Gary Taubes: 'Obesity isn’t a calorie problem, it’s a hormone problem'(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Gary Taubes: 'Obesity isn’t a calorie problem, it’s a hormone problem'
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/17/gary-taubes-interview-obesity-calories-hormones-case-for-keto
95 comments
Bodybuilders by definition are self-selected subset of people who can consistently apply high self discipline and dedicate a lot of energy and willpower on that. I think it's pretty safe to count them as outliers when looking at solutions to obesity in the general population.
Actors also have to bulk up or slim down for roles. Probably however you have a higher self discipline when you're getting paid for it.
on edit: quick nme listicle on actors gaining losing weight, body modification for roles https://www.nme.com/photos/15-actors-who-underwent-incredibl...
on edit: quick nme listicle on actors gaining losing weight, body modification for roles https://www.nme.com/photos/15-actors-who-underwent-incredibl...
Also the glossy mag articles don't get written about the actors who fail or struggle with it. Or drop out of acting with long term weight/diet/eating disorder problems as a result. Survivor bias.
I think an actor successful enough to make that list is likewise far from typical. Maybe some get lucky, but most actors detail years of discipline breaking into the field.
Bodybuilders are not a representative population. There is extreme selection bias. They are obsessed about one thing, go to extreme length to achieve it, often to pathological lengths. It's like pointing out monks taking vows of chastity, solitude and silence and claiming that anyone can easily ignore their sex drive and other social needs.
Bodybuilding is rife with PED usage, which is itself a form of hormone manipulation.
I don't think they ignore body builders.
Body builders just have a lot more discipline and will to win at this than the rest of us. So the straight "cut down on calories" strategy can work for them.
For everyone else, they need to not feel hungry while doing it.
In the same way that the most motivated students will overcome a bad teacher, but most will instead not learn anything compared to an interesting teacher.
Body builders just have a lot more discipline and will to win at this than the rest of us. So the straight "cut down on calories" strategy can work for them.
For everyone else, they need to not feel hungry while doing it.
In the same way that the most motivated students will overcome a bad teacher, but most will instead not learn anything compared to an interesting teacher.
Bodybuilders are at their weakest after they loose all that fat for competition. And they dehydrate themselves as a bonus. They sometimes even faint due to that.
It is not healthy what they do around competition. It is not workable advice for general population either, because acting like that all the time is pretty much definition of eating disorder.
It is not healthy what they do around competition. It is not workable advice for general population either, because acting like that all the time is pretty much definition of eating disorder.
Yes they take it to the extreme, the unhealthy extreme. Competition day is not a maintainable look and is your body at its weakest, it’s a one day event only. No normal person needs to or aspire to be a competition day bodybuilder unless they want to win a bodybuilding competition, guessing most don’t and most people couldn’t.
It’s definitely not healthy to go to that extreme but I do think there is a lot in following the process and general diet to loose fat then maintain it at a reasonable level.
If you take the competition extreme side out of it the bodybuilding diet is pretty good. Complex carbs, lean meats, lots of greens, nuts and seeds for fats. Fitness model might be a better example as they don’t push it to the extremes are lean but can maintain the shape quiet healthily.
It’s definitely not healthy to go to that extreme but I do think there is a lot in following the process and general diet to loose fat then maintain it at a reasonable level.
If you take the competition extreme side out of it the bodybuilding diet is pretty good. Complex carbs, lean meats, lots of greens, nuts and seeds for fats. Fitness model might be a better example as they don’t push it to the extremes are lean but can maintain the shape quiet healthily.
If you've followed bodybuilders cutting weight you'll notice they talk about few of the most important things. Counting calories, diet and rest.
One of the top things they change in their diet is cutting sugar and carbs.
One of the top things they change in their diet is cutting sugar and carbs.
This suffers from potential selection bias. Bodybuilders may be among those with the right hormones to do that while everyone else doesn't approach it or drops out eventually.
>A lot of these articles ignore bodybuilders.
>Bodybuilders are experts at loosing fat getting in to single digit body fat percentages consistently and methodically.
Or maybe body builders don't include the subset of the population that has the claimed hormone problem.
Or maybe body builders don't include the subset of the population that has the claimed hormone problem.
What does the "bodybuilder cutting fat" diet look like?
Basic carbs mainly oats, rice or potatoes etc. Lean meat mainly chicken or fish. Lots of green veg, often steamed, a salad etc. Fats are from things such as nuts, avocados, eggs etc not cooking oils. Maybe a banana or odd piece of fruit but generally lots of veg and greens over fruit to avoid sugar. Avoid dairy as calorie dense.
Carbs will be reduced compared to non cutting but still consumed regardless. Normally it’s carbs that get manipulated, lowering them slightly or increase slightly depending on if cutting or bulking.
It’s simple and unglamorous and that’s likely why most people don’t eat like that as it’s simple or as people will say bland and boring. Even if you mix it up with spices and how you cook/prepare it, it’s the same basic core meal.
If you are not bodybuilding and only interested in loosing fat you can likely reduce the amount of protein (meat). You then end up close to a “whole food” diet I see people talk about these days minus the oils and sauces which are calorie dense.
Carbs will be reduced compared to non cutting but still consumed regardless. Normally it’s carbs that get manipulated, lowering them slightly or increase slightly depending on if cutting or bulking.
It’s simple and unglamorous and that’s likely why most people don’t eat like that as it’s simple or as people will say bland and boring. Even if you mix it up with spices and how you cook/prepare it, it’s the same basic core meal.
If you are not bodybuilding and only interested in loosing fat you can likely reduce the amount of protein (meat). You then end up close to a “whole food” diet I see people talk about these days minus the oils and sauces which are calorie dense.
People are talking about thermodynamics here as if your body is a fire and every single thing put in is consumed entirely and exactly for each and every person. Can you gaurantee a 100 calories equivalent food will produce 100 calories worth of energy conversation and gaurantee this for every single individual.
I think this is the opposite of physics envy. People try to dumb down a whole science by waving hands and saying "physics, bitches!"
I think this is the opposite of physics envy. People try to dumb down a whole science by waving hands and saying "physics, bitches!"
Sure it's a bit more complicated, and it's a fire that doesn't burn 100% of all different fuels. But it's still thermodynamics, but with byproducts that "waste" some macros more than others, which is good if you want to keep your weight down. Edit: And all the second order effects of hormonal/hunger changes.
Physics doesn't stop working in humans.
Physics doesn't stop working in humans.
Sure, physics doesn't stop working. My argument is, are you sure the "its only physics" people are modeling the world in a correct, precise way and there aren't other factors to be considered beyond what they propose.
The point I think the author is making isn't 'calorie counting is wrong' -- 'calorie counting is not the whole picture'. When someone says software is just 1s and 0s, How hard can building software be? You're right its 1s and 0s, but that's not an entirely helpful model to work with if you're trying to build software.
For example, you could say the number of people coming out of a building will equal the number of people that go into a building, its basic Maths - counting is the only thing you need. Now if the person uses this logic for a maternity hospital and they suddenly find out there are more people coming out than are going in. It doesn't mean that math is broken.
The point I think the author is making isn't 'calorie counting is wrong' -- 'calorie counting is not the whole picture'. When someone says software is just 1s and 0s, How hard can building software be? You're right its 1s and 0s, but that's not an entirely helpful model to work with if you're trying to build software.
For example, you could say the number of people coming out of a building will equal the number of people that go into a building, its basic Maths - counting is the only thing you need. Now if the person uses this logic for a maternity hospital and they suddenly find out there are more people coming out than are going in. It doesn't mean that math is broken.
I don't disagree about your example, but that works both ways. That's why you measure mass and not units of something of arbitrary size.
Energy enters through front door or delivery trucks, energy leaves through sewers, windows/chimneys or front door.
Energy enters through front door or delivery trucks, energy leaves through sewers, windows/chimneys or front door.
Pointing to thermodynamics is the same "bootstraps" mentality you see elsewhere, just applied to food and health instead of money.
Just like telling the poor "just make more money", it might technically be true but it is such an unhelpful and useless thing to say, that it is hard to believe the speaker is trying to help and not just make themselves feel better.
So I don't think it's physics, I think it's some people just enjoy pretending systemic effects - inequality, privilege and just blind luck don't matter.
Just like telling the poor "just make more money", it might technically be true but it is such an unhelpful and useless thing to say, that it is hard to believe the speaker is trying to help and not just make themselves feel better.
So I don't think it's physics, I think it's some people just enjoy pretending systemic effects - inequality, privilege and just blind luck don't matter.
Yup. And the science shows it's not that simple.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2246056-there-is-no-per...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2246056-there-is-no-per...
[deleted]
No but if you take 15% less food for a month and then 30% less in the next month, you will lose weights twice faster...
Source: i did the graphs for myself over a few months.. cico works if you calibrate first for a month
Source: i did the graphs for myself over a few months.. cico works if you calibrate first for a month
Then, if you fast for the third month, you... vanish?
Haha.
well from my own experience there's a percentage of body fat where you actually start some sort of starvation mode where you have 0 energy whatsover. during the evening i used to stare at the wall for like 4 hours before going to sleep because i had no interest in anything. it was quite peaceful though.
Also I felt that some muscle parts were deteriorating so I had to stop.. i would not recommend anyway but it was a fun experience.
I also realized something: body image perception is subjective.. i did that because I thought I was fat. when I took 1kg more after that and I was at 69kg i though it was the end of the world. now i'm like 10 kg more and even though i still think I'm fat, I don't think I'm 10x more fat than back and actually I think I look slightly better (there are other factors.. i do thai boxing so I have more muscle shape also..).
The point is I always felt the same at every weight. I felt "I'm fat". Now I just learnt to live with the "i'm fat" thought into my head and i'm good lol.
well from my own experience there's a percentage of body fat where you actually start some sort of starvation mode where you have 0 energy whatsover. during the evening i used to stare at the wall for like 4 hours before going to sleep because i had no interest in anything. it was quite peaceful though.
Also I felt that some muscle parts were deteriorating so I had to stop.. i would not recommend anyway but it was a fun experience.
I also realized something: body image perception is subjective.. i did that because I thought I was fat. when I took 1kg more after that and I was at 69kg i though it was the end of the world. now i'm like 10 kg more and even though i still think I'm fat, I don't think I'm 10x more fat than back and actually I think I look slightly better (there are other factors.. i do thai boxing so I have more muscle shape also..).
The point is I always felt the same at every weight. I felt "I'm fat". Now I just learnt to live with the "i'm fat" thought into my head and i'm good lol.
I'm not sure I understand what he's getting at.
> The conventional approaches don’t work because while we can sustain eating less for a while, eventually the hunger gets us because we’re semi-starving ourselves.
So it's all about calories then but people just have a hard time consuming less calories and he wants to make it easier for them? Well okay but it's still absolutely about calories just like it's always been and always will be.
> The conventional approaches don’t work because while we can sustain eating less for a while, eventually the hunger gets us because we’re semi-starving ourselves.
So it's all about calories then but people just have a hard time consuming less calories and he wants to make it easier for them? Well okay but it's still absolutely about calories just like it's always been and always will be.
His answer to "what do we know so far?" is that "the most impressive research" was an experiment with no control, conducted by a start-up, which then published the results on their company blog. OK, next.
Your characterization of the experiment is so wrong it's almost hard to know where to start. This is an interventional clinical trial with a large group of participants (hundreds) with a control receiving standard of care run by IU Health with ongoing measurements over years (which is incredibly impressive). You can see the clinical trial registration here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02519309
And some of the (ongoing) peer-reviewed publications here:
Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, Hallberg SJ, et al. Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019; 10:348. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00348
Hallberg SJ, McKenzie AL, Williams P, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Care Model for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes at One Year: An Open Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Diabetes Therapy. 2018; 9(2): 583-612. doi: 10.1007/s13300-018-0373-9
McKenzie AL, Hallberg SJ, Creighton BC, et al. A Novel Intervention Including Individualized Nutritional Recommendations Reduces Hemoglobin A1c Level, Medication Use, and Weight in Type 2 Diabetes. JMIR Diabetes. 2017; 2(1):e5.
Bhanpuri NH, Hallberg SJ, Williams PT, McKenzie AL, Ballard KD, Campbell WW, McCarter JP, Phinney SD, Volek JS. Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Responses to a Type 2 Diabetes Care Model Including Nutritional Ketosis at One Year: An Open Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018; 17:56. doi:10.1186/s12933-018-0698-8
Vilar-Gomez E, Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, et al Post hoc analyses of surrogate markers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and liver fibrosis in patients with type 2 diabetes in a digitally supported continuous care intervention: an open-label, non-randomised controlled study BMJ Open 2019;9:e023597. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023597
Siegmann MJ, Athinarayanan SJ, Hallberg SJ, et al. Improvement in Patient-Reported Sleep in Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes Participants Receiving a Continuous Care Intervention with Nutritional Ketosis. Sleep Medicine. 2019; 55: 92 - 99. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2018.12.014
And some of the (ongoing) peer-reviewed publications here:
Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, Hallberg SJ, et al. Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019; 10:348. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00348
Hallberg SJ, McKenzie AL, Williams P, et al. Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Care Model for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes at One Year: An Open Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Diabetes Therapy. 2018; 9(2): 583-612. doi: 10.1007/s13300-018-0373-9
McKenzie AL, Hallberg SJ, Creighton BC, et al. A Novel Intervention Including Individualized Nutritional Recommendations Reduces Hemoglobin A1c Level, Medication Use, and Weight in Type 2 Diabetes. JMIR Diabetes. 2017; 2(1):e5.
Bhanpuri NH, Hallberg SJ, Williams PT, McKenzie AL, Ballard KD, Campbell WW, McCarter JP, Phinney SD, Volek JS. Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Responses to a Type 2 Diabetes Care Model Including Nutritional Ketosis at One Year: An Open Label, Non-Randomized, Controlled Study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018; 17:56. doi:10.1186/s12933-018-0698-8
Vilar-Gomez E, Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, et al Post hoc analyses of surrogate markers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and liver fibrosis in patients with type 2 diabetes in a digitally supported continuous care intervention: an open-label, non-randomised controlled study BMJ Open 2019;9:e023597. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023597
Siegmann MJ, Athinarayanan SJ, Hallberg SJ, et al. Improvement in Patient-Reported Sleep in Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes Participants Receiving a Continuous Care Intervention with Nutritional Ketosis. Sleep Medicine. 2019; 55: 92 - 99. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2018.12.014
I am sorry that you are downvoted and getting negative responses, you are exactly right.
Beside the implementation problems (non-randomized etc.) and the backer problem (result is self-serving) the study is literally just "we give patients and intricate personal treatment with daily expert interventions" vs "go on live your life". You explain this away with the Hawthorne effect alone.
Really reminds me of the sugar propaganda some decades ago. They used the exact same combination you see embodied in this thread: Anecdata, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, Ad Hominem.
Here is a nice poster to illustrate: " Are you making your children pay for your weight problem?" - Sugar Information, Inc. ad [c.1966]https://old.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/db4mmp/a...
Beside the implementation problems (non-randomized etc.) and the backer problem (result is self-serving) the study is literally just "we give patients and intricate personal treatment with daily expert interventions" vs "go on live your life". You explain this away with the Hawthorne effect alone.
Really reminds me of the sugar propaganda some decades ago. They used the exact same combination you see embodied in this thread: Anecdata, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, Ad Hominem.
Here is a nice poster to illustrate: " Are you making your children pay for your weight problem?" - Sugar Information, Inc. ad [c.1966]https://old.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/db4mmp/a...
> Beside the implementation problems (non-randomized etc.) and the backer problem (result is self-serving) the study is literally just "we give patients and intricate personal treatment with daily expert interventions" vs "go on live your life". You explain this away with the Hawthorne effect alone.
I am sorry to say that just as atdt was making things up, you are as well. The control group did not just get told "go on live your life" - they received "Usual Care" (Standard of Care) for T2D. There's a whole section in the first paper linked about it:
"The participants recruited for usual care (UC) received care from their primary care physician or endocrinologist and were counseled by a registered dietician as part of a diabetes education program. These participants received the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommendations on nutrition, lifestyle and diabetes management. No modification of their care was made for the study and routine biomarkers (weight, glucose and ketones) were not collected from these participants. This group was used as a reference control to study the effect of disease progression over 2 years in a cohort of participants prospectively recruited from the same geography and healthcare system."
Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, Hallberg SJ, et al. Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019; 10:348. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00348
For anyone who's actually interested in the science or methodology of the research, the peer-reviewed work has been linked (and I believe is all open access, if not, it's on sci-hub), and it is written in a pretty accessible manner IMO. The PI, Sarah Hallberg, has quite a few presentations online, including some that delve deeper into some of the details and the pros/cons of their study design (the biggest pro IMO is that they were able to use a biomarker (blood BHB) to track adherence). This of course, is just a single study - there are lots more studies and papers (I've read thousands on the topic area over the past few years). Human nutrition and metabolic health is a minefield, for a variety of reasons and people should be skeptical, but that's also no excuse for adding to the misinformation pile.
I am sorry to say that just as atdt was making things up, you are as well. The control group did not just get told "go on live your life" - they received "Usual Care" (Standard of Care) for T2D. There's a whole section in the first paper linked about it:
"The participants recruited for usual care (UC) received care from their primary care physician or endocrinologist and were counseled by a registered dietician as part of a diabetes education program. These participants received the American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommendations on nutrition, lifestyle and diabetes management. No modification of their care was made for the study and routine biomarkers (weight, glucose and ketones) were not collected from these participants. This group was used as a reference control to study the effect of disease progression over 2 years in a cohort of participants prospectively recruited from the same geography and healthcare system."
Athinarayanan SJ, Adams RN, Hallberg SJ, et al. Long-Term Effects of a Novel Continuous Remote Care Intervention Including Nutritional Ketosis for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A 2-year Non-randomized Clinical Trial. Frontiers in Endocrinology. 2019; 10:348. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00348
For anyone who's actually interested in the science or methodology of the research, the peer-reviewed work has been linked (and I believe is all open access, if not, it's on sci-hub), and it is written in a pretty accessible manner IMO. The PI, Sarah Hallberg, has quite a few presentations online, including some that delve deeper into some of the details and the pros/cons of their study design (the biggest pro IMO is that they were able to use a biomarker (blood BHB) to track adherence). This of course, is just a single study - there are lots more studies and papers (I've read thousands on the topic area over the past few years). Human nutrition and metabolic health is a minefield, for a variety of reasons and people should be skeptical, but that's also no excuse for adding to the misinformation pile.
> By restricting carbohydrate, the ketogenic diet minimises insulin, and so instead of accumulating fat, your body starts mobilising it.
By restricting carbohydrate to minimise insulin and start mobilising fat rather than accumulating it you are of course reducing the calories too.
Obesity is helped by many different things - hormones, gut biome, overly processed food etc - but mainly by too much food in relation too little exercise.
By restricting carbohydrate to minimise insulin and start mobilising fat rather than accumulating it you are of course reducing the calories too.
Obesity is helped by many different things - hormones, gut biome, overly processed food etc - but mainly by too much food in relation too little exercise.
Realistically obesity is going to be solved by the re-engineering of food to be healthier while still being tasty and cheap.
Anything other than that requires behavioral changes which are difficult to implement and extremely difficult to maintain.
Anything other than that requires behavioral changes which are difficult to implement and extremely difficult to maintain.
We don't need to re-engineer food. We need to de-engineer it - rebalance it in favour of nutritional quality, and away from prioritising yield mindlessly.
We already have an obesity crisis. We know that our over-reliance on carbs and demonising of fat is contributing to it, or outright fueling it. We know that our food is poor in vitamins, so basically all urban dwellers must take vitamin supplements.
Part of why our Western diets are so calorie-rich and nutrient-poor (while being allergenic for many people) is because we've mindlessly pursued food yield, rather than food yield balanced with nutrition. Most food items are processed or contain processed ingredients, or junk ingredients that bulk up the volume/substitute for more expensive ones. A lot of people are catching up to that and trying to compensate, but it's a nearly-vertical uphill struggle while you're not well off, because good food tends to be more expensive.
We need to stop that. We need to bring back affordable, healthy food for the masses.
We already have an obesity crisis. We know that our over-reliance on carbs and demonising of fat is contributing to it, or outright fueling it. We know that our food is poor in vitamins, so basically all urban dwellers must take vitamin supplements.
Part of why our Western diets are so calorie-rich and nutrient-poor (while being allergenic for many people) is because we've mindlessly pursued food yield, rather than food yield balanced with nutrition. Most food items are processed or contain processed ingredients, or junk ingredients that bulk up the volume/substitute for more expensive ones. A lot of people are catching up to that and trying to compensate, but it's a nearly-vertical uphill struggle while you're not well off, because good food tends to be more expensive.
We need to stop that. We need to bring back affordable, healthy food for the masses.
Moreover, a large part of re-engineering food is re-engineering food supply chains. 'Tasty' and 'cheap' generally implies 'fresh', and getting fresh food onto the tables of millions of households requires a change of mindset from both industry and consumer.
Indeed. And preparation. You can't make a salad by microwaving it.
Stop trying to invent a startup for every problem. There are so much more dimensions and ideas to "solve" obesity.
For starters, look at the vast differences between national food cultures and their varying success in battling obesity.
There is healthy food which is tasty and cheap, right now, in abundance. They are societal, regulatory, cultural and individual ways to get people to eat it. On the other hand, we are not even remotely close to understanding nutrition well enough to "re-engineer" a significant portion of the populace's food w/o some serious first and second order consequences.
For starters, look at the vast differences between national food cultures and their varying success in battling obesity.
There is healthy food which is tasty and cheap, right now, in abundance. They are societal, regulatory, cultural and individual ways to get people to eat it. On the other hand, we are not even remotely close to understanding nutrition well enough to "re-engineer" a significant portion of the populace's food w/o some serious first and second order consequences.
The entirety of the comments seem to be either saying "This guy is a genius and is 100% right" or "This guy is talking out of his backside".
The scientific consensus on weight loss is pretty clear: all forms of diets are similarly effective when you control for calorie intake. Low carb diets work, low fat diet work, intermittent fasting works, plain old fasting works, McDonald's diet and Twinkie diets work. This is nothing new and calorie deficit is always the best predictor regardless of the diet type.
He seems to make the argument that high insulin causes fat to accumulate and as such reducing carbohydrate lowers insulin and increases weight loss, but I have yet to see any evidence that a high-calorie keto diet will result in weight loss.
The general consensus as to why keto works for some people is that it makes hunger management easier, although AFAIK there is no mechanism that has been clearly identified as being the main responsible, people who succeed on keto report higher levels of satiety after meals, but the same can be said of many other diets for people on which they work.
There's a paragraph in there about keto being restrictive and he's basically dismissing the claim with "it feels less restrictive for people who feel less hungry on keto", which, fair enough but I don't think that enough evidence to say "promoting the keto diet will address the obesity problem". There may well be tons of people for whom keto is too restrictive, because they won't feel less hungry after meals.
In the end, the best diet is the one you can stick to. For some people that's keto, for most people it's portion control, for others it may be intermittent fasting, for others it may be offsetting their food intake with exercise. In the end, I think it's harmful to promote any specific diet as "the cure to obesity", and it's far better to encourage people to try out different diets rather than giving them the idea that "if this diet won't work, nothing will". Try different things out and see what works for you.
The scientific consensus on weight loss is pretty clear: all forms of diets are similarly effective when you control for calorie intake. Low carb diets work, low fat diet work, intermittent fasting works, plain old fasting works, McDonald's diet and Twinkie diets work. This is nothing new and calorie deficit is always the best predictor regardless of the diet type.
He seems to make the argument that high insulin causes fat to accumulate and as such reducing carbohydrate lowers insulin and increases weight loss, but I have yet to see any evidence that a high-calorie keto diet will result in weight loss.
The general consensus as to why keto works for some people is that it makes hunger management easier, although AFAIK there is no mechanism that has been clearly identified as being the main responsible, people who succeed on keto report higher levels of satiety after meals, but the same can be said of many other diets for people on which they work.
There's a paragraph in there about keto being restrictive and he's basically dismissing the claim with "it feels less restrictive for people who feel less hungry on keto", which, fair enough but I don't think that enough evidence to say "promoting the keto diet will address the obesity problem". There may well be tons of people for whom keto is too restrictive, because they won't feel less hungry after meals.
In the end, the best diet is the one you can stick to. For some people that's keto, for most people it's portion control, for others it may be intermittent fasting, for others it may be offsetting their food intake with exercise. In the end, I think it's harmful to promote any specific diet as "the cure to obesity", and it's far better to encourage people to try out different diets rather than giving them the idea that "if this diet won't work, nothing will". Try different things out and see what works for you.
My personal experience is that when I eat carbohydrates I enter “berserk” mode, where my appetite is extremely elevated. It usually ends up with overeating and an insulin crash.
While when eating no carbohydrates I don’t get that same feeling and can have more self-control.
While when eating no carbohydrates I don’t get that same feeling and can have more self-control.
> all forms of diets are similarly effective when you control for calorie intake. Low carb diets work, low fat diet work, intermittent fasting works, plain old fasting works, McDonald's diet and Twinkie diets work
And none of them creates sustainable long term weight loss. Overwhelming majority of people who loose weight, gain it again. Keeping diets long term means that they feel bad all the time, you are tired etc. And you fail the moment keeping diet is not priority number one.
Which leads to search for something that will work long term for majority of people.
And none of them creates sustainable long term weight loss. Overwhelming majority of people who loose weight, gain it again. Keeping diets long term means that they feel bad all the time, you are tired etc. And you fail the moment keeping diet is not priority number one.
Which leads to search for something that will work long term for majority of people.
Solution: Eat sensible amounts of good food.
How do people struggle with such a basic aspect of human existence? Does food packaging in the US not list ingredients or something?
How do people struggle with such a basic aspect of human existence? Does food packaging in the US not list ingredients or something?
Yes, the theory behind weight loss and maintenance is very simple. As with many theories, however, it's the application that's the problem.
I've lost and maintained 150lb weight loss until recently, when circumstances and stress has caused me to gain back some portion of that I haven't been keen to measure. I can tell you from significant first hand experience that it is very difficult to override your brain when your brain thinks it needs more food.
I've lost and maintained 150lb weight loss until recently, when circumstances and stress has caused me to gain back some portion of that I haven't been keen to measure. I can tell you from significant first hand experience that it is very difficult to override your brain when your brain thinks it needs more food.
Actually, it is harder to do in the US than in Europe due to the insane amount of sugar they put into everything (even bread!).
Also, keeping oneself to a diet is a habit change, which is like the hardest thing to do, so don’t think lowly of those who have some trouble keeping themselves to it.
Also, keeping oneself to a diet is a habit change, which is like the hardest thing to do, so don’t think lowly of those who have some trouble keeping themselves to it.
Hard to answer that question any better than we can for alcoholism, workaholics and perpetual cheaters.
Next, poor people just should make more money and spend less.
Next, all addicts can just ... stop, except for the opiate addicts who can just ... carefully stop.
Next, criminals should just stop doing crimes!
Congratulations! You solved all societal problems.
...
Sorry for being snarky, but if literally billions people struggle with it, isn't that a sign that this really isn't that simple?
Next, all addicts can just ... stop, except for the opiate addicts who can just ... carefully stop.
Next, criminals should just stop doing crimes!
Congratulations! You solved all societal problems.
...
Sorry for being snarky, but if literally billions people struggle with it, isn't that a sign that this really isn't that simple?
In the end, many revolutionary developments come down to us realizing the simplicity of things. Quantum mechanics is complicated. Eating well is simple. One just has to "get it".
It's like with shoes. If you buy cheap shoes, you end up paying more for shoes overall because they break much faster and you have to buy yet another pair. If you eat bad because it's cheaper/more convenient/whatever, you end up paying more for that decision than if you had made the right decision in the first place.
Repeating the mantra of "it's not that simple" is literally a self-actualizing curse. By thinking so, you make it so in your mind, which causes you not to act. My philosophy is that things really are simple.
Yesterday I ate nothing but ice cream. I wanted it, I bought it, I ate it. And it was stupid. There's some back and forth between competing desires, but eventually you will settle on the correct course of action. Every single substance and habit, no matter how addictive, I've started and also stopped. The key is literally just willpower. And maybe a bit of math. You have to count the goods and the bads to arrive at a conclusion. Ice cream tastes less good than it makes me feel ill for overconsumption therefore DON'T BUY ICE CREAM. Problem solved. If you then desire ice cream again, remember not how good it tastes but how ill it made you afterwards. What is it anyway? Cream and sugar. Sugar is a drug, so focusing on the cream it's probably an indication that my diet is lacking in fat. Eat more fat. What contains fat? Nuts, for example. Next time you desire ice cream, eat nuts. Problem solved.
It's like with shoes. If you buy cheap shoes, you end up paying more for shoes overall because they break much faster and you have to buy yet another pair. If you eat bad because it's cheaper/more convenient/whatever, you end up paying more for that decision than if you had made the right decision in the first place.
Repeating the mantra of "it's not that simple" is literally a self-actualizing curse. By thinking so, you make it so in your mind, which causes you not to act. My philosophy is that things really are simple.
Yesterday I ate nothing but ice cream. I wanted it, I bought it, I ate it. And it was stupid. There's some back and forth between competing desires, but eventually you will settle on the correct course of action. Every single substance and habit, no matter how addictive, I've started and also stopped. The key is literally just willpower. And maybe a bit of math. You have to count the goods and the bads to arrive at a conclusion. Ice cream tastes less good than it makes me feel ill for overconsumption therefore DON'T BUY ICE CREAM. Problem solved. If you then desire ice cream again, remember not how good it tastes but how ill it made you afterwards. What is it anyway? Cream and sugar. Sugar is a drug, so focusing on the cream it's probably an indication that my diet is lacking in fat. Eat more fat. What contains fat? Nuts, for example. Next time you desire ice cream, eat nuts. Problem solved.
For me, the keto diet was effective because after I stopped eating carbohydrates I also stopped craving them. This produced a tectonic shift in my eating habits.
It's the increase in leptin that drives satiety under keto diet:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3244537/#:~:tex....
Healthy weight is also a lot more complicated than just one hormone. Taubes is not discussing, for example, the difference between healthy and unhealthy obesity and the role that dysfunctional adipogenesis plays in the latter by inducing hypertrophic changes in fat cells (distended fat cells) rather than hyperplasia (create more fat cells).
A lot of research has focused on finding agonists for PPARgamma to restore healthy adipogenesis and reduce unhealthy inflammation of fat tissue. Some have been taken off the market for suspected toxicities, but piaglitazone is still widely prescribed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3244537/#:~:tex....
Healthy weight is also a lot more complicated than just one hormone. Taubes is not discussing, for example, the difference between healthy and unhealthy obesity and the role that dysfunctional adipogenesis plays in the latter by inducing hypertrophic changes in fat cells (distended fat cells) rather than hyperplasia (create more fat cells).
A lot of research has focused on finding agonists for PPARgamma to restore healthy adipogenesis and reduce unhealthy inflammation of fat tissue. Some have been taken off the market for suspected toxicities, but piaglitazone is still widely prescribed.
Just wanted to let you know, although it's been a few days, that I genuinely appreciate this reply. I am curious why this got downvoted. It adds context to one of my uncertainties (the exact mechanism for increased satiety under keto) and adds more context as to why obesity is unhealthy in the first place and how the original article is extremely reductive. I don't know of any way to enable notifications for replies to my comments (be it via email or on HN itself) so if anyone knows please let me know!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6539070/
Why the downvotes?
Why the downvotes?
I didn’t downvote but perhaps the overtly scientific writing. I had trouble understanding it even though I have some background in medicine.
So, we are finally dismissing "low fat-low weight" because the evidence was always weak and the few actually relevant studies had very questionable backers (sugar industry) and very widely misrepresented to benefit nutrition gurus to sell their books? Good!
Aaaand we are replacing that immediately with a similarly reductionist view (see title) with questionable backed evidence (one study by a start-up, not randomized) easily misrepresented by nutrition gurus (title image of the blog is the author) to sell his two books? Incredible!
We still don't even really understand where the "hungry" feeling comes from, entirely. Nutrition is incredibly complex. It is a function of culture, genetics, neurology, society, healthcare system, medical education, funding, corporate culture, advertising, cognition, organ function, sports, mental health, environment, climate, industry regulations and probably fifty more. It would be nice if at least the scientific community move away from the idea that we just have to find the "10 diet rules to change your life" and then we win - that's as embarrassing as it is prevalent.
Aaaand we are replacing that immediately with a similarly reductionist view (see title) with questionable backed evidence (one study by a start-up, not randomized) easily misrepresented by nutrition gurus (title image of the blog is the author) to sell his two books? Incredible!
We still don't even really understand where the "hungry" feeling comes from, entirely. Nutrition is incredibly complex. It is a function of culture, genetics, neurology, society, healthcare system, medical education, funding, corporate culture, advertising, cognition, organ function, sports, mental health, environment, climate, industry regulations and probably fifty more. It would be nice if at least the scientific community move away from the idea that we just have to find the "10 diet rules to change your life" and then we win - that's as embarrassing as it is prevalent.
I just skimmed the article, but it doesn't seem to mention how chemicals commonly found in our lived environment act as endocrine disruptors and which studies are showing lead to obesity.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28205155/ &c.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28205155/ &c.
LeCow(6)
Reminder: Taubes is the well known author of “Good Calories, Bad Calories” and “Why we get fat”. Which is to say, he isn’t just a journalist, but also someone who has authorized bestselling books on this set of topics.
In other words, he has very strong motivation to lie, misrepresent and be as polemic and polarizing as possible!
well..then obesity should be easily solved. if its a hormone problem, then why are we looking at diets rather than administering hormone therapies?
testosterone could be an umbrella weight loss strategy. except there is the aggression part.
ok. now what? the only logical solution is calorie restriction. rather than diets or hormones. and its easy. dont eat too much. we didnt evolve to where we are by eating three square meals a day. we ate little and often starved in between while hunting and foraging. and likely had a lot of adrenaline coursing through our bodies.
never has there been an obese caveman. but they didnt have butter either. we likely subsisted on berries and fruits and wild edible. i want to throw in mushrooms or hallucinogens and some version of the good herb..and a small amount of meat and fish.
testosterone could be an umbrella weight loss strategy. except there is the aggression part.
ok. now what? the only logical solution is calorie restriction. rather than diets or hormones. and its easy. dont eat too much. we didnt evolve to where we are by eating three square meals a day. we ate little and often starved in between while hunting and foraging. and likely had a lot of adrenaline coursing through our bodies.
never has there been an obese caveman. but they didnt have butter either. we likely subsisted on berries and fruits and wild edible. i want to throw in mushrooms or hallucinogens and some version of the good herb..and a small amount of meat and fish.
> and its easy. dont eat too much.
No, it's not easy. It's extremely hard for most people, that is the whole point of the article.
> we didnt evolve to where we are by eating three square meals a day. we ate little and often starved in between while hunting and foraging.
Yes, and that is exactly the reason why we evolved to eat as much as we can when there is lots of food available, so we'll survive the starvation when there isn't.
Our evolutionary programming compels us (via hormones) to be obese.
> never has there been an obese caveman.
Absolutely wrong: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22001136/
No, it's not easy. It's extremely hard for most people, that is the whole point of the article.
> we didnt evolve to where we are by eating three square meals a day. we ate little and often starved in between while hunting and foraging.
Yes, and that is exactly the reason why we evolved to eat as much as we can when there is lots of food available, so we'll survive the starvation when there isn't.
Our evolutionary programming compels us (via hormones) to be obese.
> never has there been an obese caveman.
Absolutely wrong: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22001136/
It's easy if your hormones are in balance. Thin people don't go snacking all the time, it's the chubby folks who do that.
For example, if your cortosol (the "stress" hormone) is high, you will be craving snacks. The moment it's back to normal (you don't have stress) you can sit around and not want snacks.
As other posters said, it is extremely hard to avoid snacking when your body craves them. It is extremely easy to not snack, when your body does not want them.
Stop throwing around this "easily" "its easy" around. If it were easy, we would not have this conversation.
For example, if your cortosol (the "stress" hormone) is high, you will be craving snacks. The moment it's back to normal (you don't have stress) you can sit around and not want snacks.
As other posters said, it is extremely hard to avoid snacking when your body craves them. It is extremely easy to not snack, when your body does not want them.
Stop throwing around this "easily" "its easy" around. If it were easy, we would not have this conversation.
> dont eat too much.
It is very easy to diet yourself to malfunction. Contemporary debate about diet focuses almost exclusively on aesthetic. But equally or more important is that if you dont eat enough, you wont perform in work due to tiredness and difficulty to focus. You will loose attention while driving. You will have crappy mood, treating everyone around badly. You will build anemia or whatever and you wont be able to walk fast, do any activity that requires physical movement. Your calorie output will go super down, because you will be constantly tired.
> we didnt evolve to where we are by eating three square meals a day. we ate little and often starved in between while hunting and foraging. and likely had a lot of adrenaline coursing through our bodies.
First, obviously, those groups had males, females and children. Not everyone was hunting, because that is literally impossible. Second, the lifespan of those people was shorter then ours. They died younger, oftentimes from diseases that had to do with malnutrition of one kind or another.
We already fixed whole range of grave diseases that had to do with lack of nutrients in food.
It is very easy to diet yourself to malfunction. Contemporary debate about diet focuses almost exclusively on aesthetic. But equally or more important is that if you dont eat enough, you wont perform in work due to tiredness and difficulty to focus. You will loose attention while driving. You will have crappy mood, treating everyone around badly. You will build anemia or whatever and you wont be able to walk fast, do any activity that requires physical movement. Your calorie output will go super down, because you will be constantly tired.
> we didnt evolve to where we are by eating three square meals a day. we ate little and often starved in between while hunting and foraging. and likely had a lot of adrenaline coursing through our bodies.
First, obviously, those groups had males, females and children. Not everyone was hunting, because that is literally impossible. Second, the lifespan of those people was shorter then ours. They died younger, oftentimes from diseases that had to do with malnutrition of one kind or another.
We already fixed whole range of grave diseases that had to do with lack of nutrients in food.
The amount of intellectual acrobatics that occurs in this area is troubling.
Poor diet due to financial and educational restriction will affect gut bacteria and other things that contribute to appetite. This can be difficult to shift in later life, but is not impossible thanks to healthy alternatives.
Lack of consistent rigorous exercise will ensure that you stay fat regardless. Calories in vs calories out makes the difference.
Poor diet due to financial and educational restriction will affect gut bacteria and other things that contribute to appetite. This can be difficult to shift in later life, but is not impossible thanks to healthy alternatives.
Lack of consistent rigorous exercise will ensure that you stay fat regardless. Calories in vs calories out makes the difference.
Please re read my comment above as a response to the main article of this post.
The science is pretty clear and supports what is said in this article.
I changed my diet from "normal" to carnivour (which basically is a form of low carb) and had lots of improvements in my health even thought I had normal weight. I had ulcerative colitis for 20 years and all symptoms was gone within 6 months, also verified with a rectoscopy.
I also had great improvements in mood and motivation by taking vitamin-d and for cramps/sleep by taking ZMA (Zinc for testosterone, Magnesium for cramps).
Can recommend the books Deep Nutrition and Genius Foods, the latter is probably more accessible.
Also recommend following @Mangan150 on twitter.
Isn't animal product a lot worse for the environment than plant-based food? Long term the world has to move towards consuming less animal product, not more.
Agriculture is 10% of US green house emmissions according to https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
Some plant products have higher co2 emissions than meat, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/06/13/7-surprising-th...
Eating food that make you unhealthy is not a choice for me, and I am happy for those have better life with different diets. For those who have problems, I can recommend trying this out for some months and see if it helps you.
Some plant products have higher co2 emissions than meat, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/06/13/7-surprising-th...
Eating food that make you unhealthy is not a choice for me, and I am happy for those have better life with different diets. For those who have problems, I can recommend trying this out for some months and see if it helps you.
I wasn't suggesting eating food that's bad for you, but rather if there are plant-based protein sources (such as legumes) that can be used as (at least partially) a replacement for meat.
Wait does the carnivore diet actually work? I remember Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson discussing this diet, and Peterson was widely ridiculed for it (example https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/sep/10/my-carnivore-di...). Has the consensus on it changed?
I don’t know about the consensus, but it does seem to work, at least for some people.
Problem is though, anecdotal evidence does not correct for various things, for example regression to the mean.
The improvement may purely coincidental with the change of diet, or the chosen diet.
Hence we need studies and not anecdata to judge, if something works.
Good points and important in science.
As an individual you should still be allowed to test put various things.
No, as an individual you aren't allow to preach afterwards that anyone can do this.
But you can say: this helped me.
As an individual you don't have to care if it is s result of placebo, your particular gut biome or even magic. If it works it works.
Be happy, write that it helped you, don't write, just don't be annoying about it ;-)
Also the currently top comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25819790 summarize it neatly, something like: as far as we know all diets work for weight loss as long as we control for calorie intake (but read the original I linked to).
As an individual you should still be allowed to test put various things.
No, as an individual you aren't allow to preach afterwards that anyone can do this.
But you can say: this helped me.
As an individual you don't have to care if it is s result of placebo, your particular gut biome or even magic. If it works it works.
Be happy, write that it helped you, don't write, just don't be annoying about it ;-)
Also the currently top comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25819790 summarize it neatly, something like: as far as we know all diets work for weight loss as long as we control for calorie intake (but read the original I linked to).
[deleted]
Bodybuilders are experts at loosing fat getting in to single digit body fat percentages consistently and methodically.
Most follow the same rough diet and manipulate calories in the same way, it’s kind of cookie cutter, do this you’ll loose fat.
Most of it is learnt over years of professional bodybuilders keeping meticulous diaries of every training session, every calorie eat, every small change made and every result seen.
Bodybuilders take it to the extreme to be the best, still I think if you are interested in loosing fat there’s a lot that can be learnt from bodybuilders without going to the extreme.