tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post6108089564085563966..comments2024-02-18T15:43:14.717-05:00Comments on Moved to LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com/Blog: Two Different Diet Documentaries, One Unified Low-Carb MessageJimmy Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08590225257991702645noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-71687340937920161742007-12-03T12:13:00.000-05:002007-12-03T12:13:00.000-05:00The only thing I'd like to add to this is that Dr....The only thing I'd like to add to this is that Dr. Eades has since changed his opinion about the caloric deficit. In his books he does make certain statements, but in his blog he has changed many of his opinions based on an improved understanding of the science. This is a response I received last week when he seemed to suggest in his response to Colpo that a calorie deficit was necessary:<BR/><BR/>Hi Charles–<BR/><BR/>You’ve basically restated the thesis of Gary Taubes’ book. I believe he and Pennington are correct.<BR/><BR/>The problem that the a-calorie-is-a-calorie people have is that they seem to think that calories in and calories out are independent variables, which simply isn’t true. They think that if you simply cut calories you will lose weight, and that if you cut calories by 3500 kcal over a week’s time, you’ll lose a pound of fat. Which would be true if calories in and calories out were independent variables, but they’re not.<BR/><BR/>It has been shown in numerous studies that when people cut calories they also cut the amount of energy expenditure. Same when they increase calories - they increase energy expenditure. On a low-carb diet people seem to be able to cut calories better without decreasing their energy expenditure than they can cutting calories on higher carb diets, which is where the metabolic advantage comes from.<BR/><BR/>Cheers–<BR/><BR/>MRE<BR/><BR/>Just wanted to set the record straight regarding Dr. Eades' opinion.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>CharlesUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11679266571603526922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-51668071803279456182007-11-30T12:13:00.000-05:002007-11-30T12:13:00.000-05:00Jimmy,Wow. Thank you for giving such attention to ...Jimmy,<BR/><BR/>Wow. Thank you for giving such attention to my comments.<BR/><BR/>I am ambivalent about responding to Tom Naughton's post but I feel like the main issue is still hanging out there unaddressed.<BR/><BR/>Gary Taubes' GCBC is a thoughtful and balanced exploration of the science surrounding human nutrition and public health.<BR/><BR/>There is much in his research and conclusions that people find convincing. Certainly some people will focus on some small aspect of Taubes’ overall reporting – that the Center for Science in the Public Interest is misguided, that ad libitium consumption of fat and protein won’t make you fat – without getting the whole picture sketched out in Taubes’ book. And, of course, that’s fine.<BR/><BR/>And, of course, some people may latch on to elements of Taubes’ research for more sinister reasons.<BR/><BR/>For one example, there are a lot of former tobacco lobbyists out there.<BR/><BR/>Many of them eventually found work representing Coca-Cola and McDonalds, and the trade groups to which they belong.<BR/><BR/>A prime example of this is the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), run by former tobacco lobbyist Richard Berman. CCF, funded by fast-food and soft-drink companies, lobbies on specific matters like keeping sugary drinks in public school vending machines, but also advocates for a general sentiment: that government ought to get out of business of health research and have people make their own decisions – presumably without benefit of the information needed to make those decisions. That latter notion is right out of the old pro-cigarette playbook.<BR/><BR/>I have seen all the clips of Naughton’s film posted on YouTube. Regardless of what one thinks of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (I happen to think their recommendations and advocacy are not helpful), there is no denying that Naughton’s criticism of CSPI are nearly identical to what you find at the CCF website www.CSPIScam.com and that his opinions on obesity are indistinguishable from the opinions on the CCF website www.obesitymyths.com. And his attitudes on government funding of science track the opinions on the www.consumerfreedom.com web site.<BR/><BR/>Let’s put aside all the ways in which Taubes’ book casts doubt on Naughton’s statements on the insignificance of obesity, the role of personal choice in getting fat, the absence of any addictive elements in food, and the role of sedentary behavior in chronic disease, and instead let us just look at this issue of government funding of science and public health research.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who reads Taubes’ book would have a hard time being against government funding of nutrition science. Nearly all the miraculous research Taubes reports on, confirming various elements of the carbohydrate hypothesis, was paid for through government funding. So was most of the bad research supporting Key’s hypothesis. Oh well.<BR/><BR/>The notion that government funding somehow requires certain conclusions be reached or demands that scientist only support the status quo is just wrong on the face of it. Ask Krauss or Albrink or Reaven or any of the hundreds of researcher’s Taubes interviews who continue to do government-funded work that supports some aspect of the carbohydrate hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>We know, for sure, that Naughton never read Taubes. To me that makes sense. The arguments I hear from Naughton are way closer to former-tobacco-lobbyist Richard Berman than to anything one hears from Gary Taubes.AnotherSuggestionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15117247001054820518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-81867592988728921332007-11-29T10:06:00.000-05:002007-11-29T10:06:00.000-05:00It's 'Hybrid Carbohydrates' gang, that's what's at...It's 'Hybrid Carbohydrates' gang, that's what's at the bottom of all this. Hybrid Carbohydrates is what all of our fruit and vegetables and grains have become. (good work Jimmy)Tom Bunnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11840576840382147883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12333976.post-9726245730336719332007-11-29T05:13:00.000-05:002007-11-29T05:13:00.000-05:00Hey Jimmy,I have been reading your blog for some t...Hey Jimmy,<BR/><BR/>I have been reading your blog for some time, and really enjoy it. Thanks for your good work.<BR/><BR/>I am really nervous about this anti-Super Size Me movie - i think it will be counter-productive.<BR/><BR/>Gary Taubes' book deserves to be enormously influential, but for those who suggest that Naughton's anti-Super Size Me movie is something that can serve as clif-notes for Taubes' GCBC, or is something that will help Taubes reach his goal of spurring better nutritional science, I suggest you reconsider.<BR/><BR/>Do you think Taubes agrees with Naughton that there is no real obesity epidemic in America?<BR/><BR/>Do you think Taubes agrees with Naughton that the association between obesity and Type II diabetes is weak, or that the underlying relationship between the two is somehow unclear?<BR/><BR/>Do you think Taubes agrees with Naughton that particular foods (fast foods, starches, sugars) are not addicting, or that the addiction is somehow weak and easy to break?<BR/><BR/>Do you think Taubes agrees with Naughton that poor people tend to be more obese because they have an "I'm fat and I don't care" attitude?<BR/><BR/>Do you think Taubes agrees with Naughton that exercise is the key to losing weight?<BR/><BR/>Do you think Taubes agrees with Naughton that people are fat because they run a caloric surplus?<BR/><BR/>Do you think Taubes wants less government involvement in scientific inquiry and public health as Naughton suggests, or does Taubes' book instead call for more government funding of better science leading to better public health recommendations? I read Taubes to say that the government needs to be doing more - much more in terms of funding the right sorts of experiments. Taubes is realistic enough to say that government funding is the only hope for getting real answers on the competing hypotheses on diet and health.<BR/><BR/>Gary Taubes' book is carefully thought-out and loyal throughout to the principles of scientific inquiry. I don't know what to think of Naughton's movie, except that it will only cause more confusion about Taubes' critically important message.<BR/><BR/>On another note, one reason people are drawn to Taubes is because his inclinations are so humane - point out to Taubes that fat people drink diet soda and he'll say "Of course, they are always on diets. They don't want to be heavy.” In everything Taubes says about modern American diets, there's this real sympathy for obese people who feel like they've somehow lost control of their bodies and their health, and are incapable of finding decent medical or public health advice about how to turn things around.<BR/><BR/>Naughton just comes across as mean. For him, the obese "happen to value immediate pleasure more than long-term health" and then he quips "that’s your choice." Does anyone who read Taubes book honestly believe that Taubes thinks that obese people choose to get fat?AnotherSuggestionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15117247001054820518noreply@blogger.com