NY Times nutrition columnist Gina Kolata (previous posts here) reviews Gary Taubes’ new book, Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control and Disease (Knopf September, 2007), which was previewed earlier here. Kolata observes:
His thesis, first introduced in a much-debated article in The New York Times Magazine in 2002 challenging the low-fat diet orthodoxy, is that nutrition and public health research and policy have been driven by poor science and a sort of pigheaded insistence on failed hypotheses. As a result, people are confused and misinformed about the relationship between what they eat and their risk of growing fat. He expands that thesis in the new book, arguing that the same confused reasoning and poor science has led to misconceptions about the relation between diet and heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer, dementia, diabetes and, again, obesity. When it comes to determining the ideal diet, he says, we have to ìconfront the strong possibility that much of what weíve come to believe is wrong.î [. . .]
Taubes convincingly shows that much of what is believed about nutrition and health is based on the flimsiest science. To cite one minor example, thereís the notion that a tiny bit of extra food, 50 or 100 calories a day ó a few bites of a hamburger, say ó can gradually make you fat, and that eating a tiny bit less each day, or doing something as simple as walking a mile, can make the weight slowly disappear. This idea is based on a hypothesis put forth in a single scientific paper, published in 2003. And even then it was qualified, Taubes reports, by the statement that it was ìtheoretical and involves several assumptionsî and that it ìremains to be empirically tested.î Nonetheless, it has now become the basis for an official federal recommendation for obesity prevention.
But the problem with a book like this one, which goes on and on in great detail about experiments new and old in areas ranging from heart disease to cancer to diabetes, is that it can be hard to know what has been left out. [. . .[
. . . I kept wondering how he would deal with an obvious question. If low-carbohydrate diets are so wonderful, why is anyone fat? Most people who struggle with their weight have tried these diets and nearly all have regained everything they lost, as they do with other diets. What is the problem?
On Page 446, he finally tells us. Carbohydrates, he says, are addictive, and weíve all gotten hooked. Those who try to break the habit start to crave them, just as an alcoholic craves a drink or a smoker craves a cigarette. But, he adds, if they are addictive, that ìimplies that the addiction can be overcome with sufficient time, effort and motivation.î
Iím sorry, but Iím not convinced.
John Tierney comments, too.
I have been a registered dietitian for over 20 years and have watched diets come and go. I have also watched Americans get fatter and fatter-both adults and children. The bottom line is, calories in/calories out and burning calories is what it is all about. There are no bad foods-it is how much we choose to eat and drink that makes the difference. When asked by friends and aquaintances how to lose weight my two questions are “Do you eat out a lot?” and “Do you exercise at least 4 times per week?” The first answer is typically “Yes” and the second answer is typically “No”. Look at food portions these days when you eat out-they are huge. And what about upgrading the size of those fast food meals? It is not a particular food group, like carbs or fats, that are the bad guys. It is what we are eating and drinking overall-too many calories, which causes us to gain weight and in turn, raises our blood sugar, cholesterol, triglycerides and blood pressure, leading to all sorts of health problems. And we are not burning enough calories. More food, less energy expenditure = weight gain. Duh. I love a good dessert, a good wine, Mexican food and pasta. But I do it moderately. I cook dinner most nights and you will find me out running or at the Y at least 4 times per week. And I maintain my weight this way (and save money to boot). It is not rocket science.
Ann makes ton of sense.
Gary Taubes’ book goes overboard with what are Good Foods/Bad Foods. By putting many fruits on his bad list of foods, he is excluding a lot of valuable nutrients. I’d also think that what he is recommending would be low in fiber–that if you are to eat as much meat and butter and green veggies that you want, what do you think most people will eat?
Americans certainly over consume carbohydrates, especially processed ones. Restaurant portions of carbohydrates are off the chart huge.
But to say we are addicted to carbohydrates and eat too many of them doesn’t = let’s not eat any tropical fruits or potatoes or yams or any number of foods that have fiber and nutrients in them like Taubes suggests. Or that you should just eat as much meat, eggs and butter as you want because that will keep you healthy. Or exercise just makes you hungry, so don’t exercise.
He uses some data to make his points, and then makes recommendations that are not based on what the science is–which is what Faubes’ original complaint is. He has some good points re: overeating processed carbs, high fructose corn syrup, but goes overboard making recommendations that are also not based on science.
We are not a society of moderation. If you go to restaurants, you are served portion sizes that even nutritionists often underestimate caloric counts of. (There’s been studies where nutritionist were asked to guess how many calories were in different foods–the nutritionist guessed high, but never high enough).
Personally, I would like to have easy to access to nutritional information at all restaurants, but that will never happen because nobody would want to eat out if they knew how much they were consuming.
Most people will lose weight if they reduce the amount of fried and processed food they consume, especially sodas and juices, are moderate in their carbohydrate intake, and get some intentional activity every day.
Disagreement regarding what constitutes the proper caloric intake required to lose or maintain weight seems to stem from too much reliance on personal experience, consensus of opinion, authority, and guesswork. Science cannot adequately inform our opinions if we don’t familiarize ourselves with the facts in their totality. For example, the concept of caloric balance (calories in/calories out) is valid only if one can determine where all the calories end up. A generally ignored factor is caloric absorption efficiency. In a 1983 book entitled “How to Lower Your Fat Thermostat” by Remington, Fisher, and Parent, the authors discuss force-feeding studies where both animal and human subjects gain a little weight and then stop gaining despite a continued excess of food. When normal food habits are resumed, subjects quickly return to the Pre-study weight. A likely explanation for this phenomenon is calorie excretion in the feces. Researchers in Africa have measured caloric absorption rates (which are somewhat dependent upon soluble fiber intake) ranging from 40 to 80 percent under normal feeding conditions. Animal experiments involving rats indicate that rate of absorption can be altered. Scientists have observed increases in intestinal surface area in response to food denial or an eating pattern involving only one meal a day.
There’s also the matter of heat generated in the gut due to bacterial activity. It’s estimated that half of fecal matter consists of dead bacteria. The heat energy generated by intestinal flora and absorbed by the body or lost when the excrement exits the body must be factored into the energy balance equation.
There’s also metabolically active brown fat tissue (the body’s furnace)which burns fat and is thus involved in temperature regulation. The obese often have less total brown fat tissue than slender individuals.
So to suggest that all one has to do to lose weight is increase caloric usage through exercise or decrease caloric intake through calorie restriction is an oversimplification. Suggest you Google “calorie excretion” or “unabsorbed calories” for more discussion on this phenomenon.
“If low-carbohydrate diets are so wonderful, why is anyone fat? Most people who struggle with their weight have tried these diets and nearly all have regained everything they lost, as they do with other diets.”
Do you have evidence that supports that contention?
Also, what is your meaning of the word “diet”? Given the consistently positive results of low carbohydrate diet trials, I can’t help but think you are using “diet” to mean “temporary change to one’s ‘usual’ diet” — in other words, you change what you eat for a while, then switch back. You temporarily restrict carbs, lose weight, then go back to your ‘balanced diet’ (containing lots of carbs), and gain it back. That doesn’t contradict Taube’s thesis, it supports it.
The problem is that the notion of what constitutes a healthy, balanced diet is completely inconsistent with the scientific evidence. It’s more based on what foods can be easily products, in the agricultural era.
“The bottom line is, calories in/calories out and burning calories is what it is all about. There are no bad foods-it is how much we choose to eat and drink that makes the difference.”
That idea is laughably naive; it obviously isn’t believed by even the low fat proponents, and it’s utterly demolished by this book. I suggest you actually read the book before commenting on it, and be grateful (for your career’s sake) that you didn’t use your real name to make this comment.
Protein/fat diets, at even caloric level (600-2.5+), dramatically outperform even semi-starvation (600-800 calories) ‘balanced diets’ for weight loss, and there’s a dramatic difference in comfort and well being (even low calorie low-carb diets satiate, whereas it appears that virtually no amount of carbs an assuage hunger, even 10K+ calories; carbs seem to cause hunger).
“By putting many fruits on his bad list of foods, he is excluding a lot of valuable nutrients. I’d also think that what he is recommending would be low in fiber–that if you are to eat as much meat and butter and green veggies that you want, what do you think most people will eat?”
Why do you think you need fiber? The answer in the book will surprise you. Why do you think you need the nutrients in fruits and vegetables? The answer in the book will shock you (it made me laugh out loud, it’s so embarrassing).
It’s blatantly obvious that none of you have actually read this book, but that doesn’t seem to prevent you from commenting on it. It’s appropriate, because the primary story in Taubes book is not about diet at all, it’s about poor scientific literacy and lack of critical thinking ability in the public, the media, in our public health officials, and within the scientific community itself. In particular, how parroting ill-considered beliefs as gospel creates an echo effect, and starts to make people mistake the noise for signal.