Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

[ST]

Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition: Gary Taubes.

For those interested, astounding work and data driven evidence is contained in the 500 pages of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

He's not.

He's the king of cherry picking the data that supports his view

read this gentleman's series on insulin:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/

Taubes bases almost his entire thesis on discredited studies from the 80s which showed obese people consume fewer calories than thin people. Those studies relied on self reporting of food intake and exercise.

He completely ignores the debunking of those studies by doubly labeled water data studies, which prove excess weight is excess calories. These studies prove that almost everyone under-reports caloric intake and over-reports activity, the obese do a worse job than the skinny, and a small fraction of the skinny actually over-report caloric intake.

Recent studies (like Gardner's ATOZ) show that some people can reduce their weight with a low carbohydrate diet better than with a high carbohydrate diet (and the opposite is true too), one's overall calorie status must still be in deficit.

Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition: Gary Taubes.

For those interested, astounding work and data driven evidence is contained in the 500 pages of "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

[ST]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

Clearly you have not read the book.

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

clearly

Clearly you have not read the book and neither has the critic.

[ST]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

clearly

About 150 years of studies across several fields are discussed in detail, not to mention the evolution of dietary/nutritional thought in the U.S. and U.K. and detailed pathology related to the diseases of civilization. One thing which is striking is the cluster of diseases that appear with metabolic syndrome and evidence for common causes. The weight of this evidence caused me to rethink several of my preconceived notions, of which I always accepted without much evidence, mainly due to what I can only call the common sense consensus.

[flintlock]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

This is why I can never get down to the real truth of the matter on this issue. Who do you believe? Everyone seems to have an agenda to prove, so they can write a book claiming a breakthrough. I'm not claiming this guy is a fraud, only that all authors must report something as being complex. Otherwise its a short and boring book titled "Fat people eat too much and don't exercise". So instead of "science" I turn to my personal observations considering obesity and why it is so prevalent in the USA.

I'm more inclined to agree with Spartacus in that people under report what they eat in these studies. People can tend to really put it away in the privacy of their own homes.( this goes for me at times!) Who wants to report they ate a quart of Ben and Jerry's after that large dinner?

But then again, something is seriously wrong here. People are getting fatter than it seems possible. I'm talking 100, 200 lbs or more overweight. These are quite common now.( go to any Walmart on the weekend). I find it hard to believe they are merely consuming too many calories, because at some point the uncomfortable feeling of being full should kick in and make them stop. Right? Apparently either it does not kick in or the food they do eat chemically produces more fat than it should for some reason. Many books today seem to focus on this aspect that its "what you eat" vs " how much you eat". I think it's a little of both.

I just see these 400lb obese people and think, " I couldn't get there if I tried " . Or could I?

A clue to this answer lies in history. Morbidly obese people were fairly uncommon just 100 years ago. And its not because they were all out working behind a plow either. The availability of "quick" foods, microwave ovens, corn syrup, and an extremely low level of physical activity all leads to our obesity. Its far easier today to buy and prepare food. You can scoop up a weeks food in seconds at the grocery store. Pop it in the microwave and 4 minutes later you are scarfing it down. Modern technology has made it easier to pack calories into relatively small volumes of food, and to prepare it faster. Americans crave fatty foods which are high in calories as well as fats. Many eat nothing but greasy fried foods or foods with sugar added. They'd never touch a fruit or vegetable. And this crappy food is cheap too. I suspect people were less obese in past times because they couldn't afford to be fat. Now our "Poor" people are also some of the fattest.

I also realize we have a lot of nervous eating. Eating for some is a pressure release. We live in a fast paced, high pressure world. Eating is almost like the national pastime. It's something to do to fill our spare time. Eating is recreational. 100 years ago we'd be turning in for the night at 8pm because there was nothing else to do with no lights or electricity. Today we throw a snack in the micro at 9pm and watch " Dancing with the Stars ".

But despite this I can't help but wonder if there is some other issue at play. Is there something in this food we eat that changes our endocrine system in some manner? Perhaps. But all of this would be moot if we merely ate less and moved around a bit more.

Despite all the talk about fats, I think the main culprit is sugar. Sugar was a rare treat in the past. Now it is placed in almost every processed food item. Kids grow up not wanting to eat anything that doesn't have a sweet taste to it. "Fruit Snacks" are nothing but sugar globs. People don't drink water anymore. They drink soda pop. Mostly sugar and water.

In summary, imo the obesity epidemic is the direct result of:

1) high sugar in diets

2) low physical activity levels

3) Nervous eating

4) High calorie processed foods and fried foods and the ease at which we can obtain them.

[ST]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

I agree with the unrefined carbs & sugar, so I think you're mostly right. The sad part is that the 'low fat' has been pushed to such extreme that this stealth reduction in fat calories in many foods has to be replaced with carb content, which exacerbates the problem (more sugar, less fat). This lecture may be of interest by the same author (the book is an extended discussion of the evidence and pathology, etc... - for me, this type of data driven analysis contained in the book tends to be the only thing that alters my view).

Three things seem to always evoke strong responses from people - religion, politics & nutrition.

[jk]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

i have a lot of respect for taubes. these subjects have been a long term on and off side interest of mine. i spent 4 days in april at a conference in seattle [american society for bariatric medicine {not the surgeons} and the metabolism society] on obesity and metabolism, and taubes was a featured guest speaker. i suggest you look up rogermexico's "panu" thread on this board - it reflects a lot of taubes' thinking and is good stuff.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

He's not.

He's the king of cherry picking the data that supports his view

read this gentleman's series on insulin:
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/

When I search for Good Calories, Bad Calories Gary Taubes James Krieger, it seems that Krieger has recently embarked on a vendetta against Taubes. So far, I don't trust Krieger's motivations or conclusions.

It's been a while since I read Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories, but glancing over it again, I find it credible. The kind of calories one consumes affects ones weight and health, out of proportion to just the number of calories. Glucose, fructose, and gluten are problematic in excess proportion.

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

When I search for Good Calories, Bad Calories Gary Taubes James Krieger, it seems that Krieger has recently embarked on a vendetta against Taubes. So far, I don't trust Krieger's motivations or conclusions.

It's been a while since I read Taubes Good Calories, Bad Calories, but glancing over it again, I find it credible. The kind of calories one consumes affects ones weight and health, out of proportion to just the number of calories. Glucose, fructose, and gluten are problematic in excess proportion.

Did you maintain a skeptical attitude the whole time you read the book, and after reading it?

Did you ask what the author's getting wrong?



What's "trust" got to do with it? Science is not about trust but about skeptically reading ALL the available data.

Read the references that each party cites; if you can't get medline just check out the dates Taubes has few references past the 1980s, Krieger's work is choc full of them.

Taubes ignores some very basic, fundamental science to make his case. Krieger is against misinformation. A lot of us are.

Taubes vs Krieger == Browne/Geller/Popoff vs Randi (K is R)
Taubes vs Krieger == "N-rays" vs Wood (K is W)
Taubes vs Krieger == Whitney vs Reed


If you don't trust Krieger, fine ... check out Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald and Anthony Colpo and tons of others who inlcude all the data and go where the science takes them, instead of finding the science that supports their preconceived notions, including the vast numbers that abandoned the Atkins diet when it did not work.

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

I'm becoming strident & argumentative, which i hate so I'll end with this.

IMHO you've been convinced by a good writer using selective evidence

That's NOT how science is supposed to work

A good scientist - anyone searching for the truth, includes ALL the available evidence in his analysis, not only that data that supports his view. Otherwise one ends up like the current crop of vaccine / autism believers, and "N-ray" believers.

About 150 years of studies across several fields are discussed in detail, not to mention the evolution of dietary/nutritional thought in the U.S. and U.K. and detailed pathology related to the diseases of civilization. One thing which is striking is the cluster of diseases that appear with metabolic syndrome and evidence for common causes. The weight of this evidence caused me to rethink several of my preconceived notions, of which I always accepted without much evidence, mainly due to what I can only call the common sense consensus.

In what other fields would you prefer to omit almost all of the science done after the 1980s, and include studies that have been proven wrong?

Neurology?

molecular genetics?

How long into the book did you maintain a skeptical attitude?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

Did you maintain a skeptical attitude the whole time you read the book, and after reading it?

Did you ask what the author's getting wrong?

Did you peruse the discussions that show up from the Good Calories, Bad Calories Gary Taubes James Krieger search I suggested, and apply your same recommendations to your views of Krieger? I saw a couple of hits on that search which took a pretty dim view of Krieger's remarks, giving him a dose of the same medicine he was giving Taubes.

I don't decide such matters by whether someone can appear to punch holes in someone else's lengthy work. A show of such hole punching can almost always be made.

Primarily I form my own opinions, integrating what I've read from a variety of sources and my own experiences.

I also consider the attitude of the presenter. Mr. Krieger was pretty clearly doing his best to put down Taubes. Such unsympathetic readings of someone elses work are often wrong, in my experience.

[jk]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

the studies i saw presented at the april '10 conference i attended were current. the studies and analyses and critiques i keep up with at the hyperlipid blog, wholehealthsource, diabetesupdate, paleonu.com and others are all current.

[Spartacus]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

Have I subjected JK to skepticism? You've read some of my corpus - what do you think?

this is a real scientist, the other's a pretender.
http://weightology.net/?p=321
___________________________

using debunked studies (that prove his point) and excluding studies that disprove his point. Taubes begins and ends there for me.

your post appears as if you think (correct me if I'm wrong) that I read one James Krieger post & was convinced that Taubes is wrong.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt .

I read GCBC 2 years ago, large parts of it several times (although "clearly" I didn't read it)

I totally believed it for a while until my normal skepticism led to some google searches, which led to GT's use of debunked studies & exclusion of disproving studies.

I came across JK long after, around the time of this : http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/0...omment-page-1/
which was long after I'd stopped listening to GT as a completely unreliable source of information.

I've followed the back and forth betweens the GT groupies & JK and respectfully, only those who've swallowed the kool-aid, bought GT's fake bill of goods would think the Taubes followers gave JK "his medicine". They've tried & none has succeded. They mostly don't know the science.

I said I'd stop on this & I will(o). You've been sold a bill of goods. 500 pages to lull you to sleep, have your skepticism creep away & voila - a true believer's born. Find the debunked studies GT relies on & you'll realize it.

(o) this time I really really mean it.

[ST]

Re: Janszen's Equivalent in the Field of Health/Nutrition

It is difficult to maintain a skeptical attitude for very long when one's own personal experience and monitoring of all the relevant health indicators matches the experience presented throughout various groups and even, at first skeptical doctors themselves, noted in the book. What is odd is that for 80 years all of what is presented in the book was conventional thinking, later seemingly hijacked by a few influential scientists, bad science and dogma.

I'm not sure how one can justify such statements (pre 1980 only evidence?) after reading the book and looking at what evidence which is presented right up until the time of publication. As for judging good science, it is difficult to find more a credible source than Taubes, as his achievements demonstrate. Is he right? Who knows, but when your own clinical history defys the conventional consensus line and alternatively matches the experience of many others, you go looking for answers and in particular to the question - Is dietary fat actually bad for you? or is the inevitable upping of carbohydrates in a low fat diet, worse? Fat does not drive insulin (the hormone which regulates fat deposits) - everyone knows this, so when you look at the pathology the questions that develop beyond become quite simple and then it's a matter of looking at all of the trials that have been performed in history and whether they have tested various related hypotheses correctly, or not.

Obviously, again it's a topic which is as heated as politics and religion for people. I suppose I should know better than to bring it up or to expect people to do their own reading and come to their own conclusions about anyone's work, without outsourcing such analysis to critics. I don't really have a regular job; I read all day and think. The consequence is that I have ingested an enormous quantity of non-fiction work...and conclusion was that the only other data driven work of this quality was EJ's in macroeconomics; thus the comparison.

To each his own. Frankly, I'm sorry I brought it up.

p.s. jk thanks for the tip - I'll check it out; you probably have already seen it but Lustig's "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on youtube is well worth watching, as well