How many calories to consume to loose weight??

[BlackBerryPro]

Hello Guys,

I am so confused, but at the same time I am seeing some results. my BS are excellent, but my confusion is that I went to the GYM and I took a RMR test which shows the following:

Your CaloriePoint assesment revelead that you need 1714 calories per day to sustain bodily function and with your given lifestyle, you need 2,228 calories to do what is that you do day to day. Lifestyle is determined by your physical activity during normal day excluding exercise.

So the trainer at the Gym told me that since I do spinning and do weight training. I will have to do 4 days of spinning then 2 weight training days and of course 1 day off. On the days that I train I need to eat 2,200 calories on the days that I do not I need to eat 1,900 that way is a total loss of .5 - 1 pound a week... Is that true? I bought a software called Calorie King and based on the software for the past 4 days and the following 5 days all I am only eating is 1,700 of course with 699 off because of the spin class I take. So I am so afraid to eat more and affect my BS...

Can anyone help me??

I am so confused as too why I need to eat more to loose the weight if I am eating what I consider fine, but its still not enought.

Thanks

John

[fgummett]

I already wrote a lengthy response in your other thread :) http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/exercise/41941-working-out-4-weeks-2.html#post483375

Sorry to confuse the issue but I really don't hold with counting calories -- birds don't do it, bees don't do it... most humans don't do it :D It would be so much simpler if losing weight were just a question of simple math.

[BlackBerryPro]

Thank you so much Fgummett I looked over at the previous posting I was just confused because I really want to loose the weight but I have NO KNOWLEDGE as how to do it.. So I am desperate for an answer or the key things that I need to make this happen.. Also I have increased my work outs.. I am doing 4 times a week 1 hour Spinning class and 2 times a week 1 hour weight training...

[JediSkipdogg]

Here's the most basic key to losing weight.

1 lb of body weight = 3500 calories.

How you lose that is up to you. You can either eat 3500 calories less for each pound or you can do 3500 calories worth of working out. The choice is yours.

[fgummett]

The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.

The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a checkbook, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.

Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.

In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and [protein] converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.

Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control. The math sounds so simple... so please tell me Jedi... exactly how many calories you ate yesterday and exactly how many your body used in that same time period? If you don't know that then how on earth can you do the math? :confused:

I understand that on a metabolic ward we can prove that "calories in = calories out" BUT by its every definition a metabolic ward is creating an artificially closed system where everything is measured... and as such it cannot be applied to the real world.

[Gordonm]

There is no mathmatical equation for everyone. I live by the simple rule that applies, you eat more calories than you burn you gain weight. You eat less calories than you burn you lose weight. Pretty simple. What is not simple is everyone needs and burns calories at a different rate. You need to figure out your own rate. No person at a gym is going to be able to give you the magic formula. Most of them have no idea what they are talking about anyway.

[BlackBerryPro]

Excellent advice you guys... I did purchase a program called
Calorie King and its a very informative and now that I am
actually putting everything I eat and once it gives the calories amount and carbs I am so freak out on how much I used to
eat without caring. Thanks everyone...

[JediSkipdogg]

The math sounds so simple... so please tell me Jedi... exactly how many calories you ate yesterday and exactly how many your body used in that same time period? If you don't know that then how on earth can you do the math? :confused:

I understand that on a metabolic ward we can prove that "calories in = calories out" BUT by its every definition a metabolic ward is creating an artificially closed system where everything is measured... and as such it cannot be applied to the real world.

There is no mathmatical equation for everyone. I live by the simple rule that applies, you eat more calories than you burn you gain weight. You eat less calories than you burn you lose weight. Pretty simple. What is not simple is everyone needs and burns calories at a different rate. You need to figure out your own rate. No person at a gym is going to be able to give you the magic formula. Most of them have no idea what they are talking about anyway.



Thanks Gordon. It would be like saying there's a mathematical formula used to calculate how much insulin I require in a day. Simply put, there is none. There's too many factors and pretty much you have to figure it out on your own. I use to consume around 3000 calories a day and couldn't gain a pound. Now I consume around 2200 and can't lose a pound. There's too many factors that vary for everyone to make a unique way to figure it out. The only way is to record everything you eat over a period and see if you are gaining or losing doing such. Then you can estimate your daily intake to stay stable and go off of that.

[yannah]

I count calories, pretty much...

I think this is an individual thing. however whatever you see in the media, again, is prolly too much....

I am 5' 4"

right now i am not loosing, but maintaning.

I am around 1000 a day, sometimes around 1200 sometimes around 800.

most of my calories are fat.

[fgummett]

There is no mathematical equation for everyone. I live by the simple rule that applies, you eat more calories than you burn you gain weight. You eat less calories than you burn you lose weight. Pretty simple. What is not simple is everyone needs and burns calories at a different rate. You need to figure out your own rate. No person at a gym is going to be able to give you the magic formula. Most of them have no idea what they are talking about anyway.Sorry.. this all sounds like it makes sense -- and so many people seem to like using this word "simple" when it comes to excess fat loss... but exactly how do you "figure out your own rate" :confused:

As I mentioned above there are far more variables than just dietary calories and voluntary movement... plus the variables interact with each other (change one and affect others)... plus the underlying RMR does not remain constant... especially if you start restricting -- or adding -- dietary calories.

Seems to me that the world is full of "experts" who claim it is "simple" but have never had to lose significant weight themselves.

[xMenace]

you eat more calories than you burn you gain weight. You eat less calories than you burn you lose weight. Pretty simple.

The problem is it doesn't work that way. Lasting weight loss has been shown time and again to largely fail when achieved with starvation diets and exercise. Nearly all of The Biggest Losers have gained their weight back. Study after study since this obesity problem was first addressed has shown this.

"Oh but it's their lack of willpower!" doesn't cut it. Many if not most obese people burn more calories than they consume in studies. This whole first law argument is ****. Throw it away!

The best theory I've read is it's a homeostasis problem with insulin. Hyperinsulinemia adds weight. Lower your insulin levels and you will lose weight.

[Gordonm]

OK I said this is the simple rule I live by not everyone else. I did say everyone is different and will require different levels of food and exercise. I have never had to lose a large amount of weight, really I have never had an issue with weight. I have always kept my weight in check by controlling what I eat.

I do tend to lose some weight in the summer, usually a whopping 5 pounds maybe and yes I do lower my insulin level by maybe 2 to 3 units per day. I also exercise a lot more in the summer.

The simple fact for most people is they just are eating to much with no exercise or any other way to burn calories. If people actually counted every calorie they put in their mouth they would be amazed at what they are really eating. Most do not know portion size or they are not counting everything. I'm not saying this about anyone who posted here I'm talking about the majority of obese people.

To the OP on this I have been at this for 35 years so I have a pretty good idea of what I can eat and how much according to my activity level. I say again there is no magic formula. Watching what yo ueat and eating sensible and exercising should help out in your weight loss, or in other areas weight gain for those that need to.

[fgummett]

The best theory I've read is it's a homeostasis problem with insulin. Hyperinsulinemia adds weight. Lower your insulin levels and you will lose weight.This also makes the most sense from my perspective and neatly explains why most Type 1 Ds do not have an issue with excess fat mass -- low insulin levels. It also explains why most Type 2s do have an issue with excess fat mass -- high insulin levels.

Obesity is a symptom of an underlying metabolic issue not the cause... the most effective way to reduce the excess fat mass is by addressing that underlying metabolic issue.

Insulin is a major fat storage hormone... that is a fact.

I would really appreciate not hearing the word "simple" being used anymore in relation to excess fat loss.

5lbs weight change is not really the same as 150lbs -- I think we are talking about different things here. I have over 25 years experience of trying to lose significant weight, and trust me there is nothing simple about it, nor did I get that way by "eating [too] much with no exercise".

[Gordonm]

This also makes the most sense from my perspective and neatly explains why most Type 1 Ds do not have an issue with excess fat mass -- low insulin levels. It also explains why most Type 2s do have an issue with excess fat mass -- high insulin levels.

Obesity is a symptom of an underlying metabolic issue not the cause... the most effective way to reduce the excess fat mass is by addressing that underlying metabolic issue.

Insulin is a major fat storage hormone... that is a fact.

I would really appreciate not hearing the word "simple" being used anymore in relation to excess fat loss.

5lbs weight change is not really the same as 150lbs -- I think we are talking about different things here. I have over 25 years experience of trying to lose significant weight, and trust me there is nothing simple about it, nor did I get that way by "eating [too] much with no exercise".

You are taking this to personally. I have said over and over that the majority of obese people are self inflicted. Watch sometime at a restaurant people eat and the amount they eat. It is absolutly absurd what people shove in their mouth. I have said for me it is a simple fact. A true type 2 diabetic struggles tremendously with weight and keeping insulin and sugar levels in line.

I was always under the impression that most type 2s were just over eaters and brought this upon themselves. I have since been well educated here on this forum about type 2s and it has changed my attitude 180 degrees. Not that I do not see a lot of people who neglet diabetes and just go on their merry way of over eating and just say why not enjoy myself. Well it will catch up to you then they want the miracle cure for it. It takes discipline and hard work.

I did not mean to offend or put down anyones effort. ANyone who is really trying I applaud them and wish them well. Being a type 1 for years I was never really up on type 2s and what they go through.

[SCC]

I am basically in the same boat as Gordonm, as far as this topic. I don't have an real weight issue, but I still have to pay attention to not only the whole insulin-carb-fats thing, but to the amount I eat (as in no snacking unless my BG is screamingly low).

When I lower carbs a bit, and increase cardio a bit, I can drop a couple of pounds, so I also agree with that theory.

BUT - the folks that really need to lose > 35 pounds are in a different boat. I have LOTS of friends who've done many of the diet/lifestyle diets, lose nice amounts of weight, keep it off for a while, but without total attention (unlike me who can get a little sloppy), the gain it back very quickly. I believe that is a different "disease" or something. Maybe it can be caused by overeating/inactivity but the results are very tough to treat once your body crosses some line.

If ANY of this were simple, so many folks would not be overweight. :-)

[fgummett]

Thanks to you both for taking the time to reply.
Taking it too personal... guilty as charged! It is difficult not to after so many years of assumptions and platitudes force fed by the media... not to mention the things I have critiscised myself for being "fat and lazy" and "letting myself go" ... now I know better and no longer accept anything I am told by the media without trying to take a long hard look at how much is truth and how much is brainwashing.

Heck now I sound like a conspiracy nut!

;-)

[stroutman81]

The math sounds so simple... so please tell me Jedi... exactly how many calories you ate yesterday and exactly how many your body used in that same time period? If you don't know that then how on earth can you do the math? :confused:

I understand that on a metabolic ward we can prove that "calories in = calories out" BUT by its every definition a metabolic ward is creating an artificially closed system where everything is measured... and as such it cannot be applied to the real world.


Fgummett,

I'm not here to stir the pot. I was doing some googling and came across this thread. I was genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say about this article written by a well-respected author in many fitness circles:

The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html)

[fgummett]

...interested in hearing what you have to say about this article written by a well-respected author in many fitness circles...He and I are basically saying the same thing... there is no denying the validity of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but the way it is so often applied to humans as "count how many calories you eat... compare that against the number of calories your skeletal muscles burn in exercise... now you can determine your energy balance" is far from the whole picture... it is a gross oversimplification... there are just too many interconnected variables over which we little or no control. In short: the 1st law of thermodynamics cannot be effectively applied to humans in the real world.

Check out this explanation: Junkfood Science: The first Law of Thermodynamics in real life (http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html)

[fgummett]

Before someone else corrects me... the above oversimplification should read as "count how many calories you eat... compare that against the number of calories your skeletal muscles burn in exercise AND lookup on a chart how many calories a person of your sex, age, height, weight and activity level is estimated to use each day... now you can determine your energy balance"

...that still does not account for all the variables.

[stroutman81]

He and I are basically saying the same thing... there is no denying the validity of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but the way it is so often applied to humans as "count how many calories you eat... compare that against the number of calories your skeletal muscles burn in exercise... now you can determine your energy balance" is far from the whole picture... it is a gross oversimplification... there are just too many interconnected variables over which we little or no control. In short: the 1st law of thermodynamics cannot be effectively applied to humans in the real world.

Check out this explanation: Junkfood Science: The first Law of Thermodynamics in real life (http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html)

Thanks for your response.

Yes, I've read that link before since I've seen you post it as reference in numerous threads here on the forum. Both "authors" are pretty much saying the same thing.

However, Lyle doesn't throw out the calorie equation as being useless. There are certainly inefficiencies and it's far from static but that doesn't make it inaccurate. Which I know you're not suggesting. You're simply suggesting said inefficiencies coupled with the dynamic nature of the factors involved make it impossible to pinpoint calories in vs. calories out.

And I'd agree.

But does this make the model useless?

Assuming you account for as many of the variables as possible, I think it's still a "good" working model that gets you close to the mark in terms of controlling energy in vs. out.

The inefficiencies account for a small fraction of the total outside the realm of medical conditions, so you're still accounting for a majority of the big picture.

Thoughts?

[fgummett]

My main objection to the way the law is touted, is that it is so often used as a rod for the backs of people who are struggling in vain to lose excess fat mass... "simply reduce your calorie intake by 500 calories a day and you will lose 1lb of weight per week"... or some such nonsense... this approach does no work, but when it inevitably fails to produce the expected result, then obviously the overweight person has been lying and is non-compliant... can't argue with math right?

I disagree that the other variables are only a small part of the picture... did you note by how much the metabolic rate changed in the Vermont prison study group? Unless you have a metabolic ward where everything is measured you cannot treat the human as a closed system.

Of course in very general terms the model is not useless... people here report weight management in the order or 5 or 10 pounds by "watching what they eat"... but that to me is not the same as consciously attempting to count calories. When we are eating those foods we are adapted to eat, we can rely on our own bodies to tell us when we have had enough. A cheetah in the wild makes a choice about wether it is worth chasing down that antelope in terms of energy expenditure against profit, but it is not consciously counting calories.

Have you followed any of the links to Gary Taubes' presentation? He also discusses the common misuse of this law Big Fat Lies with Gary Taubes, 02/06/08 Stevens Institute of Technology (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#)

[stroutman81]

My main objection to the way the law is touted, is that it is so often used as a rod for the backs of people who are struggling in vain to lose excess fat mass... "simply reduce your calorie intake by 500 calories a day and you will lose 1lb of weight per week"... or some such nonsense... this approach does no work, but when it inevitably fails to produce the expected result, then obviously the overweight person has been lying and is non-compliant... can't argue with math right?

I do see where you are coming from.

Given the "looseness" of the factors involved coupled with the individual circumstances encountered across populations, when weight is not being lost, I personally wouldn't assume the individual is lying.

I will say though, underreporting is a huge problem in my experience. Research supports this too. I wouldn't call it lying per se. But the problematic outcome is the same... lying or not.

That said, the "math" can certainly be off and that's why simply picking a number and expecting it to work indefinitely is beyond silly.

We must make adjustments according to progress/feedback. If we're not losing weight, chances are pretty good we're eating too much food. Can you argue with this?

I haven't seen anyone getting fat by not eating food.

Granted, if calories are getting super low, especially to a point it's hard to maintain adequate nutrition, something is "off" medically.

Thoughts?

I disagree that the other variables are only a small part of the picture... did you note by how much the metabolic rate changed in the Vermont prison study group? Unless you have a metabolic ward where everything is measured you cannot treat the human as a closed system.

I'm not suggesting we treat it as a closed system. I'm simply saying (and I think you agree) that the energy balance equation isn't flawed. It's simply misused, misunderstood, and misinterpreted. Conservation of energy applies to the human body, open system or not.

We have different opinions though with regards to the degree in terms of calories the inefficiencies/individualities account for.

I read what the metabolic rate changed in the Vermont Prison study. I'm not much for going off of any authors interpretation of research though without looking at it myself.

Do you happen to have a copy of the actual paper?

The Minnesota Starvation experiment I am familiar with. I think it's important to note the metabolic swing downward in the Minn. Starv. Exp. didn't happen until test subjects were extremely lean. At which point we'd expect some sort of "metabolic backlash" given evolutionary proclivities towards not starving to death. And a large chunk of the metabolic drop came from the actual reduction in mass, which is entirely understandable.

Also with regards to the junkfood science blog, if we're all genetically predestined to become a certain degree of fat, why are we continuing to get fatter over time in the absence of large scale genetic changes in the population?

Suggesting that someone who is 180 lbs naturally (setpoint) and has trouble getting down to 130 lbs without insane restriction... that's fathomable.

The author of that blog seems to indicate that obesity is simply a normal part of genetics and that I don't buy. Sure, there are certain people who are doomed to be obese (melanocortin receptor defect for instance) but these are very very few and far between.

All this particular blog post did was say there are more biological processes affecting thermodynamics than food intake and voluntary physical activity which is what both you and I have agreed on.

However, the results of those other processes are STILL subject to thermodynamic laws and those other processes are not significant enough to prevent weight loss.

I believe you'll agree with the former point, but not with the latter. If you can refute the latter with actual papers, I'll gladly take a look at them.

Speaking of papers, Tom Venuto speaks specifically about Keys Minnesota paper and a few others in this blog post which I know many of my clients thoroughly enjoyed... figured it was worth throwing in this thread:

Is starvation mode a myth?- No! It's very real and here is the proof: Burn The Fat Blog (http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2007/11/is_starvation_mode_a_myth_no_i.php)

Of course in very general terms the model is not useless... people here report weight management in the order or 5 or 10 pounds by "watching what they eat"... but that to me is not the same as consciously attempting to count calories. When we are eating those foods we are adapted to eat, we can rely on our own bodies to tell us when we have had enough. A cheetah in the wild makes a choice about wether it is worth chasing down that antelope in terms of energy expenditure against profit, but it is not consciously counting calories.

Right, that I agree with.

Selecting the "right" foods has a way of self-regulating caloric intake, thus preventing an accumulation of fat. It's very hard to overeat when you are consuming a healthy dose of protein and fibrous veggies. Throw in some healthy fats and you've got a recipe for caloric and weight control.

The fact is, count every morsel of food that passes your lips or eat in a way that indirectly controls calories... the foundation is still a control of energy balance.

Categorically suggesting everyone who counts calories does so miserably is a bit subjective. I can't tell if that's where you're going or not. For some it works happily. For others not so much... not b/c thermodynamics is "broken" I might add.

The problem is, some people can't/won't eat in a manner that controls calories. We can debate until we're blue in the face why this is, but simply telling people to stick with "these foods" doesn't go very far with many.

Have you followed any of the links to Gary Taubes' presentation? He also discusses the common misuse of this law Big Fat Lies with Gary Taubes, 02/06/08 Stevens Institute of Technology (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149#)

I haven't.

I've heard enough from the Taubes' camp though to know I'm not a fan of his work. To each his own.

Taubes blames everything on insulin from what I've read as well as defective metabolisms and disregards some of the basic, established science we're familiar with.

But that's besides the point of this thread.

Since you bring Taubes up though, I'd be interested in your thoughts pertaining to this article:

Leangains: Low Carb Talibans (http://leangains.blogspot.com/2009/02/low-carb-talibans.html)

If you're not interested, that's certainly fine.

Thanks for the discussion thus far.

[fgummett]

I've heard enough from the Taubes' camp though to know I'm not a fan of his work. To each his own.

Taubes blames everything on insulin from what I've read as well as defective metabolisms and disregards some of the basic, established science we're familiar with.
It's a shame that: you clearly have a sceptical mind and want to see the actual data for some studies, yet at the same time you will rely on third party feedback to measure the worth of this science writer whose forte is exposing poor science.
He does not disregard any basic science but he does question it, strictly within a scientific framework that offers an alternate hypothesis for why so many more people are getting fat in recent decades. An hypothesis that shifts obesity back from being a behavioural issue to a physiological issue. You may be able to counter some of what he says (not his own discoveries mind you but real scientists) but I'd suggest you are missing the point if you don't even hear him out.

My overall understanding of the issue is that yes the 1st law applies BUT at the cellular level... at the whole body level it is the quality of the calories -- and how the body responds to and uses the different macro-nutrients -- that is at least if not more significant than their quantity.

[stroutman81]

It's a shame that: you clearly have a sceptical mind

A shame?

Science based skepticism is about the most powerful tool we have at our disposal to navigate our way through the hoards of misinformation. It is how we separate fact from fiction and everything in between. With all the incredulous research methodologies, biases, and con artists out there, I'll proudly wear the hat of being "sceptical" as you put it.

Besides this Frank, I've enjoyed our discussion/debate up to this point. I found it refreshing to find someone who was able to discuss information without getting emotional/personal.

However, making assumptions about the degree of my skepticism or ability to assess information objectively and critically is not at all what I'm interested in getting out of a conversation on the Internet.

I'm not interested in your opinions of me just as I'm sure you're not interested in my opinions of you. Let's stick to the information being presented and leave personal biases out of this.

Fair?

If not, I'll kindly be on my way.

I should also mention I welcome disagreement/debate as long as emotions stay on the sidelines. Being forced to defend your beliefs will either 1) reinforce them or 2) create doubt, in which case you reassess and either go back to 1) or you learn something. In any event, having people disagree can only lead to a positive outcome.

and want to see the actual data for some studies, yet at the same time you will rely on third party feedback to measure the worth of this science writer whose forte is exposing poor science.

Let's squash this little blurb right here. You make it out to seem as if I'm holding you and the individuals you quote to a higher standard of evidence than I am myself or the individuals I quote.

I assure you deception is not what I'm after with my debate tactics.

1) I asked for the paper pertaining to the Vermont Prison study simply b/c I was interested in reading it. It is not a paper I've seen personally and was hoping you had it off hand.

2) I don't "rely" on third parties when measuring the worth of the science. Not in the least. The simple fact is I've seen the papers referenced in the articles I posted and the authors share my opinions of the research, or vice versa. Why reinvent the wheel when authors/researchers I find to be objective already expressed my opinions clearly?

If I hadn't seen the research firsthand, I wouldn't rely on them. As noted previously, which you must've missed... I'm not one to take an author's word without seeing the actual research myself. I think that's pretty understandable.

He does not disregard any basic science but he does question it, strictly within a scientific framework that offers an alternate hypothesis for why so many more people are getting fat in recent decades. An hypothesis that shifts obesity back from being a behavioural issue to a physiological issue. You may be able to counter some of what he says (not his own discoveries mind you but real scientists) but I'd suggest you are missing the point if you don't even hear him out.

Hear him out?

I've read his book. I've heard him speak. He offered plenty of opinions and information to form an opinion. I'm sure this one link isn't going to sway me.

Have you seen Bray's (a leading obesity researcher) published review of Taubes' book? You probably have. I'll throw it up here anyhow as I know others are reading:

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes: Viewpoint, G. A. Bray, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA Obesity Reviews, Vol 9, pp 251-263. May 2008

Summary/Abstract

“Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes’s tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements:

(i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance.

(ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity.

(iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity.

iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity.

However, some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity.

There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrups sweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important.

Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labeled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups.

Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.”

This expresses very clearly what I and other figures in the industry have echoed time and time again.

Frankly, Taubes brings up some interesting and worthy points here and there. Not to mention I'm a huge fan of some earlier stuff he has put out. For example:



That's a VERY good paper.

But from my perspective, his sensationalist views and biased research methodology drown out the good in his book. I mean, insulin makes us gain weight without a surplus of energy? A metabolic advantage exists with low carb diets?

Yeah, no.

I'm not some rigid thinker who is too attached to my ideas/beliefs where zealotry comes into play. If new data was presented from research suggesting these points of contention were in fact true... and the research was quality... I'd reassess.

I want what's best for my clients and I've got nothing to gain by being married to my beliefs. I'm not financially attached to any one way of eating... as some people are.

Not to mention the reams of anecdote I have on clients doing exceedingly well on higher carb diets.

My overall understanding of the issue is that yes the 1st law applies BUT at the cellular level... at the whole body level it is the quality of the calories -- and how the body responds to and uses the different macro-nutrients -- that is at least if not more significant than their quantity.

Conservation of energy applies on all levels. Just b/c some overly simplify or misuse the energy balance equation doesn't mean the first law doesn't apply.

And quality calories?

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.... just as a meter is always a meter. It's a unit of measurement and can be nothing else. Nutrients are not calories. Nutrients provide our bodies energy via metabolism which is measured using calories. So quality of nutrients can vary.

To boot, I'm quite certain myself or any other objective professional opposing Taubes' ideas aren't suggesting calories are the only factor to consider when it comes to weight control, body composition, and health. Someone suggesting this would be a fool.

The contention is simple: Nutrients or hormones can not cause tissue mass gain in an energetic deficit. How, for instance, would insulin cause an increase of mass without the supporting energy?

[stroutman81]

The link to Taubes' paper didn't work. I suppose it violates forum rules to post links. If you or anyone else is interested drop me a PM and I'll send it to you.

[fgummett]

There have been a couple pf misunderstandings here... I meant my recognition of your scepticism as a compliment... and as such was surprised that you would not be more receptive to Taubes, who has opened my eyes to how much of our recent "science" concerning obesity, especially as reported by the media, is questionable at best.

For my part I apologise for my assumptions around your statement I've heard enough from the Taubes' camp though to know I'm not a fan of his work.... hopefully you can see how I may not have guessed that by that you actually meantI've read his book. I've heard him speak.

[stroutman81]

There have been a couple pf misunderstandings here... I meant my recognition of your scepticism as a compliment... and as such was surprised that you would not be more receptive to Taubes, who has opened my eyes to how much of our recent "science" concerning obesity, especially as reported by the media, is questionable at best.

And believe me, this is what I meant when I said Taubes does have some worthy stuff to say, even in the book. On that front, I'm a fan. With his biased research methodology... I am not.

For my part I apologise for my assumptions around your statement ... hopefully you can see how I may not have guessed that by that you actually meant

Certainly, no harm at all. I just wanted to be sure we don't head down a path typical e-debates go which is never productive.

And my apologies if I assumed incorrectly what you meant by my skepticism.

[ADSOFT]

The problem is it doesn't work that way. Lasting weight loss has been shown time and again to largely fail when achieved with starvation diets and exercise. Nearly all of The Biggest Losers have gained their weight back. Study after study since this obesity problem was first addressed has shown this.

"Oh but it's their lack of willpower!" doesn't cut it. Many if not most obese people burn more calories than they consume in studies. This whole first law argument is ****. Throw it away!

The best theory I've read is it's a homeostasis problem with insulin. Hyperinsulinemia adds weight. Lower your insulin levels and you will lose weight.

I think you are right. That is why some people loss weight on metformin because it reduces output of the liver. Less glucose out with the same insulin means less weight.

There was a time that I couldn't loss weight, I ate freely and keept increasing excercise but saw no improvement. So I did the following.

Ate the same meals everday, stopped excercising and everyday ate less and just kept cutting back everyday little by little and drank pleanty of water. The water helped with the will power not to over eat.


I agree that everyone has a different metobolic rate, it probobly has to do with insulin, digestion and BMI.

I basically kept cutting back until I started losing weight, that's how I figured out how much to eat so I can reach the threshhold of weight loss.

I sort of like finding out at what level of starvation you start losing weight. Counting calories consumed is ok, but how do you count how many calories you are burning and how many calories are being converted to fat. I agree that the level of insulin has a lot to do with it.

But like I said, if you are on a fixed diet and keep cutting back every day, at some point the lbs will come off, and increasing excercise beyond that point you will start losing weight.

[ShottleBop]

. . .
Have you seen Bray's (a leading obesity researcher) published review of Taubes' book? You probably have. I'll throw it up here anyhow as I know others are reading:

Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes: Viewpoint, G. A. Bray, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA Obesity Reviews, Vol 9, pp 251-263. May 2008

Summary/Abstract

“Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes’s tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements:

(i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance.

(ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity.

(iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity.

iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity.

However, some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity.

There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrups sweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not sufficient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important.

Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labeled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups.

Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.”

This expresses very clearly what I and other figures in the industry have echoed time and time again.

What is your opinion of Taubes's response to Bray's review?

[ShottleBop]

BTW: Thanks for the link to BodyRecomposition. Very interesting.

[stroutman81]

What is your opinion of Taubes's response to Bray's review?

More bs.

He clamors on about excess energy not being the primary factor - instead focusing on insulin.

It's as if he got sick and tired of being objective, which is very unfortunate since he decided to combine subjectivity with sensationalism. Sensationalism will *always* sell in America. And when you stack 100 pages of references, well those who don't know how to read research objectively (mostly everyone) will buy the bs.

His most recent ramblings where he was interviewed over on t-nation (I'd post the link but the don't allow that here) only compounded by lack of respect for Taubes opinion on obesity.

Vertical growth vs. horizontal growth? Geez man... it's as if he's trying to be intellectually dishonest.

Here's an experiment for you:

Lock a group of people in metabolic wards. Overfeed them. See how many grow vertically (assuming all subjects were at adult height to begin with).

How does insulin create mass without a surplus of energy?

And why does he **** carbohydrates as the devil when protein, too, has an associated insulin response when consumed?

Or how about we talk about acylation stimulating protein?

[stroutman81]

BTW: Thanks for the link to BodyRecomposition. Very interesting.

You're welcome. Lyle's a good guy... very well read and researched and puts out excellent articles.

[Grunch]

It's as if he got sick and tired of being objective, which is very unfortunate since he decided to combine subjectivity with sensationalism. Sensationalism will *always* sell in America. And when you stack 100 pages of references, well those who don't know how to read research objectively (mostly everyone) will buy the bs.

This is perfect. Thanks for all the posts strout. This forum is packed with people who buy very easily into conspiracy theories thinking that makes them skeptical, that by believing sensationalist conspiracy theories they are avoiding to accept the things that the evil scientists try to feed us. We need more unbiased logical thinkers here.

[ShottleBop]

More bs.

He clamors on about excess energy not being the primary factor - instead focusing on insulin.

. . .
Here's an experiment for you:

Lock a group of people in metabolic wards. Overfeed them. See how many grow vertically (assuming all subjects were at adult height to begin with).

Taubes has never said that they would, and no careful reader of Taubes would think that he was suggesting such a thing.

How does insulin create mass without a surplus of energy?

I don't understand Taubes to be saying that. I understand him to be saying that insulin drives processes that result in a person taking in a surplus of energy:

Thus, the alternative hypothesis: excess fat accumulation is caused fundamentally by the effect of dietary carbohydrates on insulin and of insulin on adipocytes. In this hypothesis overeating and sedentary behavior – i.e. positive energy balance – are compensatory effects of accumulating excess fat, not causes.

And why does he **** carbohydrates as the devil when protein, too, has an associated insulin response when consumed?

We currently know of no essential carbohydrates, but we do know of essential proteins and essential fatty acids. Also, consider the Spark of Reason blog quoted in my next post, which explains that consumption of protein also stimulates the secretion of glucagon, which inhibits the fat cells from taking in the glucose required to build triglycerides.

Or how about we talk about acylation stimulating protein?

According to Josef Brandenburg: ASP (Acylation stimulating protein) definitely does regulate body-fat, if you have more then you’ll store more fat. But, if you dig just a little deeper you’ll find this:

#1. Insulin increases ASP production 2 fold

[/url]

J Lipid Res. 1997 Jan;38(1):1-11

#2. “ASP… secretion is regulated by insulin”

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2001 Jun;21(6):1034-9

[url=http://atvb.ahajournals.org/…/full/21/6/1034] (http://www.jlr.org/…/reprint/38/1/1)

So, ASP seems to be related to insulin.

He also has this to say: What If Low Carb Is Wrong? Does ASP Prove That Insulin Doesn’t Matter and That Its Calories That Really Count?

So there I was on the forums of t-nation.com answering questions about my recent interview piece with Gary Taubes when I started to wonder if this low-carb thing was legitimate after all. “Have I been giving bad advice the whole time? Should I just be telling people to ‘eat less and exercise more?’ But that’s never worked… What I do now works like clock work… But all these posts keep telling me how ‘retarded’ me and Gary are…’”, I worried to myself.

What’s not authoritative and intimidating about being insulted over and over again by anonymous people on a forum? If they can type it on a forum it must be well researched and true! Right?

I did come to my thin-skinned senses eventually, BUT the folks on the t-nation forums did leave me with one question that I wasn’t entirely sure about: Is ASP the overlooked flaw in low-carb dieting?

There were a lot of posts saying in effect: “What Tuabes and the rest of the low-carb community don’t like talking about is a little compound called acylation stimulating protein (ASP) which stores dietary fat in the fat cell with ZERO rise in insulin levels.”

I started doing some digging and found statements like these in peer reviewed research (I’m paraphrasing to make them readable and concise):

#1. “ASP is far more powerful than insulin in stimulating the creation of new body-fat.” (1)

#2. “ASP is released in response to an oral fat load.” (2)

Did I Get Served On A Forum?

I started really getting into ASP research at about 10pm on a Saturday night, and by the time I found the above statements in peer reviewed research I started sweating and my stomach was twisted up in knots. I tried to let it go and hang out with my fiancé, but I just had to know – “What’s the deal with ASP!? Is this something the debunks low-carb?”

So I spent the next 6 hours combing everything that I could get my hands on about ASP, and every time a paper made on of the above statements (#1 & 2 above) I noted the paper they cited. (By the way, my biochemistry textbooks were no help at all.) Pretty soon it became clear that those two statements were pretty much built off of two papers published in 1989:

• Statement #1 above was pretty much built off of a paper titled “Purification and characterization of acylation stimulating protein”, but let’s call it “ASP trumps insulin” for this article.

• Statement #2 above was built off of a paper titled “Metabolic response of acylation stimulating protein to an oral fat load,” but let’s call it “ASP is released in response to fat, not carbs.”

Does ASP Trump Insulin?

For the “ASP trumps insulin paper” the researchers grew fat cells in cultures (outside the body). It is true the addition of ASP REALLY accelerated the creation of new fat (triglyceride) – it was faster than insulin.

HOWEVER, both the ASP and the no-ASP cultures had insulin and carbs added to them. So the water is very muddy:

Could the ASP be a way in which insulin accelerates its activity? Maybe the super deadly combo a high-fat and high sugar meal? Maybe the only thing to learn from this study is that frosting is more fattening than candy? Why not test ASP without insulin and carbs if your goal is to see what the difference between them is?

Or, for that matter, why not just test ASP in actual people instead of cultures? (1)

Is ASP Released In Response to Fat, Not Carbs?

For the “ASP is released in response to fat, not carbs.” The “lipid meal” or “oral fat load” that was used to induce the ASP response was cream + one tbsp table sugar (sucrose) + one tbsp nonfat dry milk.

That mixture is 25% carbs by weight! So, that really doesn’t tell us anything at all.

Why not just have people drink olive oil or melted butter instead of cream plus a bunch of sugary stuff?

. . .

I shared my research with Gary Taubes and he had this to say:

“Nice to know you’re suitably obsessed Josef.

“One thing to keep in mind in all this is the need to explain the observations, not just work with possible mechanisms that can’t explain anything. So one of the observations is weight loss on a high fat diet — the Atkins diet.

“So if ASP was good at sequestering dietary fat away in the fat tissue without carbs being needed, why would people lose weight when they ate an Atkins diet?

“Another observation we’re trying to understand, as I point out in lectures, is the obesity in poor populations eating low-fat, high carb diets. So there ASP would be irrelevant. Now if we had obesity in populations eating low-carb, high-fat diets, that would be telling and a reason to invoke ASP, but, as far as I know, no such populations exist.

“So maybe ASP plays a role in obesity in rats that are fed high fat diets, but we’re not all that interested in rats.”

Cont'd . . .

[ShottleBop]

Of course, Josef and Gary may not have the whole picture. I can appreciate this point of view, from the Spark of Reason: Thursday,

June 12, 2008

A Swift Kick in the ASP

Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories provided a nice and readable description of the current understanding of fat metabolism, in particular the major mechanism of how dietary calories wind up in fat cells, and how stored fat is made available for energy. The mechanism is fairly simple, and is a scientific "fact" as much as there ever can be one (lots of supporting evidence, no alternative hypotheses). Dietary fats, as well as those created in the liver from carbohydrates, are transported around the body in large molecules called lipoproteins. We've all been inundated with propaganda about lipoproteins, e.g. low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is "bad cholesterol", high-density lipoprotein is "good cholesterol", very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) is "triglycerides", which are also "bad". The popular nomenclature is terrible and confusing.

Lipids are substances like fat and cholesterol which are not water soluble. To be carried in the blood (which is mostly water), lipids are carried inside of large lipoprotein molecules, which basically wrap up a droplet of lipids in a protein coat. Protein is water soluble, problem solved. The specific proteins on the surface of the lipoprotein allow it to bind to various receptors, so different lipoproteins can perform different functions, depending on receptor binding. Thus, cellular LDL receptors grab LDL from the blood so the cells can extract cholesterol, while HDL bind to receptors that allow it to take away "used" cholesterol for recycling in the liver, e.g. when cells die.

Most of the fat transported by lipoproteins is in the form of triglycerides (more technically known as triacylglycerol), a largish molecule consisting of three fatty acids attached to a "backbone" molecule of glycerol. Two kinds of lipoproteins carry most of the triglycerides: chylomicrons and VLDL. Chylomicrons are manufactured in the intestinal lining, packaging up digested fatty acids and cholesterol. The chylomicrons are (for reasons unknown to me) transported through the lymphatic system and dumped into the blood via the thoracic duct. Cells then have the opportunity to grab fat or cholesterol from the chylomicron, and some other changes happen to the surface proteins which rather quickly render it a chylomicron remnant. The liver vacuums up chylomicron remnants and repackages any lipids as VLDL (which also carries fat created by the liver from excess glucose). The VLDL then returns to the blood, and again cells can grab fats as necessary.

The triglyceride molecules carried by chylomicrons and VLDL are too large to pass across the cell membrane. In order to get some fat into a cell, the individual fatty acids must be released from the tryglyceride; fatty acid molecules can cross the cell membrane. The primary enzyme which performs this tasks is lipoprotein lipase, or LPL.

So that (long-winded) explanation gets us through part one of how fat is stored: LPL frees fatty acids from triglycerides in lipoproteins so they can get inside of the fat cells. Now, fat cells don't store fatty acids directly, but instead create their own triglycerides. However, the glycerol molecule itself also cannot cross the cell membrane. Instead, the fat cells ultimately make their own glycerol (actually a substance known as alpha glycerol phosphate) from glucose, which in turn must be supplied by the blood. Fat storage thus requires two crucial ingredients: action of LPL on chylomicrons or VLDL to free fatty acids, and availability of glucose including the ability to transport that glucose from the blood into the fat cell, which requires some specialized molecules called glucose transporters, or GLUTs.

Now Taubes points out that the primary control mechanism for both LPL activity and glucose transport is the hormone insulin. More insulin means more LPL and more glucose transport, thus more fat storage. Additionally, inside the fat cell lives an enzyme called hormone sensitive lipase, or HSL. HSL performs the same essential task as LPL, but from inside the fat cell: it frees fatty acids from stored triglycerides, so they can be made available to the blood (being carried away bound to the blood protein albumin). HSL response to insulin is opposite of LPL: less insulin means more HSL activity. So when insulin is high, fat tends to be stored, and when it is low, fat tends to be released. It's a nice tidy story, and gives a biochemical basis for the hypothesis that overconsumption of carbohydrates is what drives most obesity. Eating carbs not only raises insulin, it also makes available lots of glucose, thus supplying both of the critical ingredients for fat storage, while simultaneously suppressing the release of fat from fat cells.

I like this story, but have long had the nagging suspicion it is not complete. Consider, for example, the Inuit, whose traditional diet consists almost entirely of protein and fat. Protein does raise insulin. Insulin is the sort of the "key" for opening cells the macronutrients (protein, fats, and carbohydrates). Even if you don't eat any carbs, you need insulin to go up in response to protein consumption so your cells can take up the constituent amino acids and use them for building tissue, making functional proteins like hormones, etc. Protein consumption also triggers the pancreas to secrete another hormone called glucagon, which amongst other things blocks the entry of glucose into cells.

So, naively, a meal containing only fat and protein is somewhat blocked from having the fat stored, because glucagon inhibits the fat cells from taking in the glucose required to build triglycerides. But you do need to store some fat. Fat cells are a sort of energy reservoir, providing a steady source of energy between meals, so even if you eat zero carbohydrates, there should be a mechanism for storing a bit of fat. My guess was that this was accomplished through a precise balance of insulin, glucagon, and blood glucose. And it has to be precise, because too little storage and you run out of gas, but too much and you get fat and slow, making it more likely that you become polar bear food. But biological systems are rarely precise, rather achieving balance through robustness rather than precision. It also seemed like there should be some dose dependent mechanism for fat storage, e.g. eat more fat, store more fat. We certainly evolved that mechanism for storing away energy from carbohydrate-rich meals, and it seemed that something similar should be in place to take advantage of fat-rich meals, like bone marrow.

So this post at the Emotions for Engineers blog caught my attention, because at one point it mentions an alternative metabolic pathway fat storage. Sounded juicy, so I dropped a comment asking for elaboration, and was directed to information on acylation stimulation protein, or ASP. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion both in the scientific literature and on the Internet as to exactly how/why ASP did it's thing, and the implications for obesity. I did a big of digging, and though I certainly haven't solved the mystery, I did uncover some clues. This paper, in particular, provides a lot of useful information.

Fat tissue is increasingly recognized as an endocrine organ, generating several hormones related metabolism. You've probably heard of leptin. When fat cells expand from storing fat, they release leptin. Leptin does several things, most notably sensitizing other parts of the body such as the hypothalamus to the effects of hormones affecting satiety and gastrointestinal activity (see this excellent review for more). In short, when fat cells store more fat, they release more leptin, which makes you less hungry, until the fat cells shrink causing them to release less leptin, allowing you to get hungry again. There are many different such mechanisms regulating energy storage, metabolism, and hunger, forming a robustly controlled system, one that works well across a wide variety of input conditions.

ASP is another hormone secreted by fat cells, with several effects. First, ASP can increase LPL activity, making fatty acids available for transport into the fat cells. Second, ASP increases the expression of glucose transporters in fat cells, allowing them to bring in the glucose required to store fat. So ASP plays roughly the same role as insulin in fat storage, but rather than being generated by the pancreas in response to carbohydrates, is generated by the fat cells themselves. Better yet, ASP stimulates the production of triglycerides inside the fat cells. But what causes ASP to be secreted?

The answer, at least in test-tubes, is chylomicrons. When fat cells are exposed to chylomicrons they generate lots of ASP. By contrast, exposing the same cells to glucose, fatty acids, VLDL, HDL, or LDL elicits little ASP response. Further, the ASP response exhibits both a time and concentration dependence on chylomicron concentration.

This is an important clue. As discussed above, chylomicrons are the first step in transporting dietary fats into the body. When you eat a lot of fat, you make more chylomicrons, which causes the fat cells to make more ASP, which stimulates greater fat storage. But the chylomicrons only hang around for a relatively short time, being converted in the liver to VLDL. The receptor for VLDL (VLDL-R), when activated, does increase LPL activity, but to my knowledge does not stimulate glucose transport into fat cells. Thus the fat in VLDL is available to be used for energy, because the LPL frees the fatty acids for transport across cell membranes; but without some other hormonal signal (e.g. insulin), rather little of this fat can be stored in adipose tissue.

Cont'd . . .

[ShottleBop]

Spark of Reason from June 8, 2008, cont'd:

Two questions then arise in the context of a low-carbohydrate/high-fat diet. The most obvious one is "can I get fat by eating too much fat?" Taubes lays out the case that overconsumption of carbohydrates drives fat storage through the action of insulin, but can overconsumption of fat do the same via the action of ASP? When viewed with the most narrow lens, the answer is clearly "yes". While insulin's effects on LPL and glucose transport are considerably stronger than ASP, ASP does ultimately trigger the same conditions leading to fat storage. So if you eat enough fat for a long enough time, in principle you will become obese.

But if we take a step back, things are not so simple. The body has many feedback mechanisms for regulating energy content, such as leptin secretion by large fat cells, leading to suppression of appetite. These mechanisms regulate feelings of hunger, metabolic rate, how fast the stomach empties, etc. The system has presumably evolved to be robust over a wide range of environmental and nutritional conditions, allowing us to have enough energy to make it through times between meals while not having to carry so much that physical performance and other health aspects are compromised. The whole chain of events described above provides a nice example. Eat lots of fat, intestines create lots of chylomicrons. Chylomicrons stimulate fat cells to make ASP, which in turn increases fat storage. As fat cells store fat, they release leptin, which suppresses appetite and sensitizes the body to other satiety signals. But chylomicrons are fairly quickly turned into VLDL, which do not stimulate fat storage, but do make fat available for energy. The brain can detect VLDL levels, and regulate gastric emptying, appetite, etc. until the fat in the VLDL is used up. And that's just one of a complex web of interactions between hormones, the nervous system, metabolism, and digestion.

To become obese (at least without trying really hard), some key regulatory mechanism needs to be broken. For instance, there is a genetic defect which causes the fat cells to not produce leptin. People (or mice) with this defect have an unstoppable appetite, and become extremely obese. Treating them with leptin can reverse this condition. Another example is Cushing's disease, which is a small tumor on the pituitary. The net effect of Cushing's disease is that it causes the body to have high levels of the hormone cortisol. I had a friend with Cushing's disease. He ran five miles every day, and by any measure ate a healthy diet, yet continued to gain weight. Why? Increased cortisol (from the sympathetic endocrine system) can cause compensatory secretion of insulin (from the opposing parasympathetic endocrine system). Chronically high insulin will make you fat no matter how much you exercise or how little you eat. Keep insulin high, and you can literally starve to death while remaining obese.

But it appears the big hitter is carbohydrate consumption, particularly refined carbohydrates. These cause both drastic increases in insulin levels and make available lots of glucose for triglyceride storage. Though insulin nominally acts to suppress appetite and GI motility, high levels drive energy nutrients out of the blood and into the cells, ultimately leading the brain to "override" other mechanisms such as leptin, because low levels of energy nutrients in the blood basically signal imminent starvation; indeed, the brain itself needs a certain level of blood sugar to be maintained for proper operation. So eating carbs not only causes you to efficiently store fat, it also drives you to eat more food, and that food is typically more carbs to stabilize your blood sugar, leading to a vicious cycle.

I don't see a similar issue when eating a high-fat/low-carb diet. Fat ingestion does not cause hormonal derangement. Energy levels in the blood are maintained, allowing the various appetite regulation mechanisms to operate normally without getting an emergency override to eat more food despite available energy in the body. ASP production is stimulated only by chylomicrons, which are relatively short-lived, allowing a limited amount of dietary fat to be stored, while the rest is made available as energy. In principle, you could get fat by eating enough fat, but in practice it would probably be very difficult. You would have to force yourself to eat even though you felt extremely full, and continue to do so over a long time period. Not impossible, but definitely an uphill battle against a whole host of hormonal and nervous control systems, very much the analog of trying to lose weight on a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet.

While it may be hard to gain fat through a high-fat diet, it is likely possible to keep on a certain level of body-fat. Low-carbohydrate diets are known to "stall", where the last 20 or so pounds just won't come off, regardless of carbohydrate restriction. I suspect our friend ASP plays a crucial role here. The low insulin levels on a low-carb diet will allow the fat cells to free fatty acids, but if you are consuming enough fat, at some point this effect will be balanced by that of ASP, and voila, no more fat loss.

[fgummett]

Man... it sure do seem complicated don't it :eek:

Me... I'm just gonna stick with what I now know works for me... after 25 years of struggling to lose weight according to the established guidelines.

I don't think there is an evil conspiracy afoot... I do think many scientists and researchers in this field have lost their way and/or been derailed by politicians and policy makers... who in turn are singing the tune set for them by food-industry lobbyists... who in their turn are not really "evil"... just answering to their shareholders who demand ever more profits :T

[fgummett]

Here's an experiment for you:

Lock a group of people in metabolic wards. Overfeed them. See how many grow vertically (assuming all subjects were at adult height to begin with).

How does insulin create mass without a surplus of energy? Perhaps a pointless experiment but it would serve to underline Taubes' point that overeating does not cause the growth but rather it is the growth which requires the overeating. In the case of a teenage growth spurt the hormone is the very aptly named human grown hormone... in the case of obesity it is insulin. We don't suggest a teenager is growing because they are overeating do we?

Why is it deemed illogical to think outside the box and to even consider that the causality may be reversed?

And far from suggesting that insulin can create mass out of thin air... Taubes readily accepts that overeating is required. Perhaps you misread or misheard him..?

I just know from my own experience (and backed up by others here on DF) that reducing my insulin has finally allowed me to take back control of my appetite and lose weight.. yes I'll accept that I am probably eating fewer calories than I was before... I don't know because I don't count them... but I am not hungry all the time either... which I always was when I repeatedly tried the calorie-restricted hyper-exercise weight-loss regime. The approach he outlines (as already discovered by many others before him) makes sense of all my personal observations which were not satisfied by the status quo.

[tealas]

Man... it sure do seem complicated don't it :eek:

Me... I'm just gonna stick with what I now know works for me... after 25 years of struggling to lose weight according to the established guidelines.



I'm with Frank on this one! We can argue and sling names 'til the cows come home - but in our family (MODY3) a high carb diet (even vegetarian) is deadly. I expressed my MODY3 much stronger with that type of diet in my 20's, and my uncle wasn't even diagosed diabetic until his 40's after one year on a high carb/low fat diet prescribed to lower his lipids :(

Also, almost all carbs we eat in "modern" times are processed. Even good grains are at least milled &/or cooked. How much of that stuff could you be eating 20,000 years ago, much less 1 million years ago? If we sit and argue about things theoretically and then eat "foods" (whether carbs, proteins or fats) that are so far from what we have evolved to eat, what have we accomplished besides pushing every weak genetic button that exists in our DNA's?

[ShottleBop]

In the Afterword to the paperback edition of GCBC (released in February 2008), Taubes recommends the following experiment to test what he calls the carbohydrate hypothesis: Such experiments could be done with a dozen subjects in two to three months and so would be inexpensive, at least by the standards of modern medical research. One caveat is that they would require that their human subjects be treated to some extent like laboratory animals. They would be housed in a metabolic ward and fed three or more meals a day. In the ideal situation, the subjects would never leave the ward and be under constant observation--as was the case with Vilhjalmur Stefansson and his colleague Karsten Anderson in the first weeks of their 1928 meat diet experiment--so that the oppotrunity to cheat on their diets would be minimized. In one variation of the experiment, the subjects would be randomized into two groups. One group, the controls, would be fed a balanced diet, relatively rich in carbohydrates, constituting 3,000 or even 4,000 calories a day. The other would be fed a diet of equal caloric content, but severely carbohydrate restricted--preferably less than sixty grams of carbohydrates a day.

The carbohydrate-restricted diet would lower insulin levels significantly. According to the carbohydrate hypothesis, this would reduce fat accumulation independent of the calories consumed. The fatty acids liberated from the fat tissue would be burned as fuel and energy expenditure would increase in these subjects. The balanced diet would have no effect on insulin levels and those subjects would not be expected to lose weight or increase energy expenditure.[Footnote omitted.]

The study would have to run for at least two months, long enough to establish a significant amount of fat loss if the carbohydrate hypothesis is correct. [Details of monitoring and measurement of results omitted.] (Emphasis added.)

And his final note: When I wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories, I did not set out to convince skeptics that the carbohydrate hypothesis was true. Such a task would be impossible to accomplish, in any case. I set out to document the evidence suggesting that the hypothesis was worthy of serious and critical attention, to follow the evidence without allowing my preconceptions to bias my interpretation. My hope then was and still is that medical researchers, public health authorities, physicians, nutritionists, and even health reporters, confronted, as they are, with unprecedented levels of obesity and diabetes in the population, will perceive Good Calories, Bad Calories not as a threat to their ideals (or their ability) and so something to be ignored or rejected out of hand, but instead as a valuable contribution to their work, one that will better guide their efforts to improve our health.

[fgummett]

Whoa there Shottlebop... that's some pretty sensationalist stuff you're quoting :eek:

[Grunch]

In the Afterword to the paperback edition of GCBC (released in February 2008), Taubes recommends the following experiment to test what he calls the carbohydrate hypothesis:
Quote:
Such experiments could be done with a dozen subjects in two to three months and so would be inexpensive, at least by the standards of modern medical research. One caveat is that they would require that their human subjects be treated to some extent like laboratory animals. They would be housed in a metabolic ward and fed three or more meals a day. In the ideal situation, the subjects would never leave the ward and be under constant observation--as was the case with Vilhjalmur Stefansson and his colleague Karsten Anderson in the first weeks of their 1928 meat diet experiment--so that the oppotrunity to cheat on their diets would be minimized. In one variation of the experiment, the subjects would be randomized into two groups. One group, the controls, would be fed a balanced diet, relatively rich in carbohydrates, constituting 3,000 or even 4,000 calories a day. The other would be fed a diet of equal caloric content, but severely carbohydrate restricted--preferably less than sixty grams of carbohydrates a day.

The carbohydrate-restricted diet would lower insulin levels significantly. According to the carbohydrate hypothesis, this would reduce fat accumulation independent of the calories consumed. The fatty acids liberated from the fat tissue would be burned as fuel and energy expenditure would increase in these subjects. The balanced diet would have no effect on insulin levels and those subjects would not be expected to lose weight or increase energy expenditure.[Footnote omitted.]

The study would have to run for at least two months, long enough to establish a significant amount of fat loss if the carbohydrate hypothesis is correct. [Details of monitoring and measurement of results omitted.]

Cliff notes: The Atkins diet works and I'm changing the name to "carbohydrate hypothesis" to pretend I created a scientific theory and try to get recognition for someone else's research.

The thing is we already know that the Atkins diet works. So what's Taubes' theory after all? He presents a cloud of information and says he's not trying to convince skeptics. He would be amazed at how easily skeptics are convinced when presented with objective straightforward theories that are backed up by logic. Instead he chooses to throw a lot of information around without making a point. That's smart of him because you can't prove someone is wrong when they don't have a point.

Taubes doesn't have any theory that contradicts the theories accepted by the scientific community. In fact he shows a lack of any ability to think logically in the rare occasions when he presents original ideas instead of just quoting references.

[ShottleBop]

Cliff notes: The Atkins diet works and I'm changing the name to "carbohydrate hypothesis" to pretend I created a scientific theory and try to get recognition for someone else's research.

The thing is we already know that the Atkins diet works. So what's Taubes' theory after all? He presents a cloud of information and says he's not trying to convince skeptics. He would be amazed at how easily skeptics are convinced when presented with objective straightforward theories that are backed up by logic. Instead he chooses to throw a lot of information around without making a point. That's smart of him because you can't prove someone is wrong when they don't have a point.

Taubes doesn't have any theory that contradicts the theories accepted by the scientific community. In fact he shows a lack of any ability to think logically in the rare occasions when he presents original ideas instead of just quoting references.

1: Taubes is not a medical researcher. He is a science writer. He doesn't pretend to be anything else.

2: Taubes' book is replete with credit to Robert Atkins, as well as to others, in a manner that is totally inconsistent with the notion that he is pretending that he has created a theory himself. Look, for example, at the index to GCBC, under "Atkins," and at the material to which it directs you:

• page xiii: The two constants over the years were the ideas that starches and sugars--i.e., carbohydrates--must be minimized to reduce weight . . .. When seven prominent British clinicians . . . published a textbook entitled The Practice of Endocrinology in 1951, their prescribed diet for obesity was almost identical to that recommended by Bankting, and that which would be prescribed by such iconoclasts as Herman Taller and Robert Atkins in the United States ten and twenty years later.

• page 311: What the Vermont investigators failed to take into account, however, was their own previous observation that the nutrient composition of the diet seemed to affect profoundly the desire to consume calories to excess. [That appears on page 310] . . . Danforth later described this regimen [a high-fat, high-protein diet, in which meat was the food eaten to excess] as the experimental equivalent of the diet prescribed by Robert Atkins in his 1973 diet book, Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution. . . .

• page 338: The last decade has witnessed a renewed interest in testing carbohydrate-restricted diets as obesity levels have risen and a new generation of clinicians have come to question the prevailing wisdom on weight loss. Six independent teams of investigators set out to test low-fat semi-starvation diets . . . in randomized control trials against "eat as much as you like" Pennington-type diets, now known commonly as the Atkins diet, after Robert Atkins . . ..

• page 404: There are two moments in the history of George McGovern's Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs when the competing paradigms of nutrition and obesity can be captured in the act of shifting--one coming, one going. The first was in April 1973, during a hearing that the committee held on the subject of obesity and fad diets. Appearing that day to testify were Robert Atkins--author of Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution, a book that had already sold almost one million copies in the six months since its publication--and three authorities in nutrition and health, who would testify that Atkins's severely carbohydrate-restricted diet was neither revolutionary, effective, nor safe. The tenor of the hearing was inquisitorial, and a pithy condemnation of Atkins and his diet by the Harvard nutritionist Fred Stare was read into the record by Senator Charles Percy of Illinois. . . . .

• pages 412-15, 416, 417 [pages 412-415 comprise a brief professional biography of Atkins and an elucidation of his ideas in some detail; quite odd for someone alleged to be trying to usurp others' ideas for his own aggrandizement]: With the publication of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution and its subsequent censure by the American Medical Association, the nature of the professional discussions of carbohydrate-restricted diets turned from their clinical utility to the reasons to avoid them. The actual science suddenly mattered less than ever.
. . .

The gist of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution can be distilled down to three assertions. The first is that weight could be lost on his diet without hunger, and perhaps without even restricting calories. . . .

Atkins's second claim was that his diet was inherently healthy, much more so than a low-fat diet, because refined carbohydrates and starches, not saturated fat, caused heart disease and diabetes. . . . .

His third claim was what he called the "cruel hoax" of calorie-restricted diets: The balanced low-calorie diet has been the medical fashion for so long that to suggest any alternative invites professional excommunication," Atkins wrote. "Yet even most doctors admit (at least privately!) the ineffectiveness of low-calorie diets--balanced or unbalanced." . . .

• pages 422, 424 [describing criticisms leveled at Atkins because of the commercial success of his book, as well as the conflicts of interest affecting some of the researchers critical of Atkins].

• Page 425 [the first page of Chapter Twenty-four, "The Carbohydrate Hypothesis, III: Hunger and Satiety"]: In 1975, the Duke University Pediatrician James Sidbury, Jr., described a "rational basis" for the dietary treatment of childhood obesity, one that would neither torment his young patients with hunger nor rely on pharmaceutical means to prevent it. . . . .The same year Sidbury published his description . . . he left his clinic at Duke . . .. By then, he had written only one short textbook and one three-page article for an obscure journal called Connecticut Medicine. In them, he described an approach to obesity therapy that differed from Robert Atkins's only in the details of the application: Sidbury's diet was very low in both carbohydrates and calories, and Sidbury was writing for medical professionals, not the general public.

3. Of course he has a point. He has told us what it is, and I have quoted it already: "I set out to document the evidence suggesting that the [carbohydrate] hypothesis was worthy of serious and critical attention . . .."

[fgummett]

Taubes doesn't have any theory that contradicts the theories accepted by the scientific community. In fact he shows a lack of any ability to think logically in the rare occasions when he presents original ideas instead of just quoting references.Or put another way... "I don't have a coherent argument against Taubes so I will try to discredit the man instead of the message"... it's called "ad hominem".

Another of the references used and given full credit by Taubes is Surgeon-Captain T.L. Cleaves M.R.C.P.and his excellent book published in 1974 (but based on his own observations reaching back into the 1950's) and available on-line... The Saccharine Disease (http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Cleave/cleave_toc.html) -- subtitled "Conditions caused by the Taking of Refined Carbohydrates, such as Sugar and White Flour"

Before him there was Weston Price's book in 1939... Weston Price: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html) -- "A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects"

It is a mistake to think that Atkins came up with this idea. If you think that, you clearly have not read or heard Taubes speak which makes me wonder how you feel justified in your comments about him?

[HelenM]

Re metabolic ward experiments /calories /weight loss/ diet proportions.
There have been several done, some many years ago.
There is a list in this 'document'.......actually I don't know what to call it .It is undoubtably a diatribe against M Eades and GTaubes by A Colpo. The author has his own dietary book to sell so is not unbiased but he is certainly not known as being a supporter of conventional wisdom. or low fat diets(ie his book about cholesterol)
He cites several metabolic ward studies which compare weight loss with different percentages of carbs/protein/fat. He claims, that none have found any difference in weight loss between diets ,that what matters is the calorific intake.
I certainly haven't checked many of them as they're quite difficult to find with only one author and date.Those I have, support his claim.
I can't link directly but there is a link on this page. The PDF is called 'they're all Mad.'
(the title gives you an idea of the vitriol :eek: )
Anthony Colpo Explains Why Dr Michael Eades is the Biggest Prat in the Diet Industry (http://www.anthonycolpo.com/Eades_Admits_Anthony_Colpo_Was_Right_On_Calories.h tml)

[fgummett]

As you say Helen... quite vitriolic :eek:

I'm certainly not suggesting that the 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong or that a calorie isn't a calorie etc... but how do these truths really help us in any practical fashion? They have not helped me... as I said above it is only since I started understanding the underlying physiology and especially the relationship between; refined carbohydrates, insulin and fat storage that I started winning this fight.. and yes for me it has been a 25 year struggle. Taubes uses a quote form an eminent obesity researcher (I'll try to find the citation) who (to paraphrase) says "stating that someone is overweight because they overate is about as illuminating as saying someone is an alcoholic because they overdrink... it is just restating the problem without offering any explanation or solution".

To me at least a statement such as "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" implies the exact same effect on the body's metabolism if I ate 2,000 calories of HFCS as I would get if I ate 2,000 calories of butter or 2,000 calories of broccoli... clearly that is ludicrous.

I just know from my own experience (and backed up by others here on DF) that reducing my insulin has finally allowed me to take back control of my appetite and lose weight.. yes I'll accept that I am probably eating fewer calories than I was before... I don't know because I don't count them... but I am not hungry all the time either... which I always was when I repeatedly tried the calorie-restricted hyper-exercise weight-loss regime. The approach he outlines (as already discovered by many others before him) makes sense of all my personal observations which were not satisfied by the status quo.

[fgummett]

"Obesity, too many believe, is explained by overeating: actually it should be recognized that this is simply restating the problem in a different way, and reaffirming (somewhat unnecessarily a, more than a century after Robert Mayer and Joule) ones faith in the First Law of Thermodynamics. To 'explain' obesity by overeating is as illuminating a statement as an 'explanation' of alcoholism by chronic overdrinking."
Jean Mayer, 1954

Jean Mayer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Mayer)

Taubes goes on to say, "another example I use is to say that person has chronic fatigue syndrome because they don't have enough energy... it tells you nothing about why they don't enough energy.... why they overeat... it's just that if you're an alcoholic you by definition drink too much... if you're obese, somewhere along the line you consumed more calories than you expended. It tells you nothing about why that person did so. And what it does is it makes it a behavioural defect -- it's really weird -- all you have to do is think in terms of energy in minus energy out, and suddenly you're left saying OK, obesity is basically caused by overeating and physical inactivity, and these are behaviors... it's sedentary behaviour... so you have a physiological problem -- too much fat -- ...and you are turning into a psychological problem instead of a physiological one"

[ShottleBop]

What's interesting is that, despite all the vitriol, Colpo's dietary recommendations are very similar to those of the Eades, per this column he wrote for Total Health Breakthroughs: Start Running Your Body on the Right Fuel!

by Anthony Colpo 11/23/2007

The ultimate diet for any animal is the one designed by nature. Any competent veterinarian could tell you this. Sadly, many human doctors and nutritionists appear to be totally blind to this simple fact.

For almost our entire 2.4 million-year history, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. We lived on foods that could be eaten either raw or with a minimum of preparation. Think freshly killed meats, wild vegetables, fruits, berries and nuts. Around 10,000 years ago, human history changed forever. With the adoption of farming, the human diet underwent a massive and fundamental change in a relatively brief space of time. It went from a high-protein regimen based on meats and wild vegetation to a high-carbohydrate pattern based on cereal grains. Remember, this food source was essentially alien to the human digestive tract in its natural state.

Around 150 years ago, our diet underwent another radical change. New technologies allowed for the wide-scale production of sugar, refined flours and extracted vegetable fats. This led to the proliferation of highly processed, calorie-rich but nutrient-poor “convenience” foods.

To top it all off, perfectly healthy animal foods such as meats and eggs were denounced by health “experts.” Cereal grains and other low-fat foods were promoted as the epitome of healthy eating.

The end result is that we humans now get the bulk of our calories from foods that were alien to the human digestive tract for 99.7 percent of its evolutionary history. The Food and Agriculture Organization has found that Americans now get over three-quarters of their calories from staples that were non-existent during the Paleolithic age. Cereal grains now account for 22 percent of calories. Potatoes make up 3 percent. The others: Sugar and other sweeteners (18 percent), vegetable oils (17 percent), dairy products (11 percent) and alcoholic beverages (4 percent). Nutrient-dense staples like meats, eggs, nuts, fruits, vegetables and seafood once furnished nearly all of our calories. They now provide a mere 20 percent of our daily energy intake.

Why is this so bad?

Because to function optimally, our bodies need a plentiful supply of amino acids, vitamins, minerals and trace elements. Our primary source of these elements is the food we eat. But most people shun the nutrient-rich foods we evolved on and instead eat processed foods with poor nutrient content.

Contrary to the claims of health authorities, cereal grains, whether whole or refined, are nutritional weaklings. They contain no vitamin C, no vitamin D, no B12, no vitamin A and (with the sole of exception of yellow maize) no beta-carotene. Cereal grains and legumes also contain high concentrations of substances that researchers refer to as anti-nutrients. Among these are phytate (a substance that binds to minerals and reduces their absorption by the body), pyridoxine glucoside (which has been shown to reduce the availability of vitamin B6 by 75-80 percent), substances that impair vitamin D absorption, and lectins (which may impair healthy immune function and promote leaky gut syndrome).

White flour, highly pervasive in our food supply, has a pathetically low micronutrient content. While it contains relatively high amounts of potassium and phosphorus, it contains miniscule amounts of calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, copper, folate and vitamins B1, B2, B5, B6, E and K. White flour contains no vitamin A, D or B12. Enrichment of flour significantly boosts the iron, folate and vitamin B3 content, and also produces small increases in vitamins B1 and B2. But it does nothing to counter the numerous other nutritional shortcomings of this common staple.

In addition, white flour and finely ground whole-meal flours rate very high on the glycemic index (GI), producing sharp and rapid rises in blood glucose levels. Such rapid spikes in blood sugar are best avoided. They result in wild blood sugar swings that can play havoc with your mood, energy levels and appetite. Repeated on a long-term basis, such spikes in blood sugar set the stage for type 2 diabetes.

Foods made from white flour also have very poor satiety value, says the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In other words, they encourage the consumption of excess calories and increase the likelihood that you will end up overweight.

If you think the nutritional profile of white flour is bad, wait until you get a load of the sugars. Along with vegetable oils, these are the second major source of calories in the American diet. These sweeteners have virtually no micronutrient content whatsoever. They provide nothing but pure calories. Like processed flour, these refined high GI sweeteners send blood sugar levels soaring.

The overwhelming majority of vegetable oil consumed in the U.S. is in the form of soybean oil. Aside from excessive linoleic acid and modest amounts of vitamin E and K, soybean oil contains virtually no other vitamins, minerals or trace elements. And a number of animal and human studies show that linoleic-rich oils like soybean worsen one’s nutritional status by decreasing the absorption of iron, zinc and copper.

Cereal grains, sweeteners and vegetable oils account for a staggering 57 percent of calories consumed in the U.S. It’s little wonder that chronic degenerative disease is rife in modernized nations like America.

Animal foods contain important nutrients that simply cannot be found in plant foods. The list includes carnitine, creatine, carnosine, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), vitamin B12 and (in the case of fatty fish) the critical long-chain omega 3 fatty acids EPA and DHA. Vegetables, nuts and fruits, meanwhile, typically feature antioxidant contents that cereal grains could not even dream of matching.

If you care about your health, start giving modern-day pseudo-foods the cold shoulder. Choose the most nutrient-rich staples you can find. Model your diet on that of our ancestors, who ate fresh meats and non-cereal plant foods.

[fgummett]

Interesting point about "Cereal grains and legumes also contain high concentrations of substances that researchers refer to as anti-nutrients." I had heard similar before and meant to follow up on it. My very basic understanding was that unlike most fruits, berries etc... which rely on being attractive so they will be eaten and their seed spread around the countryside... these anti-nutrients exist in plants that really don't want to be eaten :eek:

[tealas]

Interesting point about "Cereal grains and legumes also contain high concentrations of substances that researchers refer to as anti-nutrients." I had heard similar before and meant to follow up on it. My very basic understanding was that unlike most fruits, berries etc... which rely on being attractive so they will be eaten and their seed spread around the countryside... these anti-nutrients exist in plants that really don't want to be eaten :eek:

Ah! When I asked you what you thought about the Paleolithic diet (in the gene thread you started) this is what I was actually referring to. I presumed you had investigated some of the biochemistry of why agricultural foods trigger degenerative conditions. The concepts of lectins and other mineral binding components is at least loosely related to whether you are eating raw verses cooked foods. Because most of the foods that are excluded on the Paleolithic diet are foods that you can't comfortably eat raw in larger quantities (grains, legumes, potatoes etc). I would assert that eating a predominately Paleolithic diet (cooked) is good, but eating those foods with a higher percentage of them raw is even more important.

I think Boutenko's book on the importance of a high percentage of raw greens in our diet is very illuminating ("Greens for Life").