18

votes

Can Taubes and Guyenet both be right?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created August 10, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Check me here.

Taubes proposed that carbs cause chronically high insulin levels; this ultimately causes insulin resistance and diabetes/metabolic syndrome (and associated obesity).

Guyenet more recently proposed that hormonal hunger signaling gets dysregulated in the brain by "hyper palatable" foods in the gut; this, then, is his preferred explanation for the cause of obesity.

Can both of them be correct? Is there any reason to expect that there is a single "dominant" factor in obesity?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

You want to hear the funny part.....if the addict develops Narcolepsy it cures their addiction immediately. Why? That is why SG theory is flawed and also why Taubes and Lustig have it half correct. But I am quite sure we will all be on the same page soon.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

but here is the rub....you can become diabetic without high insulin levels. Clinical medicine has many cases like this. The O6 route is a killer too. MAny T2 are thin as rails with low post prandial sugars......but their livers are shot and so is their brain. In fact these are the people that get extraordinary rates of AD as they age. Neither paradigm fits them. Now ask yourself why? This is where Taubes question to SG comes in.

1ac8e976f84cb2566ecfbbcce1817351

(211)

on August 21, 2011
at 04:13 PM

at least SG was reasonable to say it isn't the only cause of metabolic syndrome, unlike Taubes.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 07:26 PM

Melissa here is the paper.....gastroenterology 2009: 136 68-80 Reviews in basic and clinical gastroenterology. Microbes in GI Health and disease By Andrew Neish Dept of pathology at emory univ.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:07 PM

The beauty of scoence is it does not lie.....the truth is the truth. And this debate fight whatever it is ......will get the big dogs to the same table soon.....because the science has the gravitational pull. this is why I was ecstatic in my post AHS blog......two yrs ago Lustig was not on the leptin bus.....now he has a toe in the water. Samething with SG.....but they dont realize how the brain controls it all.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:05 PM

Dancing yes.....but when he got up at AHS and said leptin is the STARVATION HORMONAL only I nearly shit the bed. That clearly shows he only understand one part of the leptin story. Why? Anorexics (starvation) have high rev T3 and are LR. Morbidly obese have high rev T3 and are LR! How in the hell does Lustig reconcile that if its just the starvation hormone. Its the Master hormone that control how the hypothalmus(hypocretin neurons)see total body energy balance. That is the point SG, Taubes and Lustig will all be at soon. Obesity is an inflammatory brain disease that has multiple paths

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:35 PM

*"aravind I laid it out in my response to Jack Kronk on this thread."* thanks for responding to the call, Quilt.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:22 PM

They really need an Oppenheimer to lead them. It's all right to follow separate paths (what I see here are psychosocial, biochemical and physiological), but an arbitrator would be helpful. Fights between reductionists solve nothing.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:38 PM

even admits is not a new idea, is the DOMINANT factor in weight gain. I surely do not see how it will be the Savior of the masses struggling to lose weight. It seems to make sense as a tool perhaps but that this explains it all? I just can't wrap my head around it.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:37 PM

Thanks again mem. But tell me your thoughts on this. I, along with many others, have been able to lose weight eating delicious low carb foods. Not bland nasty stuff. I eat very well. Highly seasoned, highly palatable foods. I lost weight and have kept it off. I got fat eating pretty delicious food. My siblings and parents ate the same foods yet I got fat and they did not. I have lost weight eating/drinking nasty swill too. I agree that having less deliciousness ALL THE TIME and saving highly palatable foods for special occasions may be wise but I don't see who this idea, which SG...

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 05:08 AM

(continued) ..on a low carb diet? LOWER INSULIN." :) "Insulin is an indigenous leptin antagonist." You're right, I;m right, our experience is dead on. And, coming from different angles, Lustig, Taubes and Guyenet are also right. Stephan is "anti insulin" right now, but in time...;) Also, ppl need to give the Taubes thing a break. Lustig shouted down Taubes in the middle of a USAF lecture. It happens. Not good, but I think we all need to let go of the drama. Good ppl do make mistakes.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 05:05 AM

@Shari: Good - ie., this is likely not a good time. I'm solidly in your corner re: low carb. I am a product of it, as you are. And we are among the scant 3-5% of all "radical losers" in the US who actually become "radical maintainers." :) I also believe that Stephan's FR theory, in it's LARGENESS has real application and it ain't about gluttony and sloth. And Lustig is the man. "Every nueron in the brain that has a leptin recptor has an insulin receptor. Insulin blocks leptin." "Insulin amkes you feel like crap. More insulin, more crap. Wanna know why you feel better..

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:41 AM

That's for that mem. Wise words. I've just been reading SG's blog and am so angry right now I don't even want to give his theory a go at this moment in time. It seems GT is now a royal idiot and insulin is completely benign and has nothing what so ever to do with weight gain or loss. I feel like I'm living on another planet. Anyway, I do want to change something up but right now I'm just not sure what that should be. Aravind and I spoke today about a level 4 but I'm just not feeling it right now. We'll see.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:11 AM

Yes, in the end, it is about weight loss. But, it becomes an actual way in which one's fundamental *realtionship* to food *changes.* This is MUCH broader than most ppl would imagine and begins to drive real and potentially lasting changes in food's "place" in one's consciousness/ brain, which can drive changes in selection, preparation and *response* which become *habitual* and actually make new neural pathaways re: food.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:06 AM

(continued) this is not "black and white" stuff. It is a process that takes time. Intuitively, but strongly, I feel that doing a 30 day run is too stringent for where you are now AND will likely lead to intense feelings of anger and deprivation. but what I am talking about is only one of FR applications. It can also be used, and I think Stephan is seeing it that way, as a broad, poulation based public health intervention - NO - not level 5!!!! But the idea of many less ingredients and much simpler eating overall, as prevention.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:02 AM

(continued) experiece that it could be if not tailored individually. I would really like to encourage you to begin doing it on rotation. I have talked before about how I am heavily into "change it up" re: both food and exercise. PATIENCE is in order here, especially with where you are in your journey and I really believe that OVER TIME...and we may be talking about a matter of months to a year here, if you do rotation with it - say insert it for two days then reg diet for 3 days and back and even change it up more, you might be surprised at where you eventually land. One problm is...

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:59 AM

@Shari: Yes, it is there. However, I want to suggest to you, b4 you do your experiement, that there are a variety of ways of looking at interventions via food reward theory. In really reading over all parts of Stephan's FR writing, and reflecting on it and my own weight loss journey and maintenance over these almost 10 years, I began to see that indeed, I have been impacted by this and very positively so. Keep in mind that it is NOT all or nothing. And the more I contemplate it, the more clearly I see a variety of ways that it could be done and have impact and NOT be the very negative

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:53 AM

" "Sisson's approach really underscores that with the removal of inflammatory foods, probiotics, the "carb curve", and emphasis on whole real foods." YES. Atkins actually had a big emphasis on clean food eating...and then Atkins Nutritions came into being...:(

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:49 AM

Lustig has been dancing with Leptin for awhile. he was dancing with leptin in: Sugar - the Bitter Truth. It is not new content but EXPANDED content in this 2007 discussion. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:29 AM

Oh, I know Shari, sometimes it feels like we're still in CW-land, with all the support and all.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:25 AM

don't worry, my ears are deaf to her plea to supplement inulin. I have enough Jerusalem artichokes!!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:15 AM

I bet Lustig takes a bullet too for some of his slides at AHS......we will see how far it goes. This is why chaos rocks at meetings! Progress comes from it.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:14 AM

It appears from SG latest blog we are going to get what I hoped we get......real discussion on leptin.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:11 AM

Look like SG is going to come out now and counterpunch.....I told ya fights are good! It stimulates thinking and thought exercises. Paleo community wins and leptin will be the feature.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:40 AM

Right. Walking changed your hormonal milieu. Who knows about the details. Maybe it prevented the fructose from wreaking its havoc for a little while.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:32 AM

Sorry WCCPaul....this is it and no more hijacking, but to Olivia's point I lost 25 pounds living in France when I was walking solely for transportation. Probably 10 miles a day back and forth to work, the store, etc. I made no attempt to change diet,and ate anything I felt like. When I got back to the US I stopped walking, gained all the weight back and then some, and was eventually diagnosed diabetic. To lose weight I cut carbs and started walking again. This time of year I average over 10 miles a day. I may be obsessive about it but I know what happened the last time I stopped.

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on August 11, 2011
at 12:49 AM

geez, i have been saying this for so long...no one listened to me tho, good thing we have someone 'qualified' so i assume peopl will start understanding the unifying point...the brain

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on August 11, 2011
at 12:27 AM

@thhq: Geez, I shouldn't have gotten drawn in. But yes, I think that it is (somewhat) good that you said that activity suppressed your hunger. And of course activity requires energy expenditure, but that doesn't automatically mean it will make you thinner, because your body can find other ways to conserve calories (or make you eat more). Setpoint, setpoint, setpoint. But I'm afraid I'm not made for these discussions anymore. Here you go: http://paleohacks.com/questions/35248/im-a-noob-here-and-need-to-know-the-truth-about-calories-in-vs-calories-out-myt/35354#35354

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 11:08 PM

The answer is now clear - Kamal's hyper gluten and "grass fed" corn oil diet will liberate all of from the obsession with macronutrients, hormones, and the like. Now pass me another naan and pakora Kamal!

7d0c3ea9bf8be00b93e6433d8f125ac3

(7540)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:51 PM

Are you talking about formal exercise or incidental activity such as walking to get around, carrying groceries, shovelling snow, and so on? Because I think the fact that many people don't walk at all (not even a few blocks; as someone who didn't grow up in north america this behaviour was really quite shocking to me when I came back. People would bitch about having to walk twenty minutes to get to the store.) and that we now rely frequently on machines to do tasks that used to require at least a small amount of manual labour may contribute to why people on average are getting fatter.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:51 PM

I've found that activity suppressed my hunger WCCPaul, which helped weight loss. But are you implying that activity does not require energy expenditure?

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:44 PM

Melissa's a Grok-loving supplement schill!1!! Sorry, bored. Time to get back to work.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:36 PM

funny thing this is also why I did not give Lustig a pass on my Jimmy Moore podcast in March.....and Jimmy found my comments interesting then. When he heard Lustig at AHS he mentioned to me in the pisser that that change in his theory falls right in line with what I laid out in the podcast but never explained but I am laying the path in my blog....slowly because its deep stuff that is complicated. I am doing the opposite of what they are. They are details first....then big view. I am giving you the big view and filling in details. we will see if we all wind up at the brain as I suspect.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:33 PM

and it only plays a major role when they are also centrally LR. Then reward is a huge issue. But it requires central LR. Hence why I can allow the term dominant a pass.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:32 PM

Shari, I still laugh when I remember your contribution to the greatest paleohacks quotes of all time: "Eric, you ignorant slut!"

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:30 PM

SG is on the outflow tracts....and I agree with him. there but as a scientist of his ilk he relies on knock outs to find stuff out. as a neurosurgeon we do the same with tumors and trauma. I see his reward tracts knocked out a lot and they dont get fat. If the hypothalamus is devasted they got major issues......fat being one of them. That is a simplistic view point but hammers home why reward is not dominant. But it does play a role.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:27 PM

@mari it does not.....Gary is cluelss about the brain and told Jimmy Moore just that. He is trying to get people to understand insulin resistance and carbs.....that basic relationship is fucked in medicine. And Taubes is right. But he knows nada about leptin and therefore he is not at the party for me.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:26 PM

aravind I laid it out in my response to Jack Kronk on this thread. And I could not reach out when I did not know who they were sorry. The people I knew I spoke too. Many people came up to me and I waited to see if they were someone from here....i was even a badge watcher but it did not work well. I really wished I would have made it out that night but with no clothes and jet lag.....shit happens.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:12 PM

Activity can lead to weight loss but not because it burns calories.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:59 PM

When you eat a lot of fructose (such as the high fructose corn syrup present in lots of processed foods and carbonated beverages), the liver is burdened with getting the fructose out of the blood and converting it to fat, and it therefore can not keep up with cholesterol supply. As I said before, the fats can not be safely transported if there is not enough cholesterol. The liver has to ship out all that fat produced from the fructose, so it produces low quality LDL particles, containing insufficient protective cholesterol. So you end up with a really bad situation where the LDL particles are

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:57 PM

Why I think Lustigs points about fructose are spot on......Fructose is ten times more active than glucose at glycating proteins, and is therefore very dangerous in the blood serum for oxLDL production (Seneff1 et al., 2011) People forget about this.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:51 PM

The REAL shocker for me is that people still want to argue that lowering carb intake produces fat loss in MANY people! WHy this idea is so offensive to so many is just beyond me. Low carb works and works spectacularly for a huge portion of the population. Get over it already.

11838116de44ae449df0563f09bd3d73

(655)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:48 PM

N=1 experiences vastly discount compliance. Physicians and others treating obesity do not. Taubes and Guyenet have hugely less practical knowledge than an Atkins center physician or the Eades. Robert Atkins new what worked because he saw it work many thousands of times.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:33 PM

mari! i love it when you pop up like that out of no where :) @Q - well, not really clear, but at least I understand where you are coming from. I read through all your comments here again, just to see if I could understand it better, but I just don't. That's ok though. I don't really think it matters much whether we see this the same. I'll continue to keep an ear to the ground. At this point, I don't fully agree with either of them anyway. But then again, Stephan's assertions seem much less definitive and leave more wiggle room to be able to sort of agree with it even if you kinda don't.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:18 PM

@quilt- how does the brain fit into gary taubes' theory?

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:12 PM

Yeah, your arguments make sense, but so do mine (I think). I really don't think we have all the answers yet and we just have to keep learning and reading and thinking critically.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:10 PM

I truly don't get how this argument keeps expanding. There is no Theory A vs Theory B. It's not like Stephan Guyenet and Gary Taubes are spoiled children throwing sticks at each other. Taubes got riled up and spoke out of turn. I highly doubt that if you talked to Taubes in person, that he would couch his arguments such black and white terms as is presented here on paleohacks. In a previous lecture I attended, he was argumentative against CW professors who asked questions, seemingly just to make a point.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:07 PM

Thanks for the validation The Loon. I thought maybe I was being overly sensitive but it's really there isn't it?

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:02 PM

+1 Quilt, for being inclusionary

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:00 PM

I really think the sleep and aging researchers are going to find it before the obesity guys because they are less dogmatic and less is known in their biology.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:59 PM

+1 +1 Shari for calling out the recent low-carb crap talk.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:57 PM

Travis im am so glad to see you type what I think......this is how I look at it as well.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:56 PM

Kidding honey. Just kidding. Rose, I think he and Danielle made some interesting videos but we did not, lol. Yeah I'll post if anything comes of our talk. I seem to be confused on this SG stuff. I really don't see why everyone is all of the sudden foaming at the mouth over this so I clearly need to be enlightened. Guess my head's just too far up GT's ass to see clearly, lol.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:55 PM

that is called partial agreement. Not totally your fucking wrong stance. Half right is better than all wrong.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 08:53 PM

Loon, yeah if you don't do dairy, or just inulin which is in some of Sisson's supplements

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:52 PM

Because both of their position cause issues but at different points in the pathway to obesity.....but ultimately the brain is the final arbiter of the effect and its quotient is the net effect of hormonal secretion and action. Clear now?

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:50 PM

you low carbers?

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:49 PM

yes, and all three of them are very nice

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:46 PM

couldn't you just eat jerusalem artichokes?

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:45 PM

Please, oh please publicize the gist of your private chat later. I mean, the stuff having to do with SG/GT. (But if you've got other interesting video <*cough*> I mean *insights* from AHS, please share those, too. ;D)

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 08:41 PM

Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:32 PM

I thought you just liked to hear yourself talk. Hmmm. K. later.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 08:23 PM

No not right at all. This is why I am banging on about this. Will call you later

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 08:22 PM

@Amit - Taubes accounting for the Kitavans with this is like saying the The Lipid Hypothesis 1.0 damned all Cholesterol, and then 2.0 differentiated HDL vs LDL and therefore you are actually a cholesterol skeptic if you believe in 2.0. Anyway, I respectfully disagree for the following reason - if our SINGULAR focus is on carbohydrates and the corresponding insulin response, then the differentiation with processed carbs doesn't hold water. I can show you unprocessed carbs that have a very high insulin response on par with processed ones. What does this tell us about carbs here - a red herring!

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:19 PM

Well there is a lot of talk post-AHS that is very anti-low carb so I'm super sensitive right now. The question of this thread is SG or Taubes. SG negates carbs as a consideration. Right?

7fe08b47d7d073a906802a4170ae24bf

(350)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:16 PM

Hmmm..Lalonde does not agree with Taubes. He believe that omega-6, fructose, etc are the problem, and NOT refined carbs per say.

7fe08b47d7d073a906802a4170ae24bf

(350)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:13 PM

RIGHT! your body has be heal before you start losing weight. Took me 4 months of eating paloe before i lost weight.

7fe08b47d7d073a906802a4170ae24bf

(350)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:11 PM

One distinction you need to make, Taubes DOES account for Katavans. He blames highly refined carbs, not carbs per say. I sat next to Guyenet for dinner on Saterday night and I flat out told him he needs to give the breakdown of the "Cafeteria food" before he can say it's not the macronutrient breakdown.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:09 PM

but, perhaps we see different groups of people. I don't send my fat friends over to PH anymore, because of the sometimes hostile environment. People who cannot lose weight except on low carb diets do not want to hear how "fat-phobic" they are. That's unproductive.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:05 PM

I know plenty of people who have stalled out both on CW "clean" eating that included healthywholegrains, and also paleo-style plans with little food reward (per Guyenet def). I know folks who have not lost weight on "clean" low- or lower-carb diets, or paleo. This is why I am not fond of Guyenet's hypothesis. Again, Quilty seems to be the only one who isn't blaming fat people. It's not even one step up from CW judgements "calories in-calories out dude!"

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:04 PM

Dr K - I was talking specifically about my answer above. I still conclude, based on the proclamations that Mr. Taubes and Mr. Guyenet have made, that they disagree fundamentally on carbs>insulin>metabolism/obesity. You say that they are on the same continuum. I was just wondering what makes you say this.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 08:03 PM

the bad thing about being in science as a specialist like Stephan is that sometimes everything seems to be able the current research you are doing. I know the feeling, given that I see everything in terms of SCFA and dysbiosis now. Haha.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:01 PM

That butter has to be pastured butter.....regular butter has little to none. Organic Valley or Kerry Gold or real stuff from a grass fed cow

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:00 PM

Gastroenterology this yr not sure of the month......but I will search my hard drive and post it here or on your site. Great article and has every pathway you can imagine.....between gut and bacteria. The GI docs were floored by it.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Shari - no one said Low Carb doesn't work for weight loss for some people. Why do you think that is what it means to challenge Taubes? Let's talk offline dear :-)

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Shari - no one said Low Carb doesn't work for weight loss for people to lose weight. Why do you think that is what it means to challenge Taubes? Let's talk offline dear :-)

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:52 PM

You dont know shit about shit without testing. Much of what we read makes no sense because it has no centext. Rats and mice and monkeys never equal humans but are great to gain insight to generate hypothesis. the keys to understanding are the swtiches....what they are set for and what they react to and the resultant response of the brain.....namely hormones and acute phase reactants. That is the basis of the QUILT.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:50 PM

@Q - well we didn't and the question is being discussed now after AHS. I didn't see you reaching out to any PH-ers out there either (and I hung out with a LOT of them), but that is water under the bridge. Regardless, I don't see why you cannot answer my sincere query to understand your point.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:50 PM

a major role. This is determined by out environment, genes and their epigenetic switches. The switches, gut, and hypothalamus are the only things that remain dynamic at this point. the sum total of these effects are best read by our biologic response from the master organ.....the brain. this is read via hormones. The hormonal response to inputs tells you where the hypothalamus is set and where your switches are now. Then you can alter diet, gut and environment to alter the hormonal relation. This is the essence of the Leptin reset that I laid out on MDA in a 100K hit post.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:47 PM

Excellent answer!

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

also, we can't forget exogenous butyrate from butter!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Jack I do daily in my blog. Its complex. With time you will see me give small examples to the core. Here it is in a nutshell. The human genome is affected as soon a a zygote is formed. Most of our genomic and epigenomic switches are set in this fashion based upon the environment that our germ cells first saw. When we are born our hypothalamus is then loaded with a USB (leptin from colustrum) and our gut loaded from our Mom vagina. Then from 0-6 we are working on those two major inputs and neural tracts from gut to brain are hard wired and re enforced. At six.....our environment then play

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Quilty, can you post a link to the study?

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Jack I'm not sure what else we should be doing? I'll do 30 days Stephan's way and I'm sure I'll drop a few pounds. I'm mainly interested in breaking through this set point and being able to maintain it which is something I have yet to find a way to do. I'm open to ideas God knows. I should say that even Stephan said to me that I may just be stuck where I am and he wasn't sure his method would help me.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

Aravind you got his number? Geez. I traded emails with him but he never offered me his number. I knew he was bitter that I'm a Hokie and he's a Wahoo. He denied it but I knew it was true. I know it seems like I'm dogging on him and I don't mean to. I hold him in the highest esteem. I just think he's another guy with some great ideas that may technically be correct but just won't work where the rubber hits the road. Just another theory that will make fat people feel stupid, lazy and lacking in will power. Don't want that.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

downvoters, what issues do you have with my graphic?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

This is something you should have spoken to me about out there.....because it underscores the theory the Quilt is based upon

Medium avatar

(39831)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

Well said...I think it's important that we gather all available information into something cohesive rather than becoming excessively reliant upon one individual's specialty or focus of study.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:41 PM

Working against entrenched neural pathways is going to be a tough battle for many, especially if they have an addict's dopamine d2 receptors. For those people, food reward is massive, but for others it may not be.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:41 PM

Rose Eenfeldt's is fantastic! I just love him!! No one will ever convince me that low carb isn't magic for weight loss for most people. Ever. There may be other factors. There probably are but Taubes will always own my heart even if he's a dick.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:41 PM

a recent study of SCFA in the colon was just published within the last six months in GI literature that opened up many eyes. The high conversion rate to butyrate was what gave the benefit of HS CRP reduction via the production of O3 in the colon......all dependent upon the gut biogenome. Finding the right genome is critical for our epigenetic switches and dietary choices.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:36 PM

I chose long ago to look at this another way because the diet does not explain all comers.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:35 PM

Dude......you and I are mind brothers. This is how I look at it. The reason macro and micro does not matter is because of who and what set our switches and what our switiches react to is environment based feom conception to 6 yrs old. We can only change back to baseline. This is why people like AKD have to eat ridiculous calories to maintain weight. Same thing with in the woo. Once things change at the brain nothing remains the same. And looking at it from a distal standpoint just confuses the issue. Looking at it top down......from the diet makes too many paradoxes that dont fit.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:34 PM

Mmm. Well, thhq, I do agree we're living wrong in all kinds of ways, leading to derangements over and above obesity, but the discussion seems to be about obesity.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:30 PM

Look forward to reading your piece Melissa.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:26 PM

Score one smcdow. Book revenues are the only thing at stake. The bigger dog eats more steaks.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:24 PM

And rose I'm not talking about weight loss but a paleo lifestyle. A cave is only where you eat and sleep when you're not foraging.

8ea84667a7f11ac3967f2ecfcad28ad8

(641)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:20 PM

This is a very confusing issue. Not only that, but I think it's devolved into an academic pissing match.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:15 PM

Lucky you cavedad. Activity does it for me. Hunting and gathering first and foremost.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:13 PM

@LB - can I write my response any better than the master - http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html - does this address your question?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:10 PM

3) After AHS, I have traded several emails with Stephan and we've exchanged phone numbers. He has agreed to meet with me via phone (hopefully later this week). I am trying to clarify a few things with him. 4) Once I talk to him, I am ALL IN. I am probably going for Level 4 but if you "require" my to do 5, I will comply. Who's your daddy now??? Seriously, I'm game. BRING IT!

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:10 PM

care to expand, Quilt? sometimes leaving your audience with a thought to ponder is enlightening. Other times, people are left scratching their heads.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:09 PM

@LB - I didn't take Quilt this way, not because of what he wrote, but because I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt to get to his deeper point. It's complicated, but I'm going to stick with him...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:07 PM

3) After AHS, I have traded emails. He has agreed to meet with me via phone (hopefully later this week). I am trying to clarify a few things with him. 4) Once I talk to him, I am ALL IN. I am probably going for Level 4 but if you "require" my to do 5, I will comply. Who's your daddy now???

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:06 PM

and i don't think it's aravind taking up for "his boy". it's more about stephan's introduced a whole lot of evidence backing up his theory and after chewing it over, aravind finds it very plausible, as do many other people, in part or whole- laypeople such as myself and stephan's intellectual colleagues. at the very least, he's given everyone something else to think about. your tone comes off rather condescending...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:06 PM

OH NO YOU DI'NT...I thought you were over the Danielle thing. Ok, jokes aside, here goes. 1) I am totally down for the challenge. 2) After you and I first chatted online about this (couple weeks ago), I sent Patrik an email to somehow host a 30 day online challenge here at PH. He did not feel it was PH appropriate. Point is, I am commited to proving.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:04 PM

@Quilt - Please clarify. Here's the essence of what I said - 1) I don't agree with Taubes regarding CAUSATION. 2) I believe Stephan's theory IN PART has plausibilty of being CAUSAL but requires more evidence. I'm not trying to be litigous. Help me understand what you are saying. I mean this sincerely

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:04 PM

@quilt please break down the parts of the theory you don't agree with because there is alot that i agree with there, i just think that low carb is preferable in the initial healing for obesity.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:02 PM

I like you are defending your boy.....but as I said to your new boy toy Aravind.....think bigger. Make it an all inclusive thought experiment for obesity

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:59 PM

Taubes is wrong. He managed to simplify biochemistry by using too many words and cocksure confidence.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:58 PM

Way too simplistic......but it is a staring point.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:57 PM

it seems as these two are 180 degree opposite polar positions and I submit they are not. They are on the same continuum but most dont see it because they are not fully seeing the real problem.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:56 PM

i really love that you back your boy.....really do. But I would like you to embrace the negative in everyones theories. I fully believe your good at it and you will come to a deeper understanding of why being an expert is a flawed problem in a big picture problem. Time maybe the only thing to give you this perspective. That is what changed my view of things.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:54 PM

Shari, thanks to all the AHS postings here, I went over to Dr. Eenfeldt's blog and found this nice listing of LC studies showing the effectiveness of carb restriction for weight loss: http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:52 PM

and just for my point of reference I like all three guys......and for very different reasons.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:49 PM

i'm thinking that most obese people are at some stage of prediabetes. i know that calories in=calories out but if someone is prediabetic isn't possible that hyperinsulinimia will be a problem? i'm not carb-phobic but it seems that glucose can cause probably in obese people who are already prediabetic- and in my experiences, that is most of them... u feel me, bra?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:43 PM

Great question BTW. I feel like we are at a seminal crossroad here.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:40 PM

Completely agree, and once again you have created a graphic that we will probably refer to for years. (The other was the Venn diagram of Paleo/Primal/Low Carb, iirc.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:40 PM

I'd go so far as to say that inactivity is a side-effect of getting fat.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 06:39 PM

wjones, interesting. I am working on a post on doing LC like a hunter-gatherer and I would wonder if some of those tips would reduce your inflammation. Particularly interesting is the low amount of beneficial SCFA seen in LC diets. Butyrate and other SCFA are vital for modulating inflammation. I suspect HGs get all of theirs from eating LC plant foods rich in certain polysaccarides.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 06:37 PM

everyone always asks me how I make graphics, expecting omnigraffle maybe?, and the answer is powerpoint. Haha. It's "smart art."

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:34 PM

@LB - are you thinking T2 diabetes? Once you have diabetes, Food Reward to me is secondary to avoiding hyperglycemic conditions, that is, minimize carbohydrates altogether. But this is where the blurring between obesity as a metabolic derangement and diabetes as a separate (but correlated) derangement is very critical. Maybe I'm not getting your question. Help me understand bro!

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:31 PM

Agree with you on the cause. But once you have T2 diabetes or pre-diabetes, how are you going to control blood sugar and insulin without low carb? Without insulin under control, weight loss is nigh impossible for the syndrome X folks. And yes, a restricted calorie, low fat diet CAN work, but carbs are still fairly low on those diets. Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig do not include a lot of sugar as I recall.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:27 PM

@aravind wet blanket ftw

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:27 PM

aravind, do you think there is a point where so much metabolic damage has taken place leading to a point where trying to restrict calories through carbs becomes a fools errand because the insulin resistance has gotten to a point where glucose has now become damaging? i think with obese people, lc and vlc work best to help their systems reset. i've seen that happen time and time again. i've never seen it happen where one gets their health back eating bland potatoes. not to say it can't, i just haven't seen it. and from a practical standpoint, i think the ketogenic way is more feasible.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:26 PM

@Kamal - My blog will be based on the "Wet Blanket" metaphor. It's like a "Quilt" only I've spilled too many Long Island Iced Teas on it

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:26 PM

@Kamal - My blog will be based on the "Wet Blanket" metaphor. It's like a Quilt only I've spilled too many Long Island Iced Teas on it

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:18 PM

Loon, I started by going gluten-free. Then I took out soy. Then I went ultra-low carb. Finally, I've settled in on a pretty much purely carnivorous diet.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:14 PM

btw, totally agree.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:12 PM

melissa, that's a cool graphic. what program did u use to make it?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:05 PM

My n=1: I started my warped version of Paleo on Jan 1, 2011. By Feb 20, I lost nearly 20 lbs (which is 2/3 of the total weight I needed to lose). The majority of my calories come from carbs. My key focus has been NAD elimination. Take it for what it's worth. YMMV...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:02 PM

I lost 20 lbs in 6 weeks at the beginning of this year when I kept my carb intake essentially constant but eliminated NADs. N=1. Take it for what it's worth. YMMV...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:00 PM

When I look at the few Paleo/nutrition concepts I feel very strongly about, the vilification of macronutrients is near/at the top. I have a LOT more to write. Don't be hating Mr Gluten :-)

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:58 PM

@loon again, I'm not entirely sure who's right. However I've seen many contradictions to Gary's theory and none (that clearly show food reward does not make a difference to weight loss) to Stephan's so I'm inclined to lean towards the latter. I also don't like how Gary says carbohydrates as a whole macronutrient group are the problem. I am in 100% agreement with KHarris here that its the NAD's.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:55 PM

lose fat without even seemingly trying even though their diet is most likely carbohydrate based.

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:55 PM

I'd put "inactivity" at the bottom of a long list of possible factors.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:54 PM

@WJ- Well yes, I would agree. But specifically for losing weight he asserts that one can't lose weight *easily* on a high carbohydrate diet. Stephan asserts that one can, as long as its low reward. The flavorless goo study he presented was actually fairly high in carbs, if I remember. However the confounder there was that they were eating less so there were possibly less carbs that way. One piece of evidence that would support Stephan is that many people on vegan diets tend to get very skinny. Granted, they're losing muscle mass and it probably isn't a very healthy lifestyle, but a lot of them

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:48 PM

@TheLoon- Maybe, but not necessarily. Do you know any higher carb dieters that had carbs only from tubers or other "paleo" carb sources? Do you know any that specifically reduced their food reward? Most people I see dieting on, say, weight watchers, still use low calorie cookies or pudding. They still have the NAD's, and they still have high food reward. That seems to me a pretty big cofounder.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:47 PM

Ditto to CaveDad. Yes, N=1, or 2 in this case, but there are loads of reports and studies on, for example, runners who gain weight over the years despite running *more*, not less.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:43 PM

I wholly agree. And we don't have to look at only the kitavans, thou they're fine. We can look right here in the US, or any country where masses of fit, healthy people are eating, and have eaten, a lot of carbohydrate with no ill effects.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:26 PM

I like your first sentence: "I don't have time for a lengthy answer". I want to see the lengthy version of this...when's the blog coming?

A45af235ed4dd0b4f548c59e91b75763

(1936)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:09 PM

@thhq I've gone from obese to normalw weight with almost no change in activity level.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:08 PM

I think as long as insulin resistance doesn't happen even Taubes would assert that carbohydrates don't necessarily cause weight gain. But that's just my read on it.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:07 PM

wjones, what diet did you use?

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:07 PM

You're right about that word "dominant." Also right about damn neolithic demands of the workplace. If we didn't have to work, we'd have this figured out by now, right?

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:04 PM

Interesting chart. I can offer one bit of n=1 data. When I started to lose weight at the beginning of 2008, my inflammation as tracked by CRP began to rise. It is still slightly elevated 3 years later. So...at least in the case of inflammation, and only in my experience with the type of inflammation characterized by high CRP, I lost over 80 pounds while in a significant state of inflammation. Actually, the weight loss correlated with an INCREASE in CRP levels.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 05:03 PM

@PKN - Guilty as charged. He's such a douche!

Af9537cfa50562b67979624e9007e12a

(1334)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:02 PM

you're just saying Taubes is wrong because he cut in line in front of you.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:58 PM

completely agree. you pretty much covered the bases here.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:52 PM

based on my experience and observation, people do not lose weight easily on a carb-based diet. So, IYO, would that point to Taubes as being "more correct"?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:50 PM

I'll go even further. I can not understand why both theories aren't spot on correct standing by themselves. Still further, I am completely comfortable living in "Paleo World" with both theories. What am I missing?

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:39 PM

the burglar probably does owe you money

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 04:25 PM

Beat the burglar like he owes you money

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:19 PM

I think there's merit in both observations but neither is the prime cause of obesity. Inactivity is the "single dominant" factor IMHO.

D30ff86ad2c1f3b43b99aed213bcf461

on August 10, 2011
at 04:16 PM

Plus one for benefit of the doubt from all angles. :)

D30ff86ad2c1f3b43b99aed213bcf461

on August 10, 2011
at 04:12 PM

Plus one for benefit of the doubt from all angles. :)

  • 531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

    asked by

    (8878)
  • Views
    7.2K
  • Last Activity
    1256D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

15 Answers

20
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:51 PM

They are both partial correct and so is Lustig......the problem is their unification. They are all making the same error in my estimation. They are starting their thought pattern distally instead of proximally. The brain, and specifically the hypothalamus, is where all the action begins.

This is why I have been critical of all three......not because I think they are wrong or nuts etc.......because they all suffer from microcosmic thinking instead of looking at the forrest thru the trees. These three guys are all in their own way brilliant thinkers. But here is the thing about experts......they lose their global view because they get so caught up in the details. You should always focus on the bigger picture first then fill in the details. And ironically this is exactly how the human brain is structured to work. Their scientific socialization has actually rendered them very to a very un paleo mindset. IE that their perspective has narrowed.

I enjoy each one and respect them for the contributions......but as long as they continue to go as they do......I hope the infighting continues. Because this is how things evolve. That is why I was so happy to see Lustig embrace leptin in the AHS talk. He still screwed it up.......but he is getting closer to the prize.

SG is clearly a brilliant thinker.....but he is focusing on outflow behavior tracts. Important yes......dominant not close. Taubes is focusing in on the peripheral part of the story.....carbs, insulin and IR at the liver and muscle levels. The main point is the integrator of all this info......the brain.

I remain confident after AHS the group that leads this society will come together eventually. This science contains this gravitational affect. All in all we all win because science wins.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 08:03 PM

the bad thing about being in science as a specialist like Stephan is that sometimes everything seems to be able the current research you are doing. I know the feeling, given that I see everything in terms of SCFA and dysbiosis now. Haha.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:11 AM

Look like SG is going to come out now and counterpunch.....I told ya fights are good! It stimulates thinking and thought exercises. Paleo community wins and leptin will be the feature.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

Well said...I think it's important that we gather all available information into something cohesive rather than becoming excessively reliant upon one individual's specialty or focus of study.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:57 PM

Why I think Lustigs points about fructose are spot on......Fructose is ten times more active than glucose at glycating proteins, and is therefore very dangerous in the blood serum for oxLDL production (Seneff1 et al., 2011) People forget about this.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:52 PM

and just for my point of reference I like all three guys......and for very different reasons.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:49 PM

yes, and all three of them are very nice

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:59 PM

When you eat a lot of fructose (such as the high fructose corn syrup present in lots of processed foods and carbonated beverages), the liver is burdened with getting the fructose out of the blood and converting it to fat, and it therefore can not keep up with cholesterol supply. As I said before, the fats can not be safely transported if there is not enough cholesterol. The liver has to ship out all that fat produced from the fructose, so it produces low quality LDL particles, containing insufficient protective cholesterol. So you end up with a really bad situation where the LDL particles are

C471216c9fb4fcf886b7ac84a4046b49

(1371)

on August 11, 2011
at 12:49 AM

geez, i have been saying this for so long...no one listened to me tho, good thing we have someone 'qualified' so i assume peopl will start understanding the unifying point...the brain

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:22 PM

They really need an Oppenheimer to lead them. It's all right to follow separate paths (what I see here are psychosocial, biochemical and physiological), but an arbitrator would be helpful. Fights between reductionists solve nothing.

1ac8e976f84cb2566ecfbbcce1817351

(211)

on August 21, 2011
at 04:13 PM

at least SG was reasonable to say it isn't the only cause of metabolic syndrome, unlike Taubes.

18
D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 04:54 PM

I don't have time for a lengthy answer. Here is my view based on extensive reading of both Taubes and Guyenet (and a lot of KGH too)

  • I do not believe that macronutrient ratios are singularly the cause of metabolic derangement. Full stop. Does hyperinsulinemia vis-a-vis carbohydrate intake play a role...perhaps. People might be tired of the Kitavans but this requires an explanation which to date has not been provided solely by the Carbohydrate Theory as professed by Taubes
  • I believe that Neolithic Agents of Disease - excess fructose, O-6, gluten - are likely culprits as causal factors vis-a-vis inflammation, fatty liver, leaky gut, etc. I am not saying singularly!
  • I also believe that it is very compelling that (transgenerational) epigenetics may be a contributor. Therefore someone might be deranged at birth before either macronutrient ratios or Food Reward are in play. I think people that are objecting to Food Reward are confounding this point

We can debate the cause until we are blue in the face. But, everyone can agree it is multifactorial, right? On this basis I cannot accepts Taubes' continued assertion since the writing of GCBC. This does not in any way diminish my gratitude for what Gary Taubes has done to demolish the bad science and politics underlying Diet-Heart/Lipid hypotheses and the incorrect vilification of saturated fat/cholesterol.

Once metabolically deranged irrespective of the cause, the question is how to do you remediate? This is where potentially we might feel that we are at a fork in the road, though I do not view it this way. SG already acknowledged in his series (will insert link later) that Low Carbohydrate diets are effective for weight loss. He also said that Low Fat could work too. YMMV. The key difference is that Stephan is not making an insulinogenic arugment necessarily but rather than the "numbing" effect of Low Reward food that results in spontaneous reduction in calories. In this sense, if one ignores the specific biochemical mechanism, you could view Food Reward as a superset of Carbohydrate Theory.

So my bottom line

  • I think Taubes is wrong due to his singular focus on carbohydrates
  • If we stop getting hung up on the word DOMINANT, I believe Stephan is likely right regarding Food Reward, in part because he clearly asserts it is not the only factor. And he has provided some studies to back it up, but additional work is required to validate IMO.

My money is on Stephan. This is not synoymous with saying Food Reward is the ONLY factor. But I have a lot more to write on this, but my stupid neolithic day job calls. TTFN...


QUICK EDIT IN BETWEEN MEETINGS -

I am primarily focusing on being overweight/obese in my response and not other derangements like T2 diabetes. If you are diabetic, then damn straight I would avoid carbs like the plague. If I had cancer, damn straight I would be on a ketogenic diet. Just want to be clear on my focus.

Regardless, at the expense of stating the obvious, the cause of metabolic derangement vs the subsequent dietary modifications to control/remediate need not be the same thing!!!

  • Running over a nail might give me a flat tire
  • If the nail didn't go in too far, maybe simply pulling out the nail will avoid the tire leaking
  • If the nail was sufficiently deep and caused a leak, I need to pull out the nail. Pulling out the nail does not seal the leaky tire

That doesn't mean the nail didn't give me the flat. Nor does this invalidate the need for different solution to seal the leak...or possibly acknowledge the tire is beyond repair.

End Lame Analogy

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:27 PM

@aravind wet blanket ftw

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:58 PM

completely agree. you pretty much covered the bases here.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:04 PM

@quilt please break down the parts of the theory you don't agree with because there is alot that i agree with there, i just think that low carb is preferable in the initial healing for obesity.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:09 PM

@LB - I didn't take Quilt this way, not because of what he wrote, but because I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt to get to his deeper point. It's complicated, but I'm going to stick with him...

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:07 PM

You're right about that word "dominant." Also right about damn neolithic demands of the workplace. If we didn't have to work, we'd have this figured out by now, right?

Af9537cfa50562b67979624e9007e12a

(1334)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:02 PM

you're just saying Taubes is wrong because he cut in line in front of you.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 08:22 PM

@Amit - Taubes accounting for the Kitavans with this is like saying the The Lipid Hypothesis 1.0 damned all Cholesterol, and then 2.0 differentiated HDL vs LDL and therefore you are actually a cholesterol skeptic if you believe in 2.0. Anyway, I respectfully disagree for the following reason - if our SINGULAR focus is on carbohydrates and the corresponding insulin response, then the differentiation with processed carbs doesn't hold water. I can show you unprocessed carbs that have a very high insulin response on par with processed ones. What does this tell us about carbs here - a red herring!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:10 PM

I truly don't get how this argument keeps expanding. There is no Theory A vs Theory B. It's not like Stephan Guyenet and Gary Taubes are spoiled children throwing sticks at each other. Taubes got riled up and spoke out of turn. I highly doubt that if you talked to Taubes in person, that he would couch his arguments such black and white terms as is presented here on paleohacks. In a previous lecture I attended, he was argumentative against CW professors who asked questions, seemingly just to make a point.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:26 PM

@Kamal - My blog will be based on the "Wet Blanket" metaphor. It's like a Quilt only I've spilled too many Long Island Iced Teas on it

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:50 PM

@Q - well we didn't and the question is being discussed now after AHS. I didn't see you reaching out to any PH-ers out there either (and I hung out with a LOT of them), but that is water under the bridge. Regardless, I don't see why you cannot answer my sincere query to understand your point.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

This is something you should have spoken to me about out there.....because it underscores the theory the Quilt is based upon

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:26 PM

@Kamal - My blog will be based on the "Wet Blanket" metaphor. It's like a "Quilt" only I've spilled too many Long Island Iced Teas on it

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:26 PM

I like your first sentence: "I don't have time for a lengthy answer". I want to see the lengthy version of this...when's the blog coming?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:13 PM

@LB - can I write my response any better than the master - http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/1/11/insulinogenic-is-not-hyperglycemic.html - does this address your question?

7fe08b47d7d073a906802a4170ae24bf

(350)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:11 PM

One distinction you need to make, Taubes DOES account for Katavans. He blames highly refined carbs, not carbs per say. I sat next to Guyenet for dinner on Saterday night and I flat out told him he needs to give the breakdown of the "Cafeteria food" before he can say it's not the macronutrient breakdown.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:31 PM

Agree with you on the cause. But once you have T2 diabetes or pre-diabetes, how are you going to control blood sugar and insulin without low carb? Without insulin under control, weight loss is nigh impossible for the syndrome X folks. And yes, a restricted calorie, low fat diet CAN work, but carbs are still fairly low on those diets. Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig do not include a lot of sugar as I recall.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 05:03 PM

@PKN - Guilty as charged. He's such a douche!

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:27 PM

aravind, do you think there is a point where so much metabolic damage has taken place leading to a point where trying to restrict calories through carbs becomes a fools errand because the insulin resistance has gotten to a point where glucose has now become damaging? i think with obese people, lc and vlc work best to help their systems reset. i've seen that happen time and time again. i've never seen it happen where one gets their health back eating bland potatoes. not to say it can't, i just haven't seen it. and from a practical standpoint, i think the ketogenic way is more feasible.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:04 PM

@Quilt - Please clarify. Here's the essence of what I said - 1) I don't agree with Taubes regarding CAUSATION. 2) I believe Stephan's theory IN PART has plausibilty of being CAUSAL but requires more evidence. I'm not trying to be litigous. Help me understand what you are saying. I mean this sincerely

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:49 PM

i'm thinking that most obese people are at some stage of prediabetes. i know that calories in=calories out but if someone is prediabetic isn't possible that hyperinsulinimia will be a problem? i'm not carb-phobic but it seems that glucose can cause probably in obese people who are already prediabetic- and in my experiences, that is most of them... u feel me, bra?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:56 PM

i really love that you back your boy.....really do. But I would like you to embrace the negative in everyones theories. I fully believe your good at it and you will come to a deeper understanding of why being an expert is a flawed problem in a big picture problem. Time maybe the only thing to give you this perspective. That is what changed my view of things.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:06 PM

and i don't think it's aravind taking up for "his boy". it's more about stephan's introduced a whole lot of evidence backing up his theory and after chewing it over, aravind finds it very plausible, as do many other people, in part or whole- laypeople such as myself and stephan's intellectual colleagues. at the very least, he's given everyone something else to think about. your tone comes off rather condescending...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:00 PM

When I look at the few Paleo/nutrition concepts I feel very strongly about, the vilification of macronutrients is near/at the top. I have a LOT more to write. Don't be hating Mr Gluten :-)

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:34 PM

@LB - are you thinking T2 diabetes? Once you have diabetes, Food Reward to me is secondary to avoiding hyperglycemic conditions, that is, minimize carbohydrates altogether. But this is where the blurring between obesity as a metabolic derangement and diabetes as a separate (but correlated) derangement is very critical. Maybe I'm not getting your question. Help me understand bro!

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:35 PM

*"aravind I laid it out in my response to Jack Kronk on this thread."* thanks for responding to the call, Quilt.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:43 PM

I wholly agree. And we don't have to look at only the kitavans, thou they're fine. We can look right here in the US, or any country where masses of fit, healthy people are eating, and have eaten, a lot of carbohydrate with no ill effects.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 11:08 PM

The answer is now clear - Kamal's hyper gluten and "grass fed" corn oil diet will liberate all of from the obsession with macronutrients, hormones, and the like. Now pass me another naan and pakora Kamal!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:26 PM

aravind I laid it out in my response to Jack Kronk on this thread. And I could not reach out when I did not know who they were sorry. The people I knew I spoke too. Many people came up to me and I waited to see if they were someone from here....i was even a badge watcher but it did not work well. I really wished I would have made it out that night but with no clothes and jet lag.....shit happens.

14
66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

on August 10, 2011
at 04:23 PM

i think it all fits into a the way the system that regulates satiation is thrown out of wack. if we go down the rabbit hole of metabolic syndrome we find that whether we buy into the leptin, insulin or food reward camps(or a combination thereof) the remedy is most likely to be the same. if you go low carb(paleo) to regulate insulin that also does wonders for giving leptin receptor a chance to repair. if you go the route of the quilt's leptin repair protocol, whaddayaknow, it's low carb so it automatically helps with insulin. stephan's plan is a bit of an outlier in that he doesn't think the macronutrient ratios matter even in the repair phase of fighting obesity(i disagree for now but am open to being convinced otherwise) but the way in which he restricts calories through bland eating will also make sure that only a limited amount of fructose gets in the diet which also helps repair leptin receptors/sensitivity and takes out one of the main culprits of metabolic syndrome. i know there are alot of nuances that i'm brushing over but this is how i see the big picture.

i think of it like this, it's a nice academic exercise but on a practical level, when it comes to implementation, it's like arguing who the burglar is when you know the .45 in your hand will take care of whatever situation is.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 04:25 PM

Beat the burglar like he owes you money

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:39 PM

the burglar probably does owe you money

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:47 PM

Excellent answer!

13
98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

on August 10, 2011
at 06:44 PM

Until I see people following Stephan's plan and losing weight and keeping it off my money's on Taubes. Obviously I'm hugely biases as my own weight loss which was done according to his remedy.

I also have tried the food reward thing many times over my life and while I did lose weight I could not maintain the weight loss. I can drink gruel for months on end and lose 100 lbs and yes it's pretty easy. But what then? Drink gruel the rest of my life? When does one learn how to live with real food again? For most the "food is fuel and only fuel" mindset simply does not work. Why? Because it's not! This idea may work in theory but in real-world practice I see nothing but ultimate failure in this concept. If someone else sees any sort of sustainable life to be made of Stephan's theory I'd love to hear about it. I just don't see it.

Having said that I am still seriously considering a Level 5 for a month or so. The only reason I feel comfortable is that I already know how to live with food and low carb paleo is my diet of choice and has been for years. I have nothing to learn there. I am also settled in at a very strong setpoint so I'd been a fool not to at least give this idea a try. Now I just need to get Aravind to suck it up and do it with me and we're a go. We were supposed to jump in right after AHS but he's being a wimp.

Edit: Just wanted to show clearly that SG is not a fan of LC. In fact he doesn't appear to see an issue with the effects of carbs on BG and insulin. It would in fact appear that this is a battle of SG vs Taubes. My answer still stands. Taubes for the win baby.

*Some people have lost fat simply by avoiding carbohydrate or fat. I've heard people say that a low-carbohydrate diet in particular curbs their cravings and allow them to have a healthy relationship with food again (although others have developed strong cravings on low-carbohydrate diets). I believe this is mostly, if not exclusively, driven by the fact that carbohydrate and fat are major reward factors.

I believe that all things being equal, it's best not to restrict any macronutrient to an extreme degree (there may be some exceptions, such as diabetes). That being said, as carbohydrate and fat are major reward factors, they are additional tools in the toolbox that you can use to further reduce reward if you choose.*

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:45 PM

Please, oh please publicize the gist of your private chat later. I mean, the stuff having to do with SG/GT. (But if you've got other interesting video <*cough*> I mean *insights* from AHS, please share those, too. ;D)

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:41 PM

Rose Eenfeldt's is fantastic! I just love him!! No one will ever convince me that low carb isn't magic for weight loss for most people. Ever. There may be other factors. There probably are but Taubes will always own my heart even if he's a dick.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:19 PM

Well there is a lot of talk post-AHS that is very anti-low carb so I'm super sensitive right now. The question of this thread is SG or Taubes. SG negates carbs as a consideration. Right?

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:02 AM

(continued) experiece that it could be if not tailored individually. I would really like to encourage you to begin doing it on rotation. I have talked before about how I am heavily into "change it up" re: both food and exercise. PATIENCE is in order here, especially with where you are in your journey and I really believe that OVER TIME...and we may be talking about a matter of months to a year here, if you do rotation with it - say insert it for two days then reg diet for 3 days and back and even change it up more, you might be surprised at where you eventually land. One problm is...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Shari - no one said Low Carb doesn't work for weight loss for people to lose weight. Why do you think that is what it means to challenge Taubes? Let's talk offline dear :-)

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:54 PM

Shari - no one said Low Carb doesn't work for weight loss for some people. Why do you think that is what it means to challenge Taubes? Let's talk offline dear :-)

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:54 PM

Shari, thanks to all the AHS postings here, I went over to Dr. Eenfeldt's blog and found this nice listing of LC studies showing the effectiveness of carb restriction for weight loss: http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 08:41 PM

Ouch!!!!!!!!!!!

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

Aravind you got his number? Geez. I traded emails with him but he never offered me his number. I knew he was bitter that I'm a Hokie and he's a Wahoo. He denied it but I knew it was true. I know it seems like I'm dogging on him and I don't mean to. I hold him in the highest esteem. I just think he's another guy with some great ideas that may technically be correct but just won't work where the rubber hits the road. Just another theory that will make fat people feel stupid, lazy and lacking in will power. Don't want that.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:32 PM

I thought you just liked to hear yourself talk. Hmmm. K. later.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 05:05 AM

@Shari: Good - ie., this is likely not a good time. I'm solidly in your corner re: low carb. I am a product of it, as you are. And we are among the scant 3-5% of all "radical losers" in the US who actually become "radical maintainers." :) I also believe that Stephan's FR theory, in it's LARGENESS has real application and it ain't about gluttony and sloth. And Lustig is the man. "Every nueron in the brain that has a leptin recptor has an insulin receptor. Insulin blocks leptin." "Insulin amkes you feel like crap. More insulin, more crap. Wanna know why you feel better..

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:06 AM

(continued) this is not "black and white" stuff. It is a process that takes time. Intuitively, but strongly, I feel that doing a 30 day run is too stringent for where you are now AND will likely lead to intense feelings of anger and deprivation. but what I am talking about is only one of FR applications. It can also be used, and I think Stephan is seeing it that way, as a broad, poulation based public health intervention - NO - not level 5!!!! But the idea of many less ingredients and much simpler eating overall, as prevention.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:06 PM

OH NO YOU DI'NT...I thought you were over the Danielle thing. Ok, jokes aside, here goes. 1) I am totally down for the challenge. 2) After you and I first chatted online about this (couple weeks ago), I sent Patrik an email to somehow host a 30 day online challenge here at PH. He did not feel it was PH appropriate. Point is, I am commited to proving.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 08:23 PM

No not right at all. This is why I am banging on about this. Will call you later

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:56 PM

Kidding honey. Just kidding. Rose, I think he and Danielle made some interesting videos but we did not, lol. Yeah I'll post if anything comes of our talk. I seem to be confused on this SG stuff. I really don't see why everyone is all of the sudden foaming at the mouth over this so I clearly need to be enlightened. Guess my head's just too far up GT's ass to see clearly, lol.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:11 AM

Yes, in the end, it is about weight loss. But, it becomes an actual way in which one's fundamental *realtionship* to food *changes.* This is MUCH broader than most ppl would imagine and begins to drive real and potentially lasting changes in food's "place" in one's consciousness/ brain, which can drive changes in selection, preparation and *response* which become *habitual* and actually make new neural pathaways re: food.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:02 PM

I like you are defending your boy.....but as I said to your new boy toy Aravind.....think bigger. Make it an all inclusive thought experiment for obesity

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:38 PM

even admits is not a new idea, is the DOMINANT factor in weight gain. I surely do not see how it will be the Savior of the masses struggling to lose weight. It seems to make sense as a tool perhaps but that this explains it all? I just can't wrap my head around it.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:07 PM

3) After AHS, I have traded emails. He has agreed to meet with me via phone (hopefully later this week). I am trying to clarify a few things with him. 4) Once I talk to him, I am ALL IN. I am probably going for Level 4 but if you "require" my to do 5, I will comply. Who's your daddy now???

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 07:10 PM

3) After AHS, I have traded several emails with Stephan and we've exchanged phone numbers. He has agreed to meet with me via phone (hopefully later this week). I am trying to clarify a few things with him. 4) Once I talk to him, I am ALL IN. I am probably going for Level 4 but if you "require" my to do 5, I will comply. Who's your daddy now??? Seriously, I'm game. BRING IT!

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Jack I'm not sure what else we should be doing? I'll do 30 days Stephan's way and I'm sure I'll drop a few pounds. I'm mainly interested in breaking through this set point and being able to maintain it which is something I have yet to find a way to do. I'm open to ideas God knows. I should say that even Stephan said to me that I may just be stuck where I am and he wasn't sure his method would help me.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:37 PM

Thanks again mem. But tell me your thoughts on this. I, along with many others, have been able to lose weight eating delicious low carb foods. Not bland nasty stuff. I eat very well. Highly seasoned, highly palatable foods. I lost weight and have kept it off. I got fat eating pretty delicious food. My siblings and parents ate the same foods yet I got fat and they did not. I have lost weight eating/drinking nasty swill too. I agree that having less deliciousness ALL THE TIME and saving highly palatable foods for special occasions may be wise but I don't see who this idea, which SG...

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:59 PM

+1 +1 Shari for calling out the recent low-carb crap talk.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:07 PM

Thanks for the validation The Loon. I thought maybe I was being overly sensitive but it's really there isn't it?

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:59 AM

@Shari: Yes, it is there. However, I want to suggest to you, b4 you do your experiement, that there are a variety of ways of looking at interventions via food reward theory. In really reading over all parts of Stephan's FR writing, and reflecting on it and my own weight loss journey and maintenance over these almost 10 years, I began to see that indeed, I have been impacted by this and very positively so. Keep in mind that it is NOT all or nothing. And the more I contemplate it, the more clearly I see a variety of ways that it could be done and have impact and NOT be the very negative

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:41 AM

That's for that mem. Wise words. I've just been reading SG's blog and am so angry right now I don't even want to give his theory a go at this moment in time. It seems GT is now a royal idiot and insulin is completely benign and has nothing what so ever to do with weight gain or loss. I feel like I'm living on another planet. Anyway, I do want to change something up but right now I'm just not sure what that should be. Aravind and I spoke today about a level 4 but I'm just not feeling it right now. We'll see.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 05:08 AM

(continued) ..on a low carb diet? LOWER INSULIN." :) "Insulin is an indigenous leptin antagonist." You're right, I;m right, our experience is dead on. And, coming from different angles, Lustig, Taubes and Guyenet are also right. Stephan is "anti insulin" right now, but in time...;) Also, ppl need to give the Taubes thing a break. Lustig shouted down Taubes in the middle of a USAF lecture. It happens. Not good, but I think we all need to let go of the drama. Good ppl do make mistakes.

12
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 04:52 PM

luckbastard already has a good answer, but based on what I learned at AHS I made this chart can-taubes-and-guyenet-both-be-right?

it implicates hyperpalatable industrial food (high in fructose, omega-6, inflammatory garbage, easy to overeat) as the cause of the whole cycle of issues affecting us, but there is no ability to get out of the cycle by simply just removing those foods, you have to correct every single factor in the cycle in order to exit it. Low-carb dieting can correct hormonal dysregulation (though there are other ways out of that), but if you keep eating those Atkins Peanut bars and feeding into inflammation, you ain't exiting the cycle. That's why paleo is such a good solution- at its best it has the toolbox for all of the issues. I think Mark Sisson's approach really underscores that with the removal of inflammatory foods, probiotics, the "carb curve", and emphasis on whole real foods.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:12 PM

melissa, that's a cool graphic. what program did u use to make it?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 06:37 PM

everyone always asks me how I make graphics, expecting omnigraffle maybe?, and the answer is powerpoint. Haha. It's "smart art."

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:58 PM

Way too simplistic......but it is a staring point.

7fe08b47d7d073a906802a4170ae24bf

(350)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:13 PM

RIGHT! your body has be heal before you start losing weight. Took me 4 months of eating paloe before i lost weight.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 07:43 PM

downvoters, what issues do you have with my graphic?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:00 PM

Gastroenterology this yr not sure of the month......but I will search my hard drive and post it here or on your site. Great article and has every pathway you can imagine.....between gut and bacteria. The GI docs were floored by it.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:04 PM

Interesting chart. I can offer one bit of n=1 data. When I started to lose weight at the beginning of 2008, my inflammation as tracked by CRP began to rise. It is still slightly elevated 3 years later. So...at least in the case of inflammation, and only in my experience with the type of inflammation characterized by high CRP, I lost over 80 pounds while in a significant state of inflammation. Actually, the weight loss correlated with an INCREASE in CRP levels.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:07 PM

wjones, what diet did you use?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:41 PM

a recent study of SCFA in the colon was just published within the last six months in GI literature that opened up many eyes. The high conversion rate to butyrate was what gave the benefit of HS CRP reduction via the production of O3 in the colon......all dependent upon the gut biogenome. Finding the right genome is critical for our epigenetic switches and dietary choices.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:46 PM

couldn't you just eat jerusalem artichokes?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Quilty, can you post a link to the study?

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:14 PM

btw, totally agree.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:40 PM

Completely agree, and once again you have created a graphic that we will probably refer to for years. (The other was the Venn diagram of Paleo/Primal/Low Carb, iirc.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:25 AM

don't worry, my ears are deaf to her plea to supplement inulin. I have enough Jerusalem artichokes!!

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 08:53 PM

Loon, yeah if you don't do dairy, or just inulin which is in some of Sisson's supplements

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:18 PM

Loon, I started by going gluten-free. Then I took out soy. Then I went ultra-low carb. Finally, I've settled in on a pretty much purely carnivorous diet.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 06:39 PM

wjones, interesting. I am working on a post on doing LC like a hunter-gatherer and I would wonder if some of those tips would reduce your inflammation. Particularly interesting is the low amount of beneficial SCFA seen in LC diets. Butyrate and other SCFA are vital for modulating inflammation. I suspect HGs get all of theirs from eating LC plant foods rich in certain polysaccarides.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

also, we can't forget exogenous butyrate from butter!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:44 PM

Melissa's a Grok-loving supplement schill!1!! Sorry, bored. Time to get back to work.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:30 PM

Look forward to reading your piece Melissa.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:01 PM

That butter has to be pastured butter.....regular butter has little to none. Organic Valley or Kerry Gold or real stuff from a grass fed cow

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:53 AM

" "Sisson's approach really underscores that with the removal of inflammatory foods, probiotics, the "carb curve", and emphasis on whole real foods." YES. Atkins actually had a big emphasis on clean food eating...and then Atkins Nutritions came into being...:(

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 07:26 PM

Melissa here is the paper.....gastroenterology 2009: 136 68-80 Reviews in basic and clinical gastroenterology. Microbes in GI Health and disease By Andrew Neish Dept of pathology at emory univ.

8
Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:02 PM

Not really, because they differ exactly on the crux of the issue.

"Taubes proposed that carbs cause chronically high insulin levels; this ultimately causes insulin resistance and diabetes/metabolic syndrome (and associated obesity)."

Stephan has specifically stated that he does not agree with this.

Stephan's thoughts on carbs and insulin as of May, 2011

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:04 PM

Dr K - I was talking specifically about my answer above. I still conclude, based on the proclamations that Mr. Taubes and Mr. Guyenet have made, that they disagree fundamentally on carbs>insulin>metabolism/obesity. You say that they are on the same continuum. I was just wondering what makes you say this.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 06:57 PM

it seems as these two are 180 degree opposite polar positions and I submit they are not. They are on the same continuum but most dont see it because they are not fully seeing the real problem.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:15 AM

I bet Lustig takes a bullet too for some of his slides at AHS......we will see how far it goes. This is why chaos rocks at meetings! Progress comes from it.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:50 PM

a major role. This is determined by out environment, genes and their epigenetic switches. The switches, gut, and hypothalamus are the only things that remain dynamic at this point. the sum total of these effects are best read by our biologic response from the master organ.....the brain. this is read via hormones. The hormonal response to inputs tells you where the hypothalamus is set and where your switches are now. Then you can alter diet, gut and environment to alter the hormonal relation. This is the essence of the Leptin reset that I laid out on MDA in a 100K hit post.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:33 PM

and it only plays a major role when they are also centrally LR. Then reward is a huge issue. But it requires central LR. Hence why I can allow the term dominant a pass.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:14 AM

It appears from SG latest blog we are going to get what I hoped we get......real discussion on leptin.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:10 PM

care to expand, Quilt? sometimes leaving your audience with a thought to ponder is enlightening. Other times, people are left scratching their heads.

Af1d286f0fd5c3949f59b4edf4d892f5

(18452)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:33 PM

mari! i love it when you pop up like that out of no where :) @Q - well, not really clear, but at least I understand where you are coming from. I read through all your comments here again, just to see if I could understand it better, but I just don't. That's ok though. I don't really think it matters much whether we see this the same. I'll continue to keep an ear to the ground. At this point, I don't fully agree with either of them anyway. But then again, Stephan's assertions seem much less definitive and leave more wiggle room to be able to sort of agree with it even if you kinda don't.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:27 PM

@mari it does not.....Gary is cluelss about the brain and told Jimmy Moore just that. He is trying to get people to understand insulin resistance and carbs.....that basic relationship is fucked in medicine. And Taubes is right. But he knows nada about leptin and therefore he is not at the party for me.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:52 PM

You dont know shit about shit without testing. Much of what we read makes no sense because it has no centext. Rats and mice and monkeys never equal humans but are great to gain insight to generate hypothesis. the keys to understanding are the swtiches....what they are set for and what they react to and the resultant response of the brain.....namely hormones and acute phase reactants. That is the basis of the QUILT.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:18 PM

@quilt- how does the brain fit into gary taubes' theory?

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:49 AM

Lustig has been dancing with Leptin for awhile. he was dancing with leptin in: Sugar - the Bitter Truth. It is not new content but EXPANDED content in this 2007 discussion. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Jack I do daily in my blog. Its complex. With time you will see me give small examples to the core. Here it is in a nutshell. The human genome is affected as soon a a zygote is formed. Most of our genomic and epigenomic switches are set in this fashion based upon the environment that our germ cells first saw. When we are born our hypothalamus is then loaded with a USB (leptin from colustrum) and our gut loaded from our Mom vagina. Then from 0-6 we are working on those two major inputs and neural tracts from gut to brain are hard wired and re enforced. At six.....our environment then play

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:52 PM

Because both of their position cause issues but at different points in the pathway to obesity.....but ultimately the brain is the final arbiter of the effect and its quotient is the net effect of hormonal secretion and action. Clear now?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:30 PM

SG is on the outflow tracts....and I agree with him. there but as a scientist of his ilk he relies on knock outs to find stuff out. as a neurosurgeon we do the same with tumors and trauma. I see his reward tracts knocked out a lot and they dont get fat. If the hypothalamus is devasted they got major issues......fat being one of them. That is a simplistic view point but hammers home why reward is not dominant. But it does play a role.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:36 PM

funny thing this is also why I did not give Lustig a pass on my Jimmy Moore podcast in March.....and Jimmy found my comments interesting then. When he heard Lustig at AHS he mentioned to me in the pisser that that change in his theory falls right in line with what I laid out in the podcast but never explained but I am laying the path in my blog....slowly because its deep stuff that is complicated. I am doing the opposite of what they are. They are details first....then big view. I am giving you the big view and filling in details. we will see if we all wind up at the brain as I suspect.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:05 PM

Dancing yes.....but when he got up at AHS and said leptin is the STARVATION HORMONAL only I nearly shit the bed. That clearly shows he only understand one part of the leptin story. Why? Anorexics (starvation) have high rev T3 and are LR. Morbidly obese have high rev T3 and are LR! How in the hell does Lustig reconcile that if its just the starvation hormone. Its the Master hormone that control how the hypothalmus(hypocretin neurons)see total body energy balance. That is the point SG, Taubes and Lustig will all be at soon. Obesity is an inflammatory brain disease that has multiple paths

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:07 PM

The beauty of scoence is it does not lie.....the truth is the truth. And this debate fight whatever it is ......will get the big dogs to the same table soon.....because the science has the gravitational pull. this is why I was ecstatic in my post AHS blog......two yrs ago Lustig was not on the leptin bus.....now he has a toe in the water. Samething with SG.....but they dont realize how the brain controls it all.

7
7fe08b47d7d073a906802a4170ae24bf

(350)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:29 PM

Although I don't buy the bland diet hypothesis that Stephen puts out, there's definitely more to weight loss than just cutting carbs. Has any one read the mediterranean versus paleo diet study?

Of course, Paleo diet beat Mediterranean in terms of weight loss (especially fat loss as measured by lost inches in the waist line) and all other areas as well.

That's no surprise, here's what REAL shockers for you low carbers, the macronutrient breakdown of both diets were IDENTICAL. Yes, they upped the carbs for the Paleo diet so it matched the mediterranean, yet paleo dieters lost more weight.

WGA, excess omega-6, and other non-paleo nasties all increase insulin resistance.

Yea I'm sure if 90% of your diet is liquid glucose then you're probably gonna gain weight. Point it's more than just blood sugar spikes and glycimic index that Taubes and company blame.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:50 PM

you low carbers?

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:32 PM

Shari, I still laugh when I remember your contribution to the greatest paleohacks quotes of all time: "Eric, you ignorant slut!"

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:29 AM

Oh, I know Shari, sometimes it feels like we're still in CW-land, with all the support and all.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:51 PM

The REAL shocker for me is that people still want to argue that lowering carb intake produces fat loss in MANY people! WHy this idea is so offensive to so many is just beyond me. Low carb works and works spectacularly for a huge portion of the population. Get over it already.

6
Medium avatar

on August 10, 2011
at 07:19 PM

It's possible to eat enough carbohydrates that insulin becomes elevated all day long. All of the low intensity activity that you do in a day, whether it be walking the dog, washing dishes, gesticulating (like Stan of Stan's Previously Owned Vessels) etc. etc. would by default be powered by muscle mitochondria with an energy substrate comprised of lipids. We have a massive store of these lipids, whereas glycogen is relatively sparse and precious for CNS/organ fueling and emergency high intensity activity. If your body is constantly having to cope with rapidly-digesting, high glycemic carbohydrates, you encounter a blood sugar emergency where some of it has to be dumped into the mitochondrial furnaces because glycogen repletion simply can't occur at that rate (and you simply don't have the capacity to store it all even if it did). You'd still have times where you're burning body fat, but they would be greatly minimized. Meanwhile, the long-chain fatty acids you're ingesting are making their way into your adipocytes and you get somewhat of a one-way-street effect.

That all being said, I think it's unlikely that consuming starch alone is enough to become obese. It's absolutely enough to halt fat loss however. Now, if you add massive doses of fructose and the subsequent hepatic (and later muscular) insulin resistance, then you end up with a constant one-way-street effect. Lipolysis may simply never be occurring to any significant effect. If you add inactivity, then muscular insulin sensitivity is never restored. With a high intake of those LCFAs alongside your high carb and high fructose intake, you're packing those adipocytes continually. Some amount of the fructose itself would be converted to FAs via DNL, but I think that fat is largely concentrated around the liver, though a threshold might be crossed whereat these FAs are shipped around systemically.

If, on top of all of that you add hyperpalatable foods, and the addictive behaviors they create/support, you have a perfect storm for obesity and non-insulin-dependent diabetes.

My assumption is that there is infinite variability in the ratios of factors contributing to any given case of obesity but that these are generally at least present in some way. I'm sure there are other, lesser factors, such as inflammation at play as well, but I don't think they approach the importance of these. I don't see any reason why all of these three things can't be addressed simultaneously for a fat loss protocol with maximal efficacy.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:41 PM

Working against entrenched neural pathways is going to be a tough battle for many, especially if they have an addict's dopamine d2 receptors. For those people, food reward is massive, but for others it may not be.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:57 PM

Travis im am so glad to see you type what I think......this is how I look at it as well.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:36 PM

I chose long ago to look at this another way because the diet does not explain all comers.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

You want to hear the funny part.....if the addict develops Narcolepsy it cures their addiction immediately. Why? That is why SG theory is flawed and also why Taubes and Lustig have it half correct. But I am quite sure we will all be on the same page soon.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 07:35 PM

Dude......you and I are mind brothers. This is how I look at it. The reason macro and micro does not matter is because of who and what set our switches and what our switiches react to is environment based feom conception to 6 yrs old. We can only change back to baseline. This is why people like AKD have to eat ridiculous calories to maintain weight. Same thing with in the woo. Once things change at the brain nothing remains the same. And looking at it from a distal standpoint just confuses the issue. Looking at it top down......from the diet makes too many paradoxes that dont fit.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:00 PM

I really think the sleep and aging researchers are going to find it before the obesity guys because they are less dogmatic and less is known in their biology.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:02 PM

+1 Quilt, for being inclusionary

4
2d5221fa80d04a3d8ac6f471f9feae81

(894)

on August 11, 2011
at 12:38 AM

I think they're both wrong. Taubes is obviously wrong because there are high carb societies who do just fine. As does anyone who manages their insulin well, no matter the macros. And Guyenet is wrong because there are plenty of people who eat taste-intensive foods and are in great shape. Hell, I can do that now. So while I have no doubt that Stephan has a point about palatability having an effect, it only becomes relevant if you're a contest-shape bodybuilder or want to get down to sub 8% bodyfat. I feel it entirely unnecessary for people to get fit and lean(10%men, 12% women) and/or not disregulate insulin. Regular whole foods diet and weight training will do it just fine for the overwhelming majority of folks.

3
Eecc48184707bc26bce631485b5b7e34

on August 10, 2011
at 07:44 PM

Of course! We are complex biological systems. It'd be very shocking if in the end there was only one cause, one mechanism.

I think there is no doubt that there are many things going on

1) the hyperavailability of hyperpalatable food 2) nutrigenomics and epigenetics - our moms were eating n6 all day long, too much sugar, getting insufficient vitamin D...not only does this affect gene expression but even more simply, we became used to certain tastes via amniotic fluid and were more accepting of those tastes once we started solids. 3) low breastfeeding rates. use formula! get 'em started early on corn syrup. 4) infant solids. Why give nutritious, real food when you can give fortified rice cereal.

2
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on August 10, 2011
at 10:11 PM

Observations made by people of different age upon the same subject. The age of the observers is not always relevant, but in this case it may well be, because metabolism changes as we age (or if we damaged it).

2
8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:34 PM

I think they are both somewhat right, but I also know plenty of people (I know, N=1 + N=1 + N=1 still = 0 for many people....) who do not have the same experiences. While it may be true that many people who have been resistant to weight loss on CW have success on a low carb diet, it does not follow that the carbs caused the condition. Likewise, while it may be true that tasty food does dysregulate things and cause problems, removing the tasty food won't necessarily fix the problem. I know lots of people who stall out on a low carb diet, so it cannot be the complete answer, unless you believe, like many, that the continually-fat people are lying to themselves, cheating on their food diaries or something like that. And, I know plenty of N=1's who not only currently have a bland diet, but they also know that they would eat pretty much anything to get their carb fix, palatable or not. This includes eating lots of dark meat to squeeze out the glycogen, etc. One other thing I will say about certain plans is that it is not productive for some experts (like Wolf) to say something like, "hey, this program works 100%, and if it doesn't, then you are doing something wrong." People don't succeed on certain plans because the plan does not work for all people. They should be tinkering with the plan instead of blaming the people. While I think that Taubes has a better solution to obesity and Guyenet has a better cause, Quilty wins on the whole package.

11838116de44ae449df0563f09bd3d73

(655)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:48 PM

N=1 experiences vastly discount compliance. Physicians and others treating obesity do not. Taubes and Guyenet have hugely less practical knowledge than an Atkins center physician or the Eades. Robert Atkins new what worked because he saw it work many thousands of times.

1
22424c9eef944ade83d4e4ffda907056

(1402)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:46 PM

Absolutely. It's feasible that it's all about insulin. In fact, it makes sense. Obviously we know that's what Taubes thinks and Mat Lalonde said that if insulin is on track then everything else falls into place.

7fe08b47d7d073a906802a4170ae24bf

(350)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:16 PM

Hmmm..Lalonde does not agree with Taubes. He believe that omega-6, fructose, etc are the problem, and NOT refined carbs per say.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:55 PM

that is called partial agreement. Not totally your fucking wrong stance. Half right is better than all wrong.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on September 07, 2013
at 01:28 AM

but here is the rub....you can become diabetic without high insulin levels. Clinical medicine has many cases like this. The O6 route is a killer too. MAny T2 are thin as rails with low post prandial sugars......but their livers are shot and so is their brain. In fact these are the people that get extraordinary rates of AD as they age. Neither paradigm fits them. Now ask yourself why? This is where Taubes question to SG comes in.

1
Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:45 PM

I don't think so. By Garys theory one would not be able to lose weight easily on a carbohydrate based diet, but by Stephans theory they would. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:55 PM

lose fat without even seemingly trying even though their diet is most likely carbohydrate based.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:02 PM

I lost 20 lbs in 6 weeks at the beginning of this year when I kept my carb intake essentially constant but eliminated NADs. N=1. Take it for what it's worth. YMMV...

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:09 PM

but, perhaps we see different groups of people. I don't send my fat friends over to PH anymore, because of the sometimes hostile environment. People who cannot lose weight except on low carb diets do not want to hear how "fat-phobic" they are. That's unproductive.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 09:12 PM

Yeah, your arguments make sense, but so do mine (I think). I really don't think we have all the answers yet and we just have to keep learning and reading and thinking critically.

531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

(8878)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:08 PM

I think as long as insulin resistance doesn't happen even Taubes would assert that carbohydrates don't necessarily cause weight gain. But that's just my read on it.

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:54 PM

@WJ- Well yes, I would agree. But specifically for losing weight he asserts that one can't lose weight *easily* on a high carbohydrate diet. Stephan asserts that one can, as long as its low reward. The flavorless goo study he presented was actually fairly high in carbs, if I remember. However the confounder there was that they were eating less so there were possibly less carbs that way. One piece of evidence that would support Stephan is that many people on vegan diets tend to get very skinny. Granted, they're losing muscle mass and it probably isn't a very healthy lifestyle, but a lot of them

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:58 PM

@loon again, I'm not entirely sure who's right. However I've seen many contradictions to Gary's theory and none (that clearly show food reward does not make a difference to weight loss) to Stephan's so I'm inclined to lean towards the latter. I also don't like how Gary says carbohydrates as a whole macronutrient group are the problem. I am in 100% agreement with KHarris here that its the NAD's.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 04:52 PM

based on my experience and observation, people do not lose weight easily on a carb-based diet. So, IYO, would that point to Taubes as being "more correct"?

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 10, 2011
at 06:05 PM

My n=1: I started my warped version of Paleo on Jan 1, 2011. By Feb 20, I lost nearly 20 lbs (which is 2/3 of the total weight I needed to lose). The majority of my calories come from carbs. My key focus has been NAD elimination. Take it for what it's worth. YMMV...

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 10, 2011
at 08:05 PM

I know plenty of people who have stalled out both on CW "clean" eating that included healthywholegrains, and also paleo-style plans with little food reward (per Guyenet def). I know folks who have not lost weight on "clean" low- or lower-carb diets, or paleo. This is why I am not fond of Guyenet's hypothesis. Again, Quilty seems to be the only one who isn't blaming fat people. It's not even one step up from CW judgements "calories in-calories out dude!"

Cab7e4ef73c5d7d7a77e1c3d7f5773a1

(7314)

on August 10, 2011
at 05:48 PM

@TheLoon- Maybe, but not necessarily. Do you know any higher carb dieters that had carbs only from tubers or other "paleo" carb sources? Do you know any that specifically reduced their food reward? Most people I see dieting on, say, weight watchers, still use low calorie cookies or pudding. They still have the NAD's, and they still have high food reward. That seems to me a pretty big cofounder.

0
9205855633f4d88fd78339aad4fc54ff

on August 19, 2011
at 06:26 AM

I really don't get why intelligent people are still debating that much about weight loss in 2011. I found the Taubes-Guynet debate quite idiotic.

Carbs can make you fat. Also fat can make you fat. I was always skeptic about the claim: fat doesn't make you fat (because no insulin involved and blah blah blah). Out of curiosity I tried, but at the end you gain weight (if you eat too much), as I thought.

The best-known way to lose BF is a high or at least moderate-high protein diet. More or less what Hunter-Gather-Love would call a FAILEO DIET. Or what are more o less DUKAN DIET and similars.

Blows my mind that at this point this can be still a secret for some. Think: why in the hell not only BodyBuilders but also figure skaters and others (who don't need the bulk of Jay Cutler), would use that method since almost ever? If other methods would work comparable good, I doubt they will persist in a way that is not that palatable.

So I'm sorry, the empirical evidence says MACRONUTRIENTS ratio matters, a lot. There is room for other factors (exercise, foods being "whole"/"paleo" and not processed or anyway inflamming, sunlight ect), but at the end I'd say at least 66-75% is about that. If you want that kind of body composition. Low-carb and Low-Fat usually work because they both limit one of the 2 macronutrients that can be fattening. Paleo limits both some bad and often many fattening foods (grain, cake, coke). They work to an extent, usually. But then, particularly if you want to show abs, most will have to be carefull to keep protein up. How much depends on you, and how fast you wanna become really lean. ZONE DIET is 30% protein (40 carbs, 30 fat) and has some success. But in some cases for your necessities you might have to go as up as 55-60%. And I know: especially if you have to go high, it sucks. Faileo or similar are awful to most. I'm not denying that. But sorry: I doubt you'll get an'8pack just limiting pasta but gorgeing on bacon, for example. Or just by eating "whole paleo" foods (although is not a bad idea for other reasons). I think we have to be grateful to Gary Taubes. He has the huge merit of generating a shift on how many look at the subject. The calorie counting prospective in the long run is prone to bring people only to failure, misery. His one is much better. But sorry about the all-in insulin theory: is incomplete. For weith gain.

So do what you have to do. If it is to "harsh" (to your palate or your nervous system) you can still reduce it (the protein ratio) a bit an simply lose a bit slower. In any case I doubt most folks have to lose that fast because they have, lets say, a BodyBuilding, MMA fight or are named Yu-Na Kim). Probably going to high (at least above 60-70% protein) isn't either healthy, anyway.

So: protein!!! Very fullfilling etc. In a way we can say that protein is the "food" that fits also in Guynet theory. High rewarding in satiety, boring/low rewarding on palate, in cravings etc. I doubt it's even possible to basically overeat protein that much, if you trie. At least meat. I wouldn't bet either on being possible doing it on not sweetened protein shakes, but in this case I wouldn't put my house on the table against it.

That said. I'm a bit disappointed because what once I hoped to get amongs all theese smart people, is not the way to lose weight. But, besides eating real food and avoiding "neolitic" toxins, understand even more what is ealthier. What foods. What ratio of macro between fat and carbs. The, I don't know, 55-75% ratio that is still there after my protein. But, eye on the minimum requirement of protein aside I need for my goals, I don't limit carbs because they make me fat. I don't find them more fattening than Fat, maybe less. At least glucose; fructose is another animal. I'm afraid they are unhealthy. But the evidence isn't clear. For sure SAD levels 60-65% or even Kitavans ratio would really look high to me. Especially if white flour (yeah and of course HCFS etc.). But I don't know. At the end of the circle of reading a lot of things, the more solid argument againt the "healthyness" of carbs remains tooth decay.

Anyway, as said, it been a while since I'm searching for smarter people than I who would put very convincing theories (if not evidence). But when I see smart people still debating about a way to lose weight, I get depressed because I think we are not anywhere near to get the other answer.

At the moment I'm generally VLC (plus a bit to much cheating with icecream, but c'mon: it's August). Or at least when I eat carbs I try to not be sedentary (such as going at the gelateria by foot :-P ). Again, I'm not sure for health this is the best way possible. I can only say I feel quite good, but I'm not exactly 90 years old either.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!