Stephan Guyenet's critical examination of Gary Taubes' anti-carb book, Good Calories, Bad Calories

Discuss

36 Responses to “Stephan Guyenet's critical examination of Gary Taubes' anti-carb book, Good Calories, Bad Calories”

  1. Typo in the last paragraph, first sentence: 
    “which would have taken the book is a scientifically accurate”

    “is” should be “in”

  2. Mark_Frauenfelder says:

    Thanks, Carl!

  3. Ben Burger says:

    why is this such a mystery? People are fat because they like food.

  4. Andreas Beer says:

    well, i’m one of those who won’t gain weight at any cost, and I mostly eat lots of carbohydrates. noone ever looks into the cases opposite of obesity for their theories of healthy food.

  5. David Newman says:

    The link has stopped working.

  6. fraac says:

    I found I was eating for blood sugar levels rather than hunger, and staying pretty fat. Removing carbs fixed that in enlightening style. Now I only eat oaty stuff for breakfast.

  7. Spinkter says:

    I’m a pretty big fan of Taubes, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for debunking the diet-heart disease hypothesis in GCBC.   But Taubes’ carbohydrate theory of obesity has pretty much been debunked, yet he continues to cling to it.  

    Taubes disappointed many of us at last week’s Ancestral Health Symposium by confronting Guyenet (and arguably insulting him) during a Q&A session.  Guyenet’s posting is in response to that event at the AHS (look a couple of postings back in Guyenet’s blog).

    The current thinking (subject to change) is that the low-carb diet is effective not because of the low-carbs, per se, but because low carb diets go a long way in reducing the Neolithic Agents of Disease (NADs) that humans have been introducing into the diet since the advent of agriculture.

    Required reading: 

    http://paleohacks.com, hub of all things paleo

    http://ancestryfoundation.org/ , home of the Ancestral Health Symposium

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ , Guyenet’s blog.  Very good reading

    http://www.archevore.com/ , blog of Kurt Harris, M.D.  Excellent stuff here.

    Edit: I meant to note that I’ve been VLC for about 10 years, but I’ve recently overcome my carb phobia.

  8. mike k says:

    Your brain needs carbs, why would you want to cut them entirely? 

    • Spinkter says:

      Not a problem.  Gluconeogenesis.

    • Joe Dokes says:

      Mike,

      Your body will make the sugar necessary for your brain.  So no your body doesn’t need carbs, though infants body does need fat for proper brain development.  That is why pediatricians recommend whole milk for children under two.

      Further, there are entire societies who subsist entirely on meat and thus ingest virtually all meats and no carbs and they are perfectly healthy.

      Regards,

      Joe Dokes

      • MarnieMacLean says:

         Further, there are entire societies who subsist entirely on meat and thus ingest virtually all meats and no carbs and they are perfectly healthy.

        Which societies are these? I am pretty sure that every society relies on grains and legues along with any meat they might eat.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          Inuit.

          • MarnieMacLean says:

            If that’s the example, then Joe Dokes’ comment is wrong on two parts. 
            1. There is one society not societIES
            and
            2. It’s not “perfectly healthy” as their life expectancy is over a decade shorter than the average Canadian’s
            http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/23/us-inuit-idUSN2362426520080123

            Diet may not be the only factor, but clearly that’s not a good example of humans thriving on a carb free diet, it’s a case of humans getting by on a carb free diet, but fairing relatively poorly

          • hw2084 says:

            @google-af7392afcff236a3b7077667e6218328:disqus , there are other examples. Think native hunter gatherer societies:
            http://paleohacks.com/questions/44992/what-are-some-specific-examples-of-societies-whose-health-went-downhill-due-to-ne#axzz1V3cNU7ek

            And though their life expectancy is lower, it’s not clear that it’s from their diet. It could be their extreme poverty and lack of access to medical care. 

          • MarnieMacLean says:

            But I think that’s what I’m getting at, the original claim that there are “perfectly healthy societies” eating almost exclusively meat, is untrue. It’s as untrue as saying that it’s “perfectly healthy to subsist on fast food.” Surviving and being perfectly healthy are two entirely different things. It may be possible for some individuals to eat only fast food, and also be healthy but there are not societies thriving that way, nor do there appear to be any societies that thrive eating only meat. The fact that societies that do so also tend to live places where agriculture isn’t an option, may suggest that there are factors other than diet at play but until we can control for those other factors, I wouldn’t use these cases as examples for why carbs are bad.

          • RoseNunezSmith says:

            The health of the Inuit nations has declined since adopting a Western diet, but explorers and medics living among them a century or so ago noted their robust health and their lack of “ordinary” diseases, especially cancer and heart disease. Sadly, like many other First Peoples, they are now among those who suffer the effects of the Western diet most heavily. 

            Other traditional peoples that ate a meat-heavy, nearly plant-free diet are several groups of Plains Indians, and the Maasai of Kenya, whose warriors refused all plant foods, except medicinal herbs. Here’s a brief introduction to historical/traditional low-carb ways of eating: http://www.iuhpeconference.net/downloads/en/Programme/PDFs/Phinney-Stephen.pps.pdf

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I get all my carbs from fruits and vegetables, which also deliver fiber and micronutrients. The problem is getting your carbs from school paste – pasta, bread, etc.

    • Erik Olson says:

      false.  try again.

  9. Palomino says:

    Sorry, I’m too critical of a reader.

    Flashing red stop signs: “alternative”,  “hypothesis”,  “perhaps” and “proposition” FOLLOWED UP BY:
    “are the ultimate cause”. My brain turns this into a math equation and it comes out total bunk. 

    I call the use of these types of “disclaimers” as ‘I guess” phrases. 

    This, I guess my guesses concering obesity constitutes three distinct guesses.  First, as I’ve said, are my basic guesses that obesity is caused by a regulatory defect in fat metabolism, and so a defect in the distribution of energy rather than an imbalance of energy intake and expenditure.  The second is that insulin plays a primary role in this fattening process, and the compensatory behaviors of hunger and lethargy.  The third is that carbohydrates, and particularly refined carbohydrates– and I guess the fructose content as well, and thus I guess the amount of sugars consumed– are the prime suspects in the chronic elevation of insulin; hence, they are the ultimate cause of common obesity.  

    All I have to do is consider  if the hypothesis or the author is defective. And the hypothesis didn’t write itself. 

  10. Rob Pugh says:

    Effective dissection of Guyanet’s critique by Andreas Eenfeldt, MD here - http://www.dietdoctor.com/guyenet-taubes-and-why-low-carb-works

    Three main points which are: hyperinsulinemia results in leptin resistance, long term hyperinsulinemia increases fat storage and makes us eat more and there are lots of studies that show that low carb diets reduce insulin levels.

    • Erik Olson says:

      I’m sure he makes a lot of great points but his first paragraph starts with a straw man argument…

      “Stephan Guyenet has posted on why he does not believe in refined carbohydrates as a cause of obesity”

      That is just. not. true.  sorry :-)

    • Mackay Bell says:

      Thanks for the link to Andreas Eenfeldt.  There was something fishy about Guyanet’s complicated arguments and she nails it.

      The interesting thing is it seems Taubes main argument is against what Guyanet says is unarguable.  Thermodynamics.  That weight has to be connected to energy in, energy out.  But you don’t have to be a scientist to realize the human body is more complicated than that (even ignoring how much food and what kinds of food simply pass through the body as waste).  Even a rocket ship burns different kinds of fuel with different efficiency.  That the crudest form of thermodynamic reasoning took over in the 1960′s as the key dietary advice seems to be the source of a lot of current problems with obesity.   Yet Guyanet just throws it out again as if anyone who questions the logic of it thinks the Earth is flat.

  11. MeOnBoingBoing says:

    Because, Ben, none of the science actually supports that and it’s only been conventional “wisdom” since the early 60′s.  Prior to that in most of recorded human history people understood that you get fat from eating sugary foods, starches, refined carbohydrates.

    It was self evident back then because those items were not the staple of the diet as they are now so you could clearly see that people that ate an unusual amount of those foods were obese and the rest weren’t in most cases unless they had a genetic pre-disposition to fatness.

    • Ben Burger says:

      well people lead more sedentary life’s now, so they don’t need as much food, that doesn’t stop them from eating more than they need though.

      But umm can you tell me the difference between a refined carbohydrate and an unrefined one, do they have different energy content?
      why starch? people have been eating starch for a long time before obesity took off.

      • 8088y12 says:

        Refined carbs are easier for the digestive system to break down and therefore they raise blood sugar more quickly/steeply. At least that’s how I understand it. I could be wrong.

  12. Dummy00001 says:

    I do not want to go into long discussions about it, but would tell something from my experience of being fat and having a sedentary job.

    If I have access to decent salad bar, I’m eating 2-3 times less than usually and lose weight. (My base salad being: rucola, cut carrots, red beans, corn, tune fish and bit of olive oil.) I also need to eat only once or twice per day: I do not have random appetite spikes.

    I I do not have access to salad bar, I’m eating three times per day and sometimes evening snacks.

    What I’m trying to say here, from my own experience and experience of few other people, as long as body doesn’t get the doze of all nutritional elements it needs (acids, salts, vitamins, etc) it would feel hunger. Amount of calories in my experience is secondary. IOW, looking at the steak serving, it is not the steak which gets you through the day – it is the side dishes.

  13. Shara Gray says:

    I’ve never read Taubes… and, as far as carbs go, I only know how they effect my body. 

    I personally find that the more bad carbs that I eat (Chips, bread, sugary things, fries, etc..) the more my willpower to eat well diminishes. 
    If I keep carbs to a minimum, and eat them in whole grains, nuts, etc.. I find that I can maintain control over what I put into my body and feel zen about it. Carbs aren’t the enemy, yes… we need them. But personally, I have to take them in limited quantities. 

  14. Roy Trumbull says:

    I think the point is that no one ever went broke writing yet another FAT book that denies there’s a relationship between consumption and weight.
    The human body does not have a single clear cause for a given effect. The feedback loops and cascades quickly fill a whiteboard. “Simple answers” come from simple people.

  15. AnthonyC says:

    I used to be in the “Thermodynamics!” group, but recently I realized something. Weight loss does obviously depend on calories in being less than calories out. But while we have total control over calories in- no one is forcing food down our throats, and no matter what cravings our bodies throw at us we always have to make a conscious choice to eat any particular piece of food- we have only partial control over calories out. Our bodies control how much muscle tissue to maintain, how much fat is eliminated in stool, and how much energy to devote to a whole bunch of other metabolic activities, all outside our control.

    Next thought: the first question for any diet needs to be: does it provide adequate nutrition? There are essential amino acids, essential fats, essential vitamins and minerals, but no essential carbohydrates. So if you had a decent diet but were just eating too much, the portion that could be most easily reduced without affecting health would be your carbs.

    Also, I recently read some blog posts about a study showing even *after* you control for total calories consumed, people who eat more fruits and vegetables lose more weight. Starchy vegetables, white flour, and refined sugar were a contributing factor in weight gain.

  16. Stephan Guyenet says:

    Hi Mark,

    Thanks for the link!  BoingBoing has been on my blog sidebar for three years.  It’s required reading for me.  Cheers,

    Stephan Guyenet

  17. Mackay Bell says:

    By the way, there are several tribes in Africa whose entire tourist based economies require them to eat strange diets in order to lure western scientists to study them. 

  18. Taz says:

    Folks, the problem is that our food has changed, primarily through breeding variants that deliver more weight-per-unit for the food industry.  Thus the wheat used to make your bread is not the same wheat we ate 50 years ago – the kernels are fatter and starchier. 

    The Chorleywood bread making process further introduces crap into the food chain. I can’t eat almost any bread produced in the UK anymore but when I do find *real* bread I munch it down in delight.

  19. cornicefire says:

    What I find kind of disappointing about this post is that it seems to set up a boxing match between ideas. Any real scientist knows that all models are wrong but some are useful. I’m sure Taubes is wrong and I’m sure that this so-called “takedown” of him is wrong too. Promoting this as a boxing match does little to help us understand the domain and refine our models so they can be a bit more useful. 

    I think it’s flat out wrong to back Taubes into a corner and suggest that the other person is attacking him. This just increases his resistance and makes it harder for him to help us find the best answer. It’s not a boxing match.

Leave a Reply