Treat obesity as physiology, not physics (Gary Taubes)

Nature News ^ | 12 December 2012 | Gary Taubes

[neverdem]

The energy in–energy out hypothesis is not set in stone, argues Gary Taubes. It is time to test hormonal theories about why we get fat.

“It is better to know nothing,” wrote French physiologist Claude Bernard in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865), “than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek.”

Embracing a fixed idea is one of the main dangers in the evolution of any scientific discipline. Ideally, errors will be uncovered in the trial-by-fire of rigorous testing and the science will right itself. In rare cases, however, an entire discipline can be based on a fundamental flaw.

As a science journalist turned science historian, I have written at length about how and why this may have happened in obesity research. I have suggested that the discipline may be a house of cards — as, by extension, may much research into the chronic diseases associated with obesity, such as diabetes.

Before the Second World War, European investigators believed that obesity was a hormonal or regulatory disorder. Gustav von Bergmann, a German authority on internal medicine, proposed this hypothesis in the early 1900s.

The theory evaporated with the war. After the lingua franca of science switched from German to English, the German-language literature on obesity was rarely cited...

---snip--

NuSI aims to fund and facilitate the trials necessary to rigorously test the competing hypotheses, beginning with inpatient feeding studies that will rigidly control dietary interventions for participants so that we know unambiguously the effects of macronutrients — protein, fat and carbohydrates — on weight and body fat. These studies will be done by independent, sceptical researchers. This may be an idealistic dream, but we have committed ourselves to the effort.

[SunkenCiv]

Low-carb diets (such as Atkins) emphasize that same point, that overall calories are not the important thing, and it makes perfect sense — fat calories are harder to absorb, and tend to, er, slip on through the alimentary canal; carbs (like sugars) are readily absorbed but are in quantities that the body can’t immediately use, so they’re stored as fat.

[neverdem]

Nice try, Alinsky Jr. My mind would have to be so open my brain fell out to fall for any of this nonsense. You crackpot pseudo-scientists will be the death of us all.

Thanks for another ad hominem. First, you called me the cogitator of fructose. Now, it's Alinsky Jr. Let's keep it civil.

You described your self on your about page as a "Conservative Republican/libertarian RKBA Scientist." What kind of scientist are you besides conservative Republican/libertarian RKBA? I hope you have no conflicts of interests.

I worked as a chemist for about 3.5 years before I got into medical school in 1987. In medical school there was no discussion of maturity onset diabetes of the young or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

Epidemiology says something is happening. Scientists are supposed to be sceptical while still keeping an open mind.

[grey_whiskers]

Rather than sputtering with name calling, can you point to any substantive errors in the study which neverdem cited?

Or show a countervailing study with reference?

Cheers!

[LS]

You are so right. The “Obesity epidemic” is directly related to the changes in the “Food Pyramid” demanded by by the McGovern Committee in 1977. The move away from meat and protein to carbs fattened the public like nothing else.

[LS]

Really good points. We're you aware that MS was heavily disproportionate to cold-weather climates?

At any rate, I give Taubes' book the highest recommendation. I've read thousands of books in my life and in terms of impact on my life, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is one of the three or four most important books I've ever read.

[poobear]

Very interesting facts. Fortunately I don’t like sweets or sodas. Maybe a couple per year. If I want to lose weight I drop my calorie intake by just 500 per day. That’s 3500 calories a week = 1 pound. Add it back when you’re at desired weight. The key is burning more than I eat.

Not scientific but it works for me.

I love your posts neverdem. Do you have a ping list?

[9YearLurker]

Ha ha—bicycling daily for your beer, herring and dark beer on Sundays!

PS I like stewed tomatoes too. Do you make your own?

[LS]

Absolutely right. I have seen this time and again with my own body: it doesn't matter how much I eat, but how many carbs I eat.

But I have a big problem. My wife is an excellent baker. But the science is absolutely true. If we could ban Panera, America's obesity epidemic would go away. (Only half joking)

[Cvengr]

How I yearn for dieticians to identify the roles of ADP, ATP, AMP, and cAMP in their dietary recommendations, but alas, few even contemplate any significance of biochemistry in their recommendations.

[JRandomFreeper]

Tinned tomatoes. I'm a traditionalist.

/johnny

[9YearLurker]

That’s how I have them too!

[A Strict Constructionist]

I and a bunch of my colleges agree with you.

[neverdem]

Do you have a ping list?

I have about a dozen of them. I added you to my first one, health & science. They also get pinged to what I think are noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs. Included in that latter category are articles about policies such as Obamacare, stem cells and regenerative medicine and anthropogenic global warming(AGW). I'm a sceptic about Obamacare, embryonic stem cells and AGW.

If that's too broad for you, I keep separate lists for stem cell/regenerative medicine, a combined list for either microbiology or immunology, and one for all kinds of diabetes. Finally, I keep some state specific lists: CA, CO, CT, Il, NJ, PA and NY, my home state.

FReepmail me if you want to change being on the health & science list to any of the others.

P.S. Thanks for the compliment.

[poobear]

That list is broad and perfect neverdem. Thank you! Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and all that ;D!
Oh, and you are welcome.

[facedown]

I will acquiesce your request as you have come into this argument late.

With respect to the article cited in #74, the authors acknowledge their findings conflict with others, some of which I'll reference later. One study does not truth make. The thing that jumped right out at me in slogging through the whole thing was that the subject BMI's ranged between 25-35, iow overweight to obese. BMI is certainly not a perfect indicator but these folks were clearly well outside of normal range for body weight. There also was no mention of exercise, one way or the other, which greatly influences many metabolic processes. They also acknowledge comparable overall weight gain, (just deposited in different places) which is after all, the crux of the overall matter.

A sampling of contrary studies would include:

Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in obesity.

Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data

Evidence-Based Review on the Effect of Normal Dietary Consumption of Fructose on Development of Hyperlipidemia and Obesity in Healthy, Normal Weight Individuals

As for Taubes, he's a guy who sells books to fat people who can't seem to grasp that a 2500 calorie a day diet with no exercise will lead to obesity. There are countless articles debunking his nonsense so for a couple:

Big Fat Fake

The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination

What disturbs me is the endless demonization of the "killer of the week" ingredient or process with skimpy, if any, actual data to support it. I've lived through the attacks on saccharin, aspartame, msg and the more recent GMO nonsense. All of them have a common theme: smarter people telling all of us dopes how to live. The recent propaganda campaigns follow the global warming model; lots of "may", "might", "could", etc. inevitably leading to "more study is needed but can we really afford to wait to act?" Often as not there's a tax proposal in there as well.

The OP and I have had previous skirmishes on this subject and his behavior reminded me of the tactics of the foremost global warming poster on this forum which are right out of the Alinsky playbook. You'll notice that the MO continues in this thread.

I do not sputter, Sir; I call a spade a spade.

[grey_whiskers]

Thanks for posting links; I'll try reading them.

Incidentally, speaking of exercise and eating and bodyweight, try looking up this site. :-P

Or, you could try reading As far as calling a spade a spade, I think neverdem said he had three years as a chemist before getting an MD; what is your scientific pedigree?

For *EVERYONE* on the thread, I recommend you check out the work of Dr. Mauro diPasquale, B.A. (Biochem and Genetics), MD (both from University of Toronto), who was ALSO a World Champion powerlifter.

Yeah, he's selling stuff; but look at his career, I doubt he really needs the money...

And I've read one of his books, it is real, first-rate science (e.g. investigating glucogenesis from amino acids obtained from breaking down the intestinal lining to provide energy during intense weightlifting, biopsies of muscle tissue, that kind of thing.)

Cheers!

[Mase]

You're complicating the issue a great deal more than is necessary. There are numerous factors that can affect your ability to gain or lose weight. However, for the vast majority of people, the bottom line is calories. I've said it here many times, but I'll say it again, hustlers like Taubes have proven that you can sell diet advice more easily if you claim that fats, carbs, or anything else for that matter, are the problem while purposely ignoring the more reasonable (and obvious) idea that calories are the bottom line. They do this because people willingly pay you when you demonize one macronutrient over another. I suppose people are less willing to pay for the more reasonable (and obvious) explanation as it doesn't leave them an excuse for their sedentary lifestyle, or for their inability to control how much they eat.

The comments on these threads supply ample evidence for that fact.

[PA Engineer]

Thanks for the ping. Interesting links.

[Mase]

I used to think a calorie is a calorie too, but not now.

Huh? A calorie has always been a calorie and it will always remain such. A calorie is a measure of the amount of energy and this is exactly how it is defined. It is always the same no matter what. The metabolization of fat, carbs and amino acids will all require different pathways and the efficiencies will not be the same for all of those processes. You're confusing calorie with efficiency. Even so, a calorie is always a calorie.

I see you are still railing on fructose and continue to offer that same study on fructose and de novo lipogenesis as proof of the ill effects of fructose. I don't know why you persist, because it has been explained to you many times, and in great detail, that there is very little de novo lipogenesis going on in the human body. So much for that open mind you were critical of earlier.

Fat gain in humans is almost entirely due to dietary fats. De novo lipogenesis is rare and can only account for the most minute amount of fat gain. It could never be responsible for the incredible amount of maladies you appear eager to blame on it. You seem ready to believe that a diet high in fruit is dangerous. Call me crazy, but that's just crazy.

Of course, if you overwhelm the body with anything, including fructose, all sorts of bad things can occur. Feeding lab animals, or humans, quantities of ingredients that have no relationship to the real world is a very common practice by those looking to create alarm in the quest for grant money. And that's really what all this is. There is no way fructose consumption can be responsible for all the things charlatans like Taubes and Lustig claim. It's just plain old every day alarmism designed to separate people from their money. P.T Barnum understood human nature well.

[Mase]

What disturbs me is the endless demonization of the "killer of the week" ingredient or process with skimpy, if any, actual data to support it. I've lived through the attacks on saccharin, aspartame, msg and the more recent GMO nonsense.

You forgot trans-fat, artificial flavors, sucralose and many others I can't recall right now. I've lived through them all as well. It's pretty mind-boggling. In the 1990's CSPI declared that animal fats were the enemy and told us we all needed to convert to hydrogenated vegetable oil or we'd die. Twenty years later, they were suing McDonalds for using hydrogenated vegetable oil.

All of them have a common theme: smarter people telling all of us dopes how to live. The recent propaganda campaigns follow the global warming model; lots of "may", "might", "could", etc. inevitably leading to "more study is needed but can we really afford to wait to act?" Often as not there's a tax proposal in there as well.

Exactly so. Reminds me of a favorite quote by HL Mencken:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Too bad there are no "like" buttons on this forum. I'd give your post a hundred.