you get recipes? Do you count calories?

I transitioned pretty much in one day. I'm not sure if I'm doing it perfectly, but it's gone quite well so far. I got some background on it from this article in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11Calories-t.html...

and the details from a vigorous Googling. I'm 6 feet tall, 165 lbs, and probably moderately physically active, so I picked a daily target of 1800 calories. That was based on some online calculators I found and anecdotes from people doing caloric restriction.

You can eat anything. The trick is not using up your whole quota on empty calories. If I have a can of soda and a cup of Ben and Jerry's, that's 37% of the day's calories right there, with pretty much no nutritional value. So you can have junk food, but not so much that it's going to make it hard to get all the nutrients to need while staying under your whole quota.

Another guideline is that if you end every day hungry, you're doing it wrong. Cheese will fill up your quota without filling you up. Fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, are filling and nutritious without packing a lot of calories. I shoot for a roughly even three-way split between calories from fat, protein, and carbs. I don't really use "special" caloric restriction recipes; I just cook/prepare whatever I want, while staying within the rules. I eat out a few times a week too.

Typical breakfast is eggs, maybe with mushrooms or something thrown in, and a fruit. A lunch might be chicken or fish with salad, or maybe a sandwich (bread is calorically dense, though, so careful). Dinner is pretty much the same as lunch, except that it's almost never a sandwich, is probably a bit more food, and includes red meat more frequently. Lentils and beans are all-around excellent, by the way.

I do count calories, because it would be too easy to lose track or cheat otherwise. I use Daily Burn, which has a huge number of foods in their database, and if I eat something they don't have, I guesstimate using things they do have. Counting calories makes it a lot easier to stick with it, because the more aware you are of what you're eating, the less tempted you are to be naughty.

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

#35

Post by yish » Thu, Jan 21, 2010, 10:26 PM UTC

kowen wrote: post #21

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…

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.

Actually the notes indicate the opposite, that meat was more lean when it was free-range, hunted for and todays meat (grown in feed lots, etc) is much more fatty.

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

#36

Post by astrec » Fri, Jan 22, 2010, 12:15 AM UTC

yish wrote: post #35

kowen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually the notes indicate the opposite, that meat was more lean when it was free-range, hunted for and todays meat (grown in feed lots, etc) is much more fatty.

This is strikingly obvious - even in modern agriculture - when moving between countries with lots of grain fed beef (USA) and those with paddocks of grass fed beef (Australia, Argentina).

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

#37

Post by Psyonic » Fri, Jan 22, 2010, 5:50 AM UTC

lacrossegm wrote: post #33

Psyonic wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing is that Taubes book basically recommends you do away with those things anyway: who likes burgers without the bun? fries are out, shakes are out, tacos without the shell? no thanks, etc, etc. Where he differs, he has a lot more science to back it up.

I'm not so sure about the science. This quote is taken from the wiki article on Gary Taubes "Although Taubes has no formal training in nutrition or medicine, his book was praised as "raising interesting and valuable points" by Dr. Andrew Weil, while Dr. Mehmet Oz and trainer Jillian Michaels who appeared on the same program disagreed with Taubes on many questions. [6]" I think we have to question the science when he…

Perhaps you're right. I'm definitely not qualified to say for certain, but it's something I'll look into.

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

#38

Post by jessep » Fri, Jan 22, 2010, 9:22 AM UTC

karzeem wrote: post #34

jessep wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to hear about your experience, as I'm intrigued by the idea of trying caloric restriction but am somewhat stymied by the details. Specifically, how did you transition to a restricted diet? How have you felt, both emotionally and physically, throughout the process? What is a typical day like in terms of intake? Where do you get recipes? Do you count calories?

I transitioned pretty much in one day. I'm not sure if I'm doing it perfectly, but it's gone quite well so far. I got some background on it from this article in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11Calories-t.html... and the details from a vigorous Googling. I'm 6 feet tall, 165 lbs, and probably moderately physically active, so I picked a daily target of 1800 calories. That was based on some online…

Thanks! This is helpful, and I think I'll give it a shot. I've pretty much already transitioned to eating mostly fruits/veggies/meats/whole grains, so I guess the main thing would be simply focus less on the grains and start counting calories.

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

#39

Post by jessep » Fri, Jan 22, 2010, 9:28 AM UTC

nova wrote: post #8

kowen wrote: post #3

Taubes' take on the caloric balance equation (thermodynamic law) is fascinating. Change in energy stores = Energy intake – Energy expenditure According to my biochemistry professor in college, this had one - and only one - interpretation: The change in energy stores is controlled by energy intake and energy expenditure. The right side of the equation controls the left side of the equation. Also, there was an implied…

Just write the equation like this: Energy intake - Energy expenditure - Change in energy stores = 0 There. Just f(x,y,z)=0. That's what the first law really says. There is no causality implied, it just a first integral of the "motion" of metabolism that the body, naturally, has to follow. It does NOT say what variables are free to independently modify. It's just a relation the three of them have to obey.

I'm confused by the application of this law to food. My reason: excrement.

You put some mass that contains chemical energy into your body. Then that mass comes out of your body, minus SOME of the chemical energy. How much of it is extracted? What determines this? I have no idea. That said, I think it is funny to treat it as if the only way to get rid of energy is expenditure. How about:

Energy intake - Energy Ependiture - Energy still in food when it comes out the other end = Change in energy stores

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

#40

Post by nova » Fri, Jan 22, 2010, 12:54 PM UTC

jessep wrote: post #39

nova wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just write the equation like this: Energy intake - Energy expenditure - Change in energy stores = 0 There. Just f(x,y,z)=0. That's what the first law really says. There is no causality implied, it just a first integral of the "motion" of metabolism that the body, naturally, has to follow. It does NOT say what variables are free to independently modify. It's just a relation the three of them have to obey.

I'm confused by the application of this law to food. My reason: excrement. You put some mass that contains chemical energy into your body. Then that mass comes out of your body, minus SOME of the chemical energy. How much of it is extracted? What determines this? I have no idea. That said, I think it is funny to treat it as if the only way to get rid of energy is expenditure. How about: Energy intake - Energy Ependit…

Yes you can decompose it further but it doesn't matter. Just consider that "energy intake" is the energy actually absorbed by your body, not what you put in your mouth. (Try eating grass. It has energy, but we can't use it)

My point is that a lot of people misinterpret conservation of energy assigning it a direction of causality it doesn't have. It's a constraint between variables (not an assignation as in programming languages) which are under complex feedback control systems in the body, and that's why the kind of calories you eat (fats vs carbohydrates) DOES matter, you don't eat abstract pure energy but as you say mass with chemical energy that has to be metabolized.

That's why starvation diets (just counting theoretical calories, which are numbers obtained in laboratories, dismissing the type of macronutrient) often fails in the long term and leave serious damage. The book talks long about this.