Good Calories, Bad Calories

[nisora33]

Anyone who's a fan of Taubes and this book should probably take a look at this:

http://www.thebsdetective.com/2009/1...ry-taubes.html

FWIW, Lyle over at Bodyrecomposition shares the author's opinion, and he explains why in some of his articles posted at his website. I've withheld judgement on Taubes for a while, but now I'm convinced that his work represents bad science, after spending some time reading through Lyle's work and now the above website, etc.

For GOMAD drinkers and those trying to bulk, the take-home point here would just be to get enough calories to satisfy recovery plus growth, get plenty of protein, and don't worry about the rest. After protein requirements have been met, it doesn't matter where the extra calories come from, in other words.

-Stacey

[Mark Rippetoe]

From one of the comments:

Hannah said...

Why has Mr Kreiger failed to mention the peer reviewed clinical trials that have shown without doubt that when you compare a low fat / high carb diet with a low carb diet the low carb group always:
lose more weight faster
have better lipid profile
sustain the weight loss for longer
Perhaps Mr Kreiger should invest in reading journal such as
The New England Medical Journal
The Lancet
JAMA
Obesity Journal
BMJ

Perhaps Mr. Kreiger should just read the whole book. It's obvious that he hasn't. Have you, Stacey? And since Mr. Kreiger decided to indict Taubes by impugning his scientific credentials, let me go on record here as saying that a guy whose credentials consist of a masters degree in nutrition and "exercise science" hasn't got the best conventional science chops in the world himself, and should probably be careful about making a rather simplistic 2-page attack on the rather thoroughly substantiated and nuanced argument made in a 350 page book.

It's very easy to restate another author's argument in a way that makes it easy to refute and then refute it. Look here: Another key problem with the carbohydrate hypothesis is the effects of insulin on the brain. Insulin has anorexigenic effects on the brain. In other words, insulin reduces appetite. This is completely inconsistent with the concept that insulin makes you fat. It makes perfect sense why insulin would reduce appetite. The presence of elevated insulin levels represent a "fed" state, which would feed back on your brain to reduce or stop feeding. This is just idiotic, and if you know anything at all about the subject you know why. But standard nutritionist dogma is that the Food Pyramid must be defended at all costs, until the government changes it again, at which time the new paradigm will be defended at all costs.

Not everything in Taubes's book is correct. For example, he doesn't understand the effects of exercise very well. But he understands the subject of nutrition better than an MS nutritionist, who thinks things are as simple as calories in/calories out.

Ask Mr. Kreiger if he likes deep squats and deadlifts.

[tnumrych]

This is just idiotic, and if you know anything at all about the subject you know why.

Coach,

Just our of curiosity, I was wondering if you could elaborate. Apparently I don't know anything about the subject.

[nisora33]

For the record, Kreiger is not a high-carb, low-fat proponent in the least. In fact, he states elsewhere that true ketogenic diets DO in fact result in increased fat metabolism. But anything short of true ketosis, and all that matters is total calories.

Lyle notes this as well, but notes that the increased fat metabolism caused by low-carbing only lasts for about two weeks, if I remember correctly. At that point the body begins burning ketones almost exclusively for energy, and fat metabolsim returns to pre-keto levels.

It bears mentioning, even though Kreiger states it in the comments section himself, that this article is a criticism of Taube's work, not ketogenic dieting. And he's not saying that there aren't advantages to low-carbohydrate diets. There are, and Lyle has written exhaustively about them. Fat has a higher satiety then carbs: people tend to get fuller later and hungry again sooner when they consume a meal heavy in carbs. Conversely, a meal higher in protein in fat will find you getting fuller sooner and less likely to get hungry again in the short term. And controlling hunger is a huge issue for dieters.

But that's not what Taubes is arguing, is it?

Now consider this:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

Lyle concludes: "This study certainly has a couple of strengths, controlled calorie levels (with food provision) and equal protein intake between groups being the two main ones. Weaknesses are the small sample size and the use of Tanita body fat measurement to track body composition. Changes in water balance can affect that method significantly and diets that manipulate carbohydrate content tend to impact significantly on water levels in the body.

With that said, this study adds to the data set suggesting that, if calories and protein intake are identical, there is little to no metabolic advantage (in terms of fat or weight loss) to full blown ketogenic diets. They work at least as well, mind you, but not better."

And based on comments he has made elsewehre, you could revise that last bit to say "there is little to no metabolic advantage (in terms of fat or weight loss) to full blown ketogenic diets over the long-term."

Also, consider the following:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...a-calorie.html

"Once again, my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesn’t appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) don’t seem to make a huge amount of difference either. The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out; it’s simply that it may be easier to affect calories in (food intake) or calories out (through activity) with different macronutrient breakdowns.

As well, the source of calories can affect other aspects of physiology beyond body composition. Health, energy levels, hunger/appetite and all the rest interact here. So while a calorie controlled diet of jelly beans, butter and protein powder might very well work to lose weight/fat, it probably wouldn’t be as healthy compared to a diet of low GI carbohydrates, healthier oils and lean protein sources."

Note, the point here isn't that low-carbohydrate diets don't have any advantages, but that the "carbs-are-the-devil" camp is subscribing to an overly simplistic view of diet and nutrition. So is Taubes.

I know that Lyle has an extensive knowledge of nutrition, much more so than either you or me, and is pathologically well-read, if an appeal to authority matters. Kreiger claims he is too (see the comments section), but we have no way of knowing, do we? At least his opinions and observations jive with another well-read diet guru I know.

And Rip, you and I know that whether or not Kreiger subscribes to full-depth squats and deadlifts has nothing to do with the validity of this particular critique.

S.

[Mark Rippetoe]

And my point is that Kreiger is promoting an overly-simplistic critique of Taubes. Remember that Taubes is writing for a sedentary lay audience, that I have said that he understands training poorly, and that Lyle -- granted, an expert in nutrition, far beyond my admittedly low level of understanding -- presumes an athletic context for his observations. Take these two differing metabolic situations into account when you compare the two arguments. The book is quite useful, but Lyle wants to guillotine the guy because the book is not 100% accurate. Again, have you read it?

And I mention Kreiger's position on training to call into question the bias resulting from his conventional credentials, as well as his analytical ability, not because squats and deadlifts are relevant to this argument.

Num: It is the changes in insulin level and its accompanying blood sugar level changes that produce hunger swings, not the insulin itself.

[confuzzl3don3]

nisora33, just to make sure i know where you're coming from, basically you're saying that there is none of this nonsense of good calories, bad calories and that as long as a caloric target is hit (assuming adequate protein) whether it is for increasing muscle mass (bulking) or losing weight (cutting) then all the other stuff is fluff. I was always curious as to would there be difference, for example comparing skim and whole milk. So your opinion is that if i consumed the same calories of skim and whole milk (assuming i got adequate protein anyways so it doesn't matter that the skim would yield more protein for the same calorie content as whole milk) then it would make no difference? I ask because of the whole 'saturated fat' is bad thing, and so if you need the calories you're better off getting the fat from 'good' sources. I'd like to hear opinions about this.

[nisora33]

Take these two differing metabolic situations into account when you compare the two arguments.

Good point. In all fairness, I should probably re-read Good Calories, Bad Calories in the context of the above.

[Mark Rippetoe]

See how confuzzled people can be if only part of a complex argument is presented?

[nisora33]

I ask because of the whole 'saturated fat' is bad thing, and so if you need the calories you're better off getting the fat from 'good' sources. I'd like to hear opinions about this.

Apologies, Rip: folks are bad enough about not wanting to do a gallon of whole milk already without threads like this.

confuzzl3don3, do the whole milk like Uncle Rip says, alright?

[Mark Rippetoe]

It's not a bad thread, Stacey. It's actually been instructive to some of us.