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/2009/10/bullshitter-of-day-oct-7th-gary-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/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-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-loss/is-a-calorie-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.

[Weakling]

I find it funny that people think low carb diets are bad based on their experience after they got off of it.

The "I lost a lot of weight, but I gained too much weight after getting back on a healthier diet."

They lose weight on Atkins type diet, they go back to eating typical simple carbs; the type of eating that got them fat in the first place. Now, because they gained weight after returning to a more 'balanced' diet (carb diet) they come to the conclusion that protien/fat diets are horrible.

Am I missing something in their argument.

[pamparius]

Mr Krieger need to reread the book, since he obviously didn't understand it. The carbohydrate hypothesis says that people who are in the process of becoming overweight DO overeat, but they do so not because of gluttony but because of the effects of carbohydrates and insulin. Taubes also states that fructose is worse than glucose, most likely.

I have a bachelors degree in nutrition and I promise you, having a degree in nutrition means NOTHING. Most nutritionists are crap. I spent 1,5 years studying molecular biology and chemistry and I learned a lot more useful things from this because those subjects are treated like real sciences.

Please excuse my english.

/Robert

[bentzurm]

From that webpage:

"There is strong evidence that diets high in refined carbohydrates, and the ingestion of sweet and palatable foods, cause disruptions in appetite regulation. This then leads to overeating. But it is the overeating that is responsible for weight gain, not the carbohydrates themselves."

Wow. That's one nugget of logic that I can't wrap my brain around. It's like saying: There is strong evidence that pulling a trigger on a loaded gun cuases bullets to fly real fast out of the barrel. This then leads to death if said bullets contact a human brain. But it is the bullet that is responsible for death, not the gun/shooter themselves."

[nisora33]

From a thread entitled "Good Calories Bad Calories" over @ bodyrecomp:

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com//showthread.php?t=249&page=2

Couple of noteworthy Lyle comments:

“Taubes takes the studies he wants and ignores the ones that contradict him, alik all of the idiots who argue for a metabolic advantage to low carb diets

he bases his simplistic model of fat storage that only includes insulin, a model that hasn't been right for about 15 years.

you can get shredded on a high-carb diet and you can get fat on a zero carb diet. The inuit don't have any problem being fat and they eat very low carbs traditionally

Basically he's looking at studies using self-reported food intake (always wrong) to justify the idea that you can magically lose weight on a lowcarb diet at the same or higher calories. except that NO controlled calorie study has ever supported that idea. And no study has ever shown a metabolic advantage when such things as BMR or TEF are acutally measured.

it's just the same lowcarb bullshit that has refused to die since the days of Atkins...

protein raises insulin, how come nobody ever talks about that?

in fact, in Type Ii diabetics, protein can raise insulin as much as carbs can. yet protein is said to be good for fat loss. while carbs are bad. huh?

of more relevance, the body can store fat without affecting insulin due to something clled acylation stimulating protein (ASP). it's an adipocyte autocrine that is increased in response to many things. one of those is insulin. another is simply the presence of fat in the bloodstream (in chylomicrons). eat or infuse straight fat and with NO INCREASE IN INSULIN, fat cell metabolism is affected, storage goes up and breakdown goes down. due to ASP.

if insulin were the ONLY problem, you could eat infinite dietary fat without ever getting fat (since fat alone doesn't raise insulin). that's obviously not true. the reality is that it's simply easier to down endless calories via HFCS soda than via drinking olive oil; only one tastes good

hence his basic premise, based around the whole insulin stores fat is wrong from the get go. as are Sears and most of the others (hi Kadill).

it's excess intakes of CALORIES that make people fat. and certain types of food are more or less likely to make people overeat."

Thoughts?

-S.

[Robert Callahan]

This quote was at the very beginning of the link provided by the OP.


The carbohydrate hypothesis, in its simplest form, states that increased carbohydrate intake, not increased energy intake, is responsible for the development of obesity.This line alone suggests the author did not read the book.

The Carbohydrate Hypotheses in its simplest form actually states that increased carbohydrate intake leads to increased energy intake which is responsible for the development of obesity.

You see the fundamental and subtle error the author made?

[Stevo]

It's all about Occam's Razor. I put Taubes arguments to the test by getting blood work done, going on the fat-only diet for 4 weeks then retested. The numbers don't lie...the incredible drop in LDL, VLDL, triglycerides convinced me that carbs & sugar drive the high levels I had of the aforementioned. That said, the 4 weeks S U C K E D! I think I'd rather have a quintuple bypass in 20 years than not drink beer & eat mounds of other garbage.

[rick0202]

in the book i read he talked about how you could eat less with low carbs and not be hungry
sure was true for me
took a few weeks to get used to it and figure out what to eat
all is good now
i cycle off of no carbs every now and then
to work on my 70's big

[franklie]

Anecdotal evidence only:

In spite of my active lifestyle I had high blood pressure 145/95. My doctor wanted to put me on meds. I'm no fan of meds because there is the law of unintended consequences.

I have read Gary Taubes, Barry Sears, Robert Atkins and the author of the S. Beach Diet.

I decided to reduce my carbohydrate intake and increase my fat/protein intake. After 4 weeks I tested my blood pressure again. My blood pressure was 125/85, a significant move to the good side.

Perhaps in certain populations of the human race, a reduction in carb intake may be indicated for optimal health.

[nisora33]

This quote was at the very beginning of the link provided by the OP.

This line alone suggests the author did not read the book.

The Carbohydrate Hypotheses in its simplest form actually states that increased carbohydrate intake leads to increased energy intake which is responsible for the development of obesity.

You see the fundamental and subtle error the author made?

Except that I've got two links saved on my computer right now where Taubes comes straight out and says carbohydrates drive insulin, and insulin drives fat storage. The context is he's summarizing the thesis of the book.

S.

Robert and others, here are the links I brought up earlier.

First, here’s a transcript I made of an interview Taubes gave in ’07:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/07-08/nov17.html

Says Taubes: The idea is that we get fat because we consume more calories than we expend, and excess calories fall into our fat tissue like it’s a garbage can where you put things that you don’t need. That’s been the conventional wisdom since the end of the 2nd World War. The reality is that our fat tissue is very well-regulated…Like many of these systems, our fat tissue is regulated by hormones…fat only goes into it when it’s allowed to go into it…

It’s quite possible that sugar is the primary problem—high fructose corn syrup is another version of sugar—and these together are what cause obesity and chronic diseases…If anything, high-fat diets make [people] lose weight…When you look for populations where people want to get fat (such as the sumo), they do it on high-carb diets. Consuming less [calories], historically, has never been shown to work, unless you actually starve someone.

So the alternative is maybe if we somehow expend more, that will solve the problem…But exercise makes you hungry. Remember this idea of working up an appetite? You go for a walk, you play eighteen holes of golf, you play a couple of sets of tennis—you work up an appetite. You come home and you eat…

[Exercise] may indeed be , people who exercise tend to be healthier than those who don’t, and they tend to be leaner, although the studies don’t actually demonstrate it’s exercise that makes them healthy and makes them lean. But it could be the fact that they’re lean and healthy to begin with that makes them more likely to exercise. You know, I assume exercise is good for a lot of things because a lot of good scientists say so. But it also makes orthopedic surgeons very rich.

[B]Carbohydrates drive insulin, and insulin drives fat accumulation…We bought into this hypothesis that fat was the killer…if you remember the 1980’s, that was the beginning of the low-fat generation, there was this belief that you could not even add fat, you could not get fat if you did not eat fat…Sugar consumption went up…then lo and behold, it coincides with an explosion of obesity and diabetes.

And an excerpt from the CNN transcript of Taubes’ visit to Larry King Live:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/19/lkl.01.html

Basically, your body doesn't want to store fat…you literally need carbohydrates to store excess fat…What regulates fat tissues is this hormone, insulin. Like literally, you raise insulin levels, you raise [fat storage]…

Taubes seems to think that if you don’t eat sugar, then insulin won’t be present, thus fat can’t be stored. But clearly, according to the Lyle quotes that I posted earlier in this thread, fat can still be stored. The fact remains that if you eat enough calories in the form of fat or protein—even on a low or no carb diet—there is a point where you will start to gain weight, and some of the weight will be in the form of fat. Period.

The Lyle quote again: protein raises insulin, how come nobody ever talks about that?

in fact, in Type Ii diabetics, protein can raise insulin as much as carbs can. yet protein is said to be good for fat loss. while carbs are bad. huh?

of more relevance, the body can store fat without affecting insulin due to something clled acylation stimulating protein (ASP). it's an adipocyte autocrine that is increased in response to many things. one of those is insulin. another is simply the presence of fat in the bloodstream (in chylomicrons). eat or infuse straight fat and with NO INCREASE IN INSULIN, fat cell metabolism is affected, storage goes up and breakdown goes down. due to ASP.

if insulin were the ONLY problem, you could eat infinite dietary fat without ever getting fat (since fat alone doesn't raise insulin). that's obviously not true. the reality is that it's simply easier to down endless calories via HFCS soda than via drinking olive oil; only one tastes good

[Mark Rippetoe]

So Stacey, since you don't like Taubes's explanation, what do you think happens when people get fat?

[Tiburon]

Not everything in Taubes's book is correct. For example, he doesn't understand the effects of exercise very well.

Taubes on exercise: http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

Not so good.

[confuzzl3don3]

stacey i agree with you there that whether you eat fat, carbs, or protein, all can cause an increase in insulin, and all eaten in excess can be stored as fat. Triacylglycerols (TAGs) are what is stored in fat tissues and they basically have a glycerol backbone with 3 fatty acid groups attached. So where do the fatty acids come from? From dietary fat or synthesised from glucose. And you can get glucose from the breakdown of carbs and protein by gluconeogenesis.

As for the glycerol part, you can synthesise it from glucose. And once again carbs, protein and even fats can be turned into glucose. Fat can undergo beta oxidation to release energy and with the end product being acetyl-CoA, which can then join to gluconeogenesis to be converted into glucose. Therefore fats, carbs, and protein can all be converted into TAGs and stored.

It is true that production and storage as TAGs in fat tissue is promoted by a high insulin to glucagon ratio, but the fact that all 3 macronutrients can be broken down to glucose which can be detected by receptors causing the pancreas to secrete more insulin, means that eating any of the 3 can spike insulin. I guess the difference is to what extent.

But i guess the thing is, does this really matter? We're here to get stronger and that means eating excess calories to ensure we can recover and grow. If you're worried that you're fat then you can always go ahead and lose it later - just drop calories, eat sufficient protein and you're set. The harder thing is making muscle and i don't want to compromise that with undereating or screwing around with the ratio of fats/carbs/protein i eat as long as its balanced and i'm getting my protein.

[kevin]

Check out his interviews. He explains, succinctly most of what's wrong in this thread. Fructose is metabolized entirely in the liver, behaves as a toxin in excess and causes most of the obesity observed in the general population. I can't do it justice like he can but it's a long video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

[Ben00]

Taubes on exercise: http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

Not so good.
To be far to Mr. Taubes, the only studies available to analyze use LSD as their primary form of exercise. Since we all train and eat in ways that would shock the AHA, we get effective results. Taubes concluded that because LSD is an ineffective way to lose weight, which I think most of us agree it is, that all forms of exercise an ineffective in losing weight. He was half right, and I’m sure he would strongly evaluate our position if it was presented to him

[Craig B.]

Check out his interviews. He explains, succinctly most of what's wrong in this thread. Fructose is metabolized entirely in the liver, behaves as a toxin in excess and causes most of the obesity observed in the general population. I can't do it justice like he can but it's a long video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM


Here's a paper interview- may be the same, it's a transcript. I've been spreadign it for a couple years:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2007/1969924.htm

Craig

ps-Dr. Kurt Harris on the Panu weblog is of a similliar bent- thinks the issues are the gluten in most grains, the seed oils, and fructose. My lady went purely grain free for four months and eliminated her lactose intollerance, for what it's worth.

http://www.paleonu.com/

[nisora33]

I’m not a dietitian or nutritionist by trade or upbringing, first of all. I am naturally distrustful, however, and when someone presents a claim, I automatically assume that it’s false and go looking for ways to disprove it. I know that I lot of you feel the same way. Furthermore, like a lot of you, I work in the fitness industry, and like a lot of you I feel that it’s my responsibility to develop the most complete understanding of diet and exercise, for the sake of my clients and me. So that’s my agenda, here. I’m not worried about my fucking waistline or any of that other emo, skinny-jean wearing bullshit. I’ve GOMAD-ed twice so far, and I’ll probably do so again in the future.

But either out of ignorance or dishonesty, Taubes has developed an incomplete and unbalanced picture of obesity. I hold him to the same standards as anyone, standards hardened by exposure to work from guys like Rip and Lyle McDonald. Guys like them spoil you, I guess.

Here’s the problem I have: in debates like this, folks tend to exclude the middle and emphasize the extremes, as the low-carb/high-fat and the low-fat/high-carb camps have. The cause of obesity is multi-factoral.

There is nothing “magical” about carbohydrates and sugar. They’re easier to consume in large quantities and at higher frequencies than protein and fat. Okay, I’ll grant that. But just like carbohydrates, protein elicits an insulin response. And fat itself triggers fat storage by way of acylation stimulating protein. So while carbs are part of the puzzle, they aren’t the only part worth looking at.

Taubes claims that a more sedentary lifestyle isn’t the problem. Bull-fucking-shit. My great uncle is 90-something and still going strong. Guess what? He grew up in the South on a farm, he ate fat, protein and carbohydrates and he ate lots of ALL of them everyday. He also worked his ass off everyday on the farm and in the woods near his home. He’s never had a heart problem, ever. He’s never developed diabetes. I can show you a bunch of old fuckers down here that lived just like him, and are still going strong at or near his age. Everyone should get off the notion that exercise ain’t got shit to do with any of this.

The way I see it, you’ve had the perfect storm of factors brewing for a long time, and they’re all coming together now. Taubes correlates the high-carb, low-fat nuttery of the 80’s as causing the levels of obesity that we’re seeing now. Guess what? The average work week between the ‘70s and now has gone from around forty hours to nearly fifty hours and even higher in some cases. The work week is nearing 1920’s levels, but the difference now is that “work” more often than not consists of sitting on your ass and staring at a computer screen or riding in your car to and from job locations. We also have greater access to food now and lots of it. But I’m not going to blame either my job, or the length of the work week, or greater access to food as the single biggest problem having to do with obesity, am I, if I’m a responsible thinker?

So now I have greater access to cheap food, a longer work week that involves little to no actual physical labor, lot and lots of diversions, beginning with videogames in the 1980’s (I can’t count the number of hours I spent playing damned Nintendo) and even more sophisticated and complex gaming systems now, and widescreen television systems with surround-sound and a bunch of lazy fuckers just like me who like to post up in front of it with a twelve pack and some chicken wings and nachos. I’m also tired and strung out after being bitched at and run into the ground at work all week, so I really don’t feel like stopping by the gym most days. Now, tell me what’s the single biggest problem in all of that?

I haven’t even addressed most of the physiology involved with weight gain, or the psychological factors that feed into all of this. The best diet is probably going to be the one, however, that’s the easiest to stick with over the long-term. For some, that isn’t going to be low-carb or no-carb dieting. Carbohydrates are linked to serotonin levels. Some people become terribly depressed and lethargic on ketogenic diets due to a decrease in serotonin. How long do you think someone like that is going to last on one of those? Others report feeling better, more energetic and more clear-headed on a low-carb or no-carb diet. More power to them. If it works, it works. If you’re seeing results, keep doing it. But those individuals shouldn’t delude themselves about why it’s working for them.

But you know what’s missing from this discussion? Personal accountability. Even given that one or all of those factors is affecting you, you still have to take the initiative to find out what approach will work best for you.

A final word: I applaud Taubes’ efforts to combat the low-fat nonsense. It needed doing. But if you listen to or read one of Taubes’ interviews, he comes off as self-righteous and pig-headed. In debates, he never stops to consider the other side’s viewpoints. It’s evident that he’s made up his mind. That’s irresponsible. It’s irresponsible to people and to science. And lastly, I know this is the "Starting Strength" forum, not a forum for diet and nutrition, strictly speaking, but this board stands for more than that--rational inquisitiveness--and let me just say, I'm trying to do my part, before anyone gets the impression that I'm trying to stir shit up.

-Stacey

[Robert Callahan]

Except that I've got two links saved on my computer right now where Taubes comes straight out and says carbohydrates drive insulin, and insulin drives fat storage. The context is he's summarizing the thesis of the book.

S.


Taubes is fighting an uphill battle against decades of backwards ass "science" and a population that is thoroughly confused and frustrated. Is he over simplifying things? You bet. Does he say catchy things to get your attention and potentially get you to buy the book? Sure. But I sill think that the text of his book is on a whole more accurate than most of the stuff out there.

I understand your above quote "cabs drive insulin, insulin drives fat storage". It is not a complete picture, true, but it is a big part of the picture, and arguably the biggest part. And that statement does not change what IN THE BOOK he states as the Carbohydrate Hypothesis.

If you give it a careful reading again (I would give you page numbers but recently moved and don't have my copy handy) he discusses specifically the entire deal with calorie counting and the laws of thermodynamics. As a brief summary it is that the laws of thermodynamics are CORRECT, E_in - E_out = Change in weight, but that our interpretation of it is wrong. We assume E_in and E_out are independent variables that can be changed without effecting one another. This is flat out wrong and the reason why pure calorie counting is in almost all cases is of very little use. If you eat in excess you will gain weight, period. If you eat less than you are expending you will lose weight, period. This is not debated, what is debated is the fact that different types of food make over eating and under eating more or less difficult!

It is all good and fine to tell someone they need to eat less than they expend to lose weight, but for them to actually do it is a whole different matter. Typically people that eat very few refined carbohydrates will have a tough time over eating because fat and protein fill you up very quickly and provide fuel for longer periods of time.

The original article was not written to get at any deeper understanding of health or nutrition. It was written to poke wholes in arguments that are not actually made by another more famous author in the effort to gain more publicity. This is part of the problem with Nutritional Science in this country, and why Taubes basically pleads for more people to investigate his hypothesis with meaningful research so we can actually move forward in our learning and not continue going in circles.