Well said Lonnie, he’s also talking to the people who are doing what the gov’t told them to do. Low-fat, and exercise daily.
we all like to say as a nation we are lazy, how many gyms were open in 1980 before shit went downhill compared to now?
There are plenty of active people who are spinning their wheels because the advice is working against their body.
And there are of coruse people that it works for, but for 66% of people it ain’t workin.
I don’t know what page you can find this on (it’s 179 in torrented pdf), but it’s towards the end of chapter 22:
"When clinical investigators tried to unravel the connection between diet, insulin, and obesity in human subjects, as the University of Washington endocrinologist David Kipnis did in the early 1970s, the results were invariably analyzed in light of this same preconception. Kipnis had fed ten “grossly obese” women a series of three-and four-week diets that were either high or low in calories, and high or low in carbohydrates. The fat-rich diets lowered insulin levels, Kipnis reported in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1971, and the carbohydrate-rich diets raised them, regardless of how many calories were being consumed. Even when these women were semi-starved on fifteen hundred calories a day, a high-carbohydrate content (72 percent carbohydrates and only 1 percent fat) stil increased their insulin levels, even compared with the hyperinsulinemia of these obese women on their normal diets.
One interpretation of these results is that we could remove the carbohydrates from the diet and replace them with fat, and weight would be lost, perhaps without hunger, because insulin levels would drop, even if the total calories consumed did not."
So, yeah, he is not expressly SAYING calories don’t matter… but he is clearly suggesting it is a possibility.
Yeah, one need only look at Zraw’s recent contest prep thread, Mighty Stu’s prep thread, Tim McBrides thread, etc (and my own to a lesser extent) to see that Carbs can be part of a diet that leaves the person SHREDDED to the bone at the end of it.
ZRAW was eating something stupid like 1200g of carbs on his SkipLoading days… And these werent apples and figs, we are talking Pop Tarts, carmels, chocolates, muffines, etc… He didnt appear to be packing on the adipose by the end.
The other threads I mentioned are all using natty competitors as examples, and Stu and Tim were eating 200-300g of carbs a day if I remember right.
Taubes certainly has some good ideas, and a large portion of the population would benefit from them, but blanket statements like “carbs make you fat” are just flat out incorrect.
I’ve always thought that the reason people “effortlessly” lose weight on Atkins/Paleo etc… is because they basically eat the exact same stuff minus the carbs they were eating.
So they still go to subway, but they dont eat the 600 calories worth of bread. They still go out to chinese food, but they dont eat the 200-300 calories worth of rice.
Also, it basically eliminates ALL forms of dessert and candy, which can easily add thousands of calories per month into a diet.
I dont think most people make up for those lost calories by ordering extra meat/cheese/fat/protein, they just leave the carbs off the menu.
If someone who was obese told me they wanted to try a Paleo plan or a low carb plan I would be the first person to support them. I sure as shit would NOT go recommending some carb cycling, calorie rotating menu.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I’ve always thought that the reason people “effortlessly” lose weight on Atkins/Paleo etc… is because they basically eat the exact same stuff minus the carbs they were eating.
So they still go to subway, but they dont eat the 600 calories worth of bread. They still go out to chinese food, but they dont eat the 200-300 calories worth of rice.
Also, it basically eliminates ALL forms of dessert and candy, which can easily add thousands of calories per month into a diet.[/quote]
Not to mention that carbohydrate sources are also common vectors for high-calorie fat intake: you eat a potato, you throw butter on it; you eat a bagel, you smear cream cheese on it; you go to an Italian restaurant, you dip your bread in oil. Etc, etc, etc.
Just think about all the calories people commonly add to their “fattening” carbs on a daily basis without even thinking about it. Drop the carbs, you drop these sneaky calories.
[quote]Gary Taubes wrote:
One interpretation of these results is that we could remove the carbohydrates from the diet and replace them with fat, and weight would be lost, perhaps without hunger, because insulin levels would drop, even if the total calories consumed did not."[/quote]
Note that this isn’t really related to OP, but this speaks LOADS about Taubes’ credibility as a researcher… HERE is what Grey and Kipnis wrote in their Results:
On the Isocaloric Diet:
“All subjects displayed a significant reduction in basal insulin levels on the “low-CHO” diet and a subsequent elevation of basal insulin levels while ingesting the high-CHO diet. In six patients, the weight was kept constant throughout these studies. One patient (R.P.) apparently did not consume all the calories offered, for her weight did decrease slightly.”
And, yet:
"While on the 1500-calorie formula diet, these subjects lost .75 to 2.0 kg per week irrespective of the caloric distribution. Basal plasma insulin levels on the hypocaloric, high-CHO formula did not differ significantly from those observed during the ad-lib diet period. On the other hand, a significant reduction in basal plasma insulin levels…was noted when these subjects were ingesting the hypocaloric formula devoid of CHO."
Sooo… what gives?
How can Taubes “interpret” these results to mean something completely different than what was actually observed in the results???
Again, a hijack from the OP, but seriously – how can Taubes get away with claiming CICO doesn’t matter by referencing a study that shows it absolutely, unequivocally DOES?
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Yeah, one need only look at Zraw’s recent contest prep thread, Mighty Stu’s prep thread, Tim McBrides thread, etc (and my own to a lesser extent) to see that Carbs can be part of a diet that leaves the person SHREDDED to the bone at the end of it.
ZRAW was eating something stupid like 1200g of carbs on his SkipLoading days… And these werent apples and figs, we are talking Pop Tarts, carmels, chocolates, muffines, etc… He didnt appear to be packing on the adipose by the end.
The other threads I mentioned are all using natty competitors as examples, and Stu and Tim were eating 200-300g of carbs a day if I remember right.
Taubes certainly has some good ideas, and a large portion of the population would benefit from them, but blanket statements like “carbs make you fat” are just flat out incorrect.[/quote]
Here’s the thing though, the average person cannot be expected to be anal-retentive like BBers in order to be healthy nor lose weight 
So yes, under controlled ocnditions of course carbs can be included, and of course CICO can work, but we’re talking about people that want to just live their life and not be obsessed about food decisions. When you take a normal person and pump them w/carbs, mainly sugar and restrict fat you’re setting them up to lose their inate ability for self control, that’s my main argument.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I’ve always thought that the reason people “effortlessly” lose weight on Atkins/Paleo etc… is because they basically eat the exact same stuff minus the carbs they were eating.
So they still go to subway, but they dont eat the 600 calories worth of bread. They still go out to chinese food, but they dont eat the 200-300 calories worth of rice.
Also, it basically eliminates ALL forms of dessert and candy, which can easily add thousands of calories per month into a diet.
I dont think most people make up for those lost calories by ordering extra meat/cheese/fat/protein, they just leave the carbs off the menu.
If someone who was obese told me they wanted to try a Paleo plan or a low carb plan I would be the first person to support them. I sure as shit would NOT go recommending some carb cycling, calorie rotating menu.[/quote]
That is likely.
The woman I referenced above would normally have for breakfast 1 whole egg, slice of toast. On Paleo she ditched the toast and tripled the egg intake.
What I loved the most was she got blood work done after 30 days, of course results of her TC won’t come as a shock to those on here, but it made for a good proving poitn to my class.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]Gary Taubes wrote:
One interpretation of these results is that we could remove the carbohydrates from the diet and replace them with fat, and weight would be lost, perhaps without hunger, because insulin levels would drop, even if the total calories consumed did not."[/quote]
Note that this isn’t really related to OP, but this speaks LOADS about Taubes’ credibility as a researcher… HERE is what Grey and Kipnis wrote in their Results:
On the Isocaloric Diet:
“All subjects displayed a significant reduction in basal insulin levels on the “low-CHO” diet and a subsequent elevation of basal insulin levels while ingesting the high-CHO diet. In six patients, the weight was kept constant throughout these studies. One patient (R.P.) apparently did not consume all the calories offered, for her weight did decrease slightly.”
And, yet:
"While on the 1500-calorie formula diet, these subjects lost .75 to 2.0 kg per week irrespective of the caloric distribution. Basal plasma insulin levels on the hypocaloric, high-CHO formula did not differ significantly from those observed during the ad-lib diet period. On the other hand, a significant reduction in basal plasma insulin levels…was noted when these subjects were ingesting the hypocaloric formula devoid of CHO."
Sooo… what gives?
How can Taubes “interpret” these results to mean something completely different than what was actually observed in the results???
Again, a hijack from the OP, but seriously – how can Taubes get away with claiming CICO doesn’t matter by referencing a study that shows it absolutely, unequivocally DOES?[/quote]
I think this may be a point to discuss. Taubes isn’t saying CICO doesn’t matter, but that it doesn’t do anything to explain why it happens. Why is it now that people are in positive energy balance? He states, one will gain weight if they eat too much, but he’s saying people aren’t eating too much thus they gain weight, but something is driving them to eat too much 
it’s minor things that make a big difference in his statements.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Yeah, one need only look at Zraw’s recent contest prep thread, Mighty Stu’s prep thread, Tim McBrides thread, etc (and my own to a lesser extent) to see that Carbs can be part of a diet that leaves the person SHREDDED to the bone at the end of it.
ZRAW was eating something stupid like 1200g of carbs on his SkipLoading days… And these werent apples and figs, we are talking Pop Tarts, carmels, chocolates, muffines, etc… He didnt appear to be packing on the adipose by the end.
The other threads I mentioned are all using natty competitors as examples, and Stu and Tim were eating 200-300g of carbs a day if I remember right.
Taubes certainly has some good ideas, and a large portion of the population would benefit from them, but blanket statements like “carbs make you fat” are just flat out incorrect.[/quote]
One thing to point out is the variables, like moving tons of weight and then eating tons of carbs. That’s a lot different than just eating tons of carbs. On heavy leg days I might eat a Kilo of cinnamon rolls and wash it down with a quart of Haagen Daz without picking up fat post workout. If I did that without weight training I know what the results would look like. I realize I’m also burning more calories lifting, but I am not sure that’s all there is to it and that guys like Kiefer aren’t on to something.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Taubes isn’t saying CICO doesn’t matter… He states, one will gain weight if they eat too much…[/quote]
He actually explicitly states the exact opposite in the video I posted and “suggests” the same in his own writing.
How else do you interpret him saying, “…carbohydrates are fattening. Period. Fat isn’t fattening, protein isn’t fattening, carbohydrates are fattening…”
If fat isn’t fattening, and protein isn’t fattening, then how can one gain fat by eating exclusively fat and protein?
How else do you interpret him saying, “You can’t eat carbs, you can basically exercise as much gluttony as you want as long you’re eating fat and protein.”
How else do you interpret him suggesting, in his own book, that “…we could remove the carbohydrates from the diet and replace them with fat, and weight would be lost…even if the total calories consumed did not.”
Sorry, but he can’t just drown out his past idiocy by posting a blog entry stating “he never said that.” Nothing disappears on the internet, and his book, sadly, is still in print.
I’ll share a few more gems in a bit.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
He states, one will gain weight if they eat too much, but he’s saying people aren’t eating too much thus they gain weight, but something is driving them to eat too much
[/quote]
exactly. fucked up insulin resistance and dysfunctional cells is why he states people eat too much.
they overeat because they are getting fat, not fat because they overeat.
it seems the others in this thread (not pointing fingers) havent grasped the fact that taubes’ whole argument is that a calorie isnt a calorie isnt a calorie.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I’ve always thought that the reason people “effortlessly” lose weight on Atkins/Paleo etc… is because they basically eat the exact same stuff minus the carbs they were eating.
So they still go to subway, but they dont eat the 600 calories worth of bread. They still go out to chinese food, but they dont eat the 200-300 calories worth of rice.
Also, it basically eliminates ALL forms of dessert and candy, which can easily add thousands of calories per month into a diet.
I dont think most people make up for those lost calories by ordering extra meat/cheese/fat/protein, they just leave the carbs off the menu.
[/quote]
all the friends and family ive put on a paleo type diet make up for the carb calories with extra portions of nuts, seed, green veggies, fattier meats, etc. instead of egg whites and toast, theyll have whole eggs, bacon and avocado. they eat more calories if anything (myself included).
[quote]anonym wrote:
He actually explicitly states the exact opposite in the video I posted and “suggests” the same in his own writing.
How else do you interpret him saying, “…carbohydrates are fattening. Period. Fat isn’t fattening, protein isn’t fattening, carbohydrates are fattening…”
If fat isn’t fattening, and protein isn’t fattening, then how can one gain fat by eating exclusively fat and protein?
How else do you interpret him saying, “You can’t eat carbs, you can basically exercise as much gluttony as you want as long you’re eating fat and protein.”
How else do you interpret him suggesting, in his own book, that “…we could remove the carbohydrates from the diet and replace them with fat, and weight would be lost…even if the total calories consumed did not.”
[/quote]
his whole argument about carbohydrates being fattening is because he says carbohydrates release insulin. fat doesnt release insulin. that is his only argument.
i mean you guys are getting on Taubes for no reason. he never said his books were for bodybuilders or athletes, all of his research applies to the general population who doesnt spend 4 hours in the gym per day during contest prep doing 2 hours of cardio and weights and needs the 400g of carbs, that will go to good use.
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
they overeat because they are getting fat, not fat because they overeat.[/quote]
OK, so how do they get fat without overeating?
You are suggesting these people drop muscle and put on fat simply by raising insulin levels?
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
it seems the others in this thread (not pointing fingers) havent grasped the fact that taubes’ whole argument is that a calorie isnt a calorie isnt a calorie.[/quote]
And yet, I can cite at least a dozen more journal articles that observed obese individuals in metabolic wards and found that, once protein was controlled for, there were NO statistically significant differences in weight lost between HC or LF diets.
Taubes cannot do the same. Instead, he either ignores those studies or lies about what we can infer from them (see the paper I already mentioned).
If Taubes IS correct, and fat can be lost simply by lowering insulin levels rather than calories, then why did the study he decided to share in his book find nothing of the sort to have occurred?
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
his whole argument about carbohydrates being fattening is because he says carbohydrates release insulin. fat doesnt release insulin. that is his only argument.[/quote]
And this argument is flat out incorrect.
By the time GCBC was published, we already knew about the existence of ASP, its stimulation by chylomicrons, its augmentation of insulin and a whole buncha other cool stuff. One review even went so far as to call it “…the most potent stimulant of triacylglycerol synthesis in human adipocytes yet described.”
All this was published in peer reviewed journals well before Taubes even got offered a deal to write his book. So, he was either ignorant of this crucial bit of information (and don’t get me started on leptin), making him a shit-tier researcher (and casting doubt on the quality of the rest of his research), or he WAS aware of it and decided to leave it out… making him an outright fraud.
But… I like how you quoted me exposing his lies about what he “never said” about CICO three times and, rather than justify it, explain it or even ACKNOWLEDGE it, chose to instead tell me something I already know.
I’m hearing the same crickets about his lying re: the Kipnis study, too.
I think Taubes is again being sanstaionlist to make a point by saying carbs are fattening.
He also states in newer vids that some carbs are more fattening than others, and he says sugar being the most likely culprit.
One argument that insulin is a fat hormone that doesn’t completely add up is how did prehistoric man store bodyfat easily when CHO in large quantities weren’t available. So to me CLEARLY overeating is going to lead to some adipose storage but I’m still pretty sure ancient man didn’t have beer bellies either. Were they always underfed? They how could they have survived famine events?
Anyway, honestly most of this argument is semantics. I don’t think he’s making the argument that you can eat unlimited fat and protein and not get fat. But even Poliquin has said a calorie isn’t a calorie isn’t a calorie. CICO is just way to oversimplistic to account for complex human biochemistry. Not to mention food labels in of themselves are AVERAGES of POTENTIAL energy to begin with. The 6oz potato that you think has 40g of CHO may only have 30g depending on the soil. Who knows!
Food in vs energy out is not the same as CICO.
At the end of the day CICO is simply a portion control tool.