tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post2634095062957117064..comments2024-02-25T02:24:14.972-08:00Comments on Whole Health Source: A Brief Response to Taubes's Food Reward Critique, and a Little Something ExtraStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-15112554592717882572016-12-16T00:07:24.614-08:002016-12-16T00:07:24.614-08:00the studies you point out (49, 50, 51, 52)"It...the studies you point out (49, 50, 51, 52)"It has been made clear by countless studies that body fat stores can be manipulated by changing food intake and energy expenditure. For example, overfeeding reliably increases fat mass in humans and can produce substantial body fat accumulation, regardless of whether the excess calories come from carbohydrate or fat, and regardless of changes in circulating insulin"<br /><br />Well, i looked a the menu they fed the participants with "high fat" diets. They are NOT high fat at all, they just contain more fat than the carbs diet. So those studies are kind of useless, because those who advocate LCHF are talking about no carbs intake whatsoever or limited to 5% of total daily calorie intake. We need the same study done but with a legitimate high fat diet. which is 75%, 20% protein and 5% carbs.GBEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01856191893486836534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-30032822613369921412012-08-20T11:45:31.183-07:002012-08-20T11:45:31.183-07:00Taubes is correct on Nutrament - it does seem like...Taubes is correct on Nutrament - it does seem like a typical example the marketing-driven high reward food that is criticized elsewhere on this siteBen Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02993765107497016319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-72743092391984020392012-07-15T22:18:35.748-07:002012-07-15T22:18:35.748-07:00Finally someone has provided a reasonable explanat...Finally someone has provided a reasonable explanation of the reason so many veteran researchers still support the calorie balance model, and in a way that doesn't just reject the lipophilic hypothesis (fat causes lowered activity and increased intake) out of hand. This is one of the most useful posts on obesity models that I've seen in a long time. Thank you very much! I was persuaded from my own experience and various articles that the carb-insulin hypothesis of obesity was correct but your articles have given me new ways of looking at the evidence. Great educational service you are doing here.Todd I. Starkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02231844857877577527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-3979501634869238372011-12-29T14:04:59.011-08:002011-12-29T14:04:59.011-08:00link no. (38) is broken.
i guess its this paper?
...link no. (38) is broken.<br /><br />i guess its this paper?<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427023Samsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09017754748974363732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-81878043458815492062011-12-19T13:49:27.216-08:002011-12-19T13:49:27.216-08:00Re the energy-blance "red herring":
Ste...Re the energy-blance "red herring":<br /><br />Stephan writes that he agrees with GT that it is important to know what is driving energy imbalance. He also agrees on the first law of thermodynamics. However, he then goes on to write as if he's just forgotten it: <i>"..fat mass depends tightly on energy balance...; fat mass is determined by changes in energy balance.."</i> This paradigm introduces causality into the first law, which is what GT is railing against, that it is also possible that changes in fat mass determines energy balance (reverse causality). All we can say is that changes in energy balance <i>equals</i> changes in fat stores.<br /><br /><br />SG: <i>"It has been made clear by countless studies that body fat stores can be manipulated by changing food intake and energy expenditure."</i> This is a second sore point of GT: if obesity researchers have made such progress in understanding the biochemistry of fat regulation, then why have "countless studies" been done diddling around with energy balance?! These are the very studies that operate under the "wrong paradigm" and certainly the ones which go on to influence public health recommendations.<br /><br />And that brings up a third point of GT: the research community is so specialized and fragmented that they rarely talk to each other. SG may be a fantastic boichemist, but the NIH certainly is not listening, as they still recommend "eat less, move more".GKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03561650040126976340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-34200654771652625112011-12-06T16:07:33.986-08:002011-12-06T16:07:33.986-08:00I tried to read all the comments, but it was just ...I tried to read all the comments, but it was just too much! So sorry if I am retreading covered territory. <br /><br />"Most obesity researchers view energy imbalance as a link in the causal chain between environmental factors and obesity, and view the whole process as being driven by upstream causal factors, just as Taubes does. That may not be reflected on TV or in the newspaper, but I can assure you it is a common sentiment in my field."<br /><br />Here is my comment: I think that you have a much easier time than most people separating the energy balance model from the prescription to "eat less/move more." I do not doubt what you say, that those who are well informed on the biology have no trouble seeing that one of these does not follow from the other. But there is a reason that so many of your commenters make this link: It is the dominant public narrative. And, I am not just talking about fluffy journalism pieces, diet books or blogs. I have personally sat through plenty of harangues from medical professionals (nurses/doctors/nutritionists) who consider themselves to be very well authoritative on the subject of obesity. Let me assure you, they believe in the "eat less/move more" prescription and they point to the energy balance model/laws of thermodynamics as a reason why.<br /><br />There is a war going on between the people who feel that the energy balance model is necessary and fruitful and those who think that it is doing us more harm than good. I think that both sides have important points to make, and should stop squabbling and try a little harder to integrate each other's contributions. <br /><br />I acknowledge that, ultimately, obesity cannot happen without an excessive intake of calories. But, by over-focusing on this fact, we have generated a very, very strong narrative that "calories-in" is entirely under our personal control. I.e., controlling obesity is strictly a matter of self-discipline. This message has done a great deal of harm to human health and well-being (understatement!). There are people who are trying to undo the harm that this narrative has caused. I concede that sometimes they go too far in the "calories don't count" direction. But disarming the self-discipline narrative is good and necessary work (IMO). <br /><br />I would love to see you help the "calories don't count" crowd find a more nuanced and accurate way of expressing their concerns. This would be a very positive contribution. But you first have to acknowledge that people aren't just being crazy or ignorant when they link the energy balance model to the harmful "self-discipline" prescription for obesity.yoliohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05377530393720341372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-16496690919406668492011-12-05T22:37:45.887-08:002011-12-05T22:37:45.887-08:00Flowerdew Onehundred ,
There is a world of differe...Flowerdew Onehundred ,<br />There is a world of difference between tasty natural food and chemicalised, processed , mass marketized easy to use #$#$ that passes for food. It's the same difference as a hot lover and internet porn . We are built to be satiated after a while by a natural thing whereas these synthetic things are never meant to be satiating and the body expects something natural to come along so it's seeking that something and develops addiction to food and/or porn. In the real world this means that we always get satiated if we taste enough of good food or even have enough of a good sex partner. This serves a purpose of survival and procreation.<br />Abstaining from palatable food as SG suggests is not the answer anymore than Taubes extremist carb and insulin phobia. All that does is tries to misleadingly curb the symptoms while excerbating fear and misunderstanding. <br />In that sense SG has missed the target as far as the food reward goes, it's not the reward that is the problem, it's the intnetional and/or unintentional fooling of the brain that disrupts tne natural senses and sends the natural homeostasis into confusion . Also when combined with real or imagined stress attack from modern society which fools the brain to think it's under attack along with fear mongering from media and authorities and even people you know who may not know better , this also increases stress response which increases feeding and fat storage while decreasing energy and mental clarity.vladexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03857916359624312122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-22539789993810361652011-12-05T05:10:53.505-08:002011-12-05T05:10:53.505-08:00Oh my goodness. For you folks who think Nutrament...Oh my goodness. For you folks who think Nutrament isn't bland, you aren't really thinking it through.<br /><br />Sweetened skim milk would be OK the first time you had it, maybe OK for a day. When faced with nothing but that, believe me, you'd eat to your needs and that's it. No vanilla, no cocoa, no malt extract that came off your cereal? No flavor.<br /><br />The real question in all of this is why monotony OR blandness causes people's appetite to adjust to meet their needs and no more.<br /><br />Having lots of tasty food available seems to derange appetite in many people. WHY??Flowerdew Onehundredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00264956658999581900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-3766128151729721852011-12-03T03:59:37.625-08:002011-12-03T03:59:37.625-08:00As usual Stephan a brilliant post, I think the onl...As usual Stephan a brilliant post, I think the only positive I could take from Gary Taubes putting a critique on food reward is, it will actually attract more readers to your blog and increase awareness of some real scientific links to obesity. <br /><br />I can see why you would also not want to spend anymore time putting up responses to Gary Taubes as he seems to be on his own planet speaking a different language with his fingers in his ears. As the chinese proverb says, "his cup is already full and will take no more water". <br /><br />Keep being a great voice of reason.<br /><br />OllieOlliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14754823163119936081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-21412100715640549512011-12-02T15:30:16.034-08:002011-12-02T15:30:16.034-08:00Hi Jeff,
My intent was not to invalidate people w...Hi Jeff,<br /><br />My intent was not to invalidate people who don't have a scientific publication record. I was simply responding to the previous commenter's opinion that Taubes's books and articles give him more credibility than I have. I have the utmost respect for people, degree or not, publication record or not, who make a good faith effort to learn about and communicate science. What boils my blood is science abuse, where gurus mix fact with fiction and take advantage of the general public's ignorance.<br /><br />Your point is well taken that I'm not a well-established researcher with a lab and a bunch of high-impact obesity papers under my belt. But the difference between me and Taubes is that I listen to people who do. If you're going to butt heads with seasoned researchers, particularly an entire field of them, you need to have a damn good reason to do so. What I do is communicate research that other experienced scientists are doing-- without calling them idiots, without distorting or selectively citing their work.<br /><br />I have a first author review paper coming out soon in a high-impact journal that will be on the mechanisms of obesity. I'll announce it when it's published.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-92096558721419526062011-12-02T14:51:38.478-08:002011-12-02T14:51:38.478-08:00Hi comrade,
I write for a publication called &quo...Hi comrade,<br /><br />I write for a publication called "the scientific literature". Popular books are all well and good, but what has Taubes written that has gone through a scientific peer review process? Nothing. That's why he can sling around these wild ideas with no accountability.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-83220164170548839452011-12-02T14:47:09.096-08:002011-12-02T14:47:09.096-08:00Mr. Guyenet, you and your cronies are engaged in t...Mr. Guyenet, you and your cronies are engaged in the most ferocious attack on Mr. Taubes' ideas and credentials.<br /><br />However, it is Mr. Taubes who writes for the New York Times, the greatest newspaper in the world.<br /><br />It is Mr. Taubes that has published numerous books, some of them becoming best sellers.<br /><br />For which newspapers do you or your cronies write for?<br /><br />What books have you and your cronies published?<br /><br />Your attacks seem to be nothing more than jealousy and sour grapes.comrade_stalinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075454664838699155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-52003347815585873662011-12-02T14:46:23.328-08:002011-12-02T14:46:23.328-08:00Mr. Guyenet, you and your cronies are engaged in t...Mr. Guyenet, you and your cronies are engaged in the most ferocious attack on Mr. Taubes' ideas and credentials.<br /><br />However, it is Mr. Taubes who writes for the New York Times, the greatest newspaper in the world.<br /><br />It is Mr. Taubes that has published numerous books, some of them becoming best sellers.<br /><br />For which newspapers do you or your cronies write for?<br /><br />What books have you and your cronies published?<br /><br />Your attacks seem to be nothing more than jealousy and sour grapes.comrade_stalinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075454664838699155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-74400657428128551802011-12-02T03:58:37.339-08:002011-12-02T03:58:37.339-08:00Good food habits can keep the fat away from you.
...Good food habits can keep the fat away from you.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.weightgain.org/" rel="nofollow">Weight gain</a>jaylen watkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246576951108532477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-68142657115961389852011-12-01T19:55:39.367-08:002011-12-01T19:55:39.367-08:00Oops - apologies to my wife - the comment from &qu...Oops - apologies to my wife - the comment from "Rosemary" should be from "Gordon".Gordon Rousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16264466945308597249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-82656941114285369412011-12-01T19:24:57.226-08:002011-12-01T19:24:57.226-08:00Does food-rewards theory make long-term prediction...Does food-rewards theory make long-term predictions of weight gain/loss.<br /><br />I think it is quite straight-forward that palatable food encourages you to eat more, and hence put on weight. I understand most people who become vegans usually lose weight!<br /><br />But, are these weight changes maintained? After 3-5 years (the point at which most diets fail) would having only access to low palatable foods keep you lighter, or would the body just up the ante and give you more reward for your efforts?<br /><br />I suspect that, providing the calories and nutrition are available, the body will eventually adapt to any regime? long-term weight loss will be insignificant on a low-palatability diet - is there any evidence to the contrary?Rosemaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18293233921914602468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-72956743293205325872011-12-01T18:39:27.749-08:002011-12-01T18:39:27.749-08:00The sharp elbowed tone of the exchange between Ste...The sharp elbowed tone of the exchange between Stephan and Taubes didn't bother me in a "can't we all just get along?" sort of way. What bothered me was a sense that both sides had dug in and were more interested in out-lawyering each other than in using the exchange to further their (and our) understanding. <br /><br />They each seem to be clutching their hypothesis rather than holding it gingerly. Unfortunate, since neither hypothesis seems particularly robost to me at this point.Marc Brazeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03362416140899154282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-51749466672747239102011-12-01T11:22:02.498-08:002011-12-01T11:22:02.498-08:00Medjoub said...
"To all interested, Slate has...Medjoub said...<br />"To all interested, Slate has a really fantastic article series up about the ubiquity of the mouse model in research and the corresponding difficulties of interpretation and application to humans.<br />http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_mouse_trap/2011/11/lab_mice_are_they_limiting_our_understanding_of_human_disease_.html<br />"<br />Interesting. I just had a glance at the cafeteria diet study that Stephan referenced above in his additional critique of Taubes. It turns out that the rats were being fed ad lib. Is this common in cafeteria diet studies? If so, it could represent a significant problem. <br /><br />The comparison in these studies isn't just between a normal diet and a highly varied diet; it is between a one-item only diet (which virtually no one eats unless their doing a potatoes-only experiment or happen to have a severe addiction to purina monkey chow) and a several-item diet (which virtually everyone follows regardless of whether they're on a low carb or low fat or whatever diet). Moreover, the animals are in the presence of food day, in day out for the duration of the experiment. Imagine what it would be like to be confined to a small room with virtually nothing to do but eat and the food being constantly in front of you. It's a perfect set-up for inducing long-term habituation to the food, and I wouldn't at all doubt that habituation would occur much more profoundly to the one-item diet than the several item diet. Personally, I would be desperate to have varied food items in front of me, the more the better, rather than just one item. I would also be desperate for more tasty items. It's also possible that if the rats were not being fed ad lib, but were instead given separate meals a day, then the tendency to habituate would again be alleviated. <br /><br />If it hasn't already been done, someone should investigate the possibility of these kinds of effects from ad lib feeding. Even if there is a food-reward effect associated with a varied diet, it may be that it is being greatly exaggerated by the ad lib feeding regimen in these rat studies.<br /><br />Just a thought.Raphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08435219032869091692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-90736162615188849352011-12-01T10:58:28.279-08:002011-12-01T10:58:28.279-08:00@FrankG: I wonder if you're even being seriou...@FrankG: I wonder if you're even being serious or just trying to muck up the waters. The Sampey cafe rat study is available in full for free online. Or you can look at just the charts and graphs in my post here: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-we-get-fat-lessons-from-cafeteria.html<br />Taubes is actually commenting on that study, though diverting the issue with Sclafani. <br /><br />Why are they looking at all those things? They are the effect of the diet along with obesity, and not the cause of the obesity maybe.CarbSanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17739915307890592327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-79160372541939659852011-12-01T03:24:30.817-08:002011-12-01T03:24:30.817-08:00...and why were these particular researchers even ......and why were these particular researchers even interested in insulin, blood glucose and glucose tolerance if these are not considered to be diet-driven factors in obesity and metabolic syndrome?FrankGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980497914756341565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-72347924275761010342011-12-01T03:18:14.431-08:002011-12-01T03:18:14.431-08:00...or put another way, the study you provided is f......or put another way, the study you provided is further evidence that an high-fat (so "low-carb") diet is preferable for insulin levels, blood glucose, excess fat mass etc... etc... when compared to what most kids are eating these days.<br /><br />But hey... what do I know..? I'm just an ignoramus who never even went to University.FrankGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980497914756341565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-62455431232822831122011-12-01T03:11:22.268-08:002011-12-01T03:11:22.268-08:00Stephan said... "Taubes claims that we don...Stephan said... "Taubes claims that we don't know why rats get fat on the cafeteria diet, that it may be the refined carb/sugar content. Well, actually, we do know, because it has been tested in controlled feeding trials, as I have explained on this blog. Diets high in refined carb/sugar are not nearly as fattening as the cafeteria diet, thus refined carb/sugar can't explain the effect.<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21331068"<br /><br />Abstract of that study says... "Several animal models of obesity exist, but studies are lacking that compare high-fat diets (HFD) traditionally used in rodent models of diet-induced obesity (DIO) to diets consisting of food regularly consumed by humans, including high-salt, high-fat, low-fiber, energy dense foods such as <b>cookies, chips</b>, and processed meats. To investigate the obesogenic and inflammatory consequences of a cafeteria diet (CAF) compared to a lard-based 45% HFD in rodent models, male Wistar rats were fed HFD, CAF or chow control diets for 15 weeks. Body weight increased dramatically and remained significantly elevated in CAF-fed rats compared to all other diets. Glucose- and insulin-tolerance tests revealed that <b>hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose intolerance were exaggerated in the CAF-fed rats</b> compared to controls and HFD-fed rats."<br /><br />So the "Cafeteria diet" either consisted of or mimicked cookies, chips etc... How is that <i>not</i> high in sugars and refined starches? <br /><br />And yet when compared to the High Fat and control diets, the CAF exaggerated "hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia, and glucose intolerance". All this after less than 4 months.<br /><br />How does this <i>not</i> support the Carbohydrate Insulin Hypothesis, let alone debunk it?<br /><br />If your position (somehow) is that CAF wasn't high in sugars and refined starches then where is the high-carbohydrate control which allows you to use this study in support of your assertion that "Diets high in refined carb/sugar are not nearly as fattening as the cafeteria diet..." ?FrankGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980497914756341565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-69455720803889182522011-12-01T02:33:01.573-08:002011-12-01T02:33:01.573-08:00@Stephan: It seemed to me that Taubes was referri...@Stephan: It seemed to me that Taubes was referring to that Sampey paper you linked to here in the comments ... then diverted the conversation to Sclafani. That's what makes his "we don't know" nonsense that much more aggravating to anyone interested in a genuine debate. There is NO excuse for his not being aware of that study and ALL of its implications. The food list you rattled off in his quotation is from Sampey not Sclafani. <br /><br />@nothing91: The LF diet was actually matched to the HF diet replacing 35% fat with sugar. This blows his hypothesis, and the new fructose version out of the water. Because the LF rats ate 2.5X the simple sugars v. HF rats, and even ate a few more calories, yet gained the same amount of weight. Geez, it can't get much more plain as day than that! http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/11/taubes-rat-problem.html<br /><br />And please, Peter's rebuttal or whatever that was, wasn't even a serious post. What did it add to the conversation?CarbSanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17739915307890592327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-63997516228958291492011-12-01T02:03:29.132-08:002011-12-01T02:03:29.132-08:00FrankG said: "The First Law applies to energ...FrankG said: "The First Law applies to energy conservation in a closed system and free-range humans are NOT a <i>closed</i> system... we can only make them so by placing them in a metabolic ward where <i>everything</i> in and out is measured. I don't live in a metabolic ward."<br /><br />This is one of the more absurd arguments I've seen yet. I think you mean a metabolic chamber, but do you really think that human metabolism actually <i>CHANGES</i> when you take a human and put them in a sealed room and measure everything? Technically even the chamber is not a closed system if used for sufficient time because w/o adding O2 and/or removing CO2 the human lab rat would expire. <br /><br />Methinks you need to read this post of mine: <a href="http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/12/of-thermodynamics-complexity-closed.html" rel="nofollow">Of Thermodynamics, Complexity, Closed Systems & Equilibrium</a>CarbSanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17739915307890592327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-57315268945393946202011-11-30T21:04:41.180-08:002011-11-30T21:04:41.180-08:00Hi Jared,
Taubes doesn't even have an undergr...Hi Jared,<br /><br />Taubes doesn't even have an undergrad degree in the biological sciences. I've been training for 14 years in the field. That argument isn't going to fly. Undergrad is where you learn about things like how cells work. You can't just wake up one morning, decide you're an expert, and start challenging people who have been doing research for 40 years. You will just fall down, as Taubes has. The fact that he is older than me is irrelevant. <br /><br />Taubes has some nice speculations about how once your metabolism is "broken", insulin starts to matter. But where's the evidence? I have seen no convincing evidence for that from him, only moving goalposts.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.com