The Dose of Intervention and the Land of Dr. Oz

Today marks my appearance on the Dr. Oz Show, which was, let’s just say, an interesting experience and leave it at that.  It was the show, though, that  (finally) prompted me to address an issue I’ve wanted to address for quite some time.

The Dr. Oz Show is one part health advice and discussion and quite a few parts entertainment, as Oz’s producers kept telling me in the days before we taped the episode.  To make for what they consider good television they played me up as the second coming of Atkins  – a persona that my wife likes to refer to as “meat boy”  — while Oz got to play the role of the harvest king, extolling the healing virtues of fruits, vegetables and whole grains.  This made it more difficult than I would have liked to get across the important messages from my books, but television is television and I certainly knew what they had in store for me.

My message and the message of Why We Get Fat was not that we should all be eating nothing but animal products – and certainly not the unappetizing meat and eggs that Oz’s crew prepared as props  — but that carbohydrate-rich foods are inherently fattening, some more so than others, and that those of us predisposed to put on fat do so because of the carbs in the diet. That’s why I called the book Why We Get Fat rather than some variation on The Miracle 24-Hour (or 14-Day or Three Week or Three month) Diet Cure, which is more the norm for lay books in the nutrition genre.

The idea despite all the controversy is pretty simple. I’m arguing, as others have before me, that the same thing that makes our fat cells fat is what makes us fat — a fat person, after all, is a person with a lot of overstuffed fat cells — and what makes our fat cells fat is fundamentally the hormone insulin. Raise insulin levels and we accumulate more fat in our fat cells. Lower insulin and fat is released from the fat cells and the cells of our lean tissue can burn it for fuel.

There’s nothing particularly controversial about the science involved. If you doubt insulin regulates fat accumulation in fat cells, you can literally look it up in any good biochemistry or endocrinology (the study of hormones and related disorders) textbook – the latest editions, say, of Lehningers Principles of Biochemistry or Williams Textbook of Endocrinology, which are the authoritative texts in their respective fields. Look up the word adipocyte (the technical term for fat cell) and this is what you’ll find:

First Williams (and I’ll translate the technical terminology immediately after):

The activity of LPL within individual tissues is a key factor in partitioning triglycerides among different body tissues. Insulin influences this partitioning through its stimulation of LPL activity in adipose tissue. Insulin also promotes triglyceride storage in adipocytes through other mechanisms, including inhibition of lipolysis, stimulation of adipocyte differentiation and escalation of glucose uptake.

To understand what this means you have to know that LPL is the enzyme (in less technical language, the thing) that works to pull fat from the circulation into whatever cell it happens to be sitting on. If that cell is a muscle cell, the fat is used for fuel. If it’s a fat cell, the fat is stored. Triglycerides are the form that fat is stored in fat cells and transported through the blood stream in lipoproteins. Adipose tissue is fat tissue and adipocyte is the fat cell.

So what Williams says is that fat is stored in different tissues (partitioned) depending on how this enzyme LPL is distributed on the cells of those tissues, and its insulin that to a large extent determines this. Then it adds that  insulin promotes fat storage through other mechanisms as well — it creates new fat cells (stimulation of adipocyte differentiation), and it inhibits the escape of fat from the fat cell and its use for fuel (lipolysis), and it also increases the uptake of blood sugar (glucose) into the fat cell, which might not be relevant but the authors of the textbook don’t apparently know this, and neither did I when I wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories.

Now here’s Lehningers Principles of Biochemistry:

High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen and triaglycerols, while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue.

Lehningers uses the other spelling of triglyceride – triaglycerol – to denote the fat in the blood and in our fat cells, and we get high blood glucose by consuming carbohydrate rich foods, which end up as glucose (a carbohydrate) in our blood stream. We also tend to have high blood glucose when we have a condition called insulin resistance, which is the underlying defect in obesity, diabetes and heart disease.  When Lehningers says insulin inhibits fatty acid mobilization that’s pretty much the equivalent of what Williams is saying about insulin inhibiting lipolysis.

The point of both is simple. Insulin puts fat in fat cells. That’s what it does. And our insulin levels, for the most part, are determined by the carb-content of our diet — the quantity and quality of the carbohydrates consumed. (Or if Jenny Brand Miller and her colleagues are right, also by our fat content — the lower the fat in the diet, the higher the insulin and vice verse.) The way to get fat out of fat cells and burn it, which is what we want to do with it, is to lower insulin. This has been known since the early 1960s.

One point I make in Why We Get Fat is that we all respond to this carbohydrate/insulin effect differently. Some of us can eat carbohydrate-rich meals and burn them off effortlessly. We’re the ones (like Oz) who partition the carbs we consume into energy. (This is the fuel gauge metaphor that I use in WWGF and that Oz’s producers reproduced wonderfully on the show.) And some of us partition the carbs we consume into fat for storage, and that partitioning depends on a lot of different enzymatic and hormonal factors — mostly relating to insulin and LPL as Williams Textbook of Endocrinology said).

There are a few obvious dietary means  to reduce the amount of insulin we secrete and ultimately the level of insulin in our circulation day in and day out. One is to eat fewer carbohydrates; one is to improve the quality of the carbs we do eat,  which means eating carbs that are less refined (their glycemic index is low or at least lower) and carbs that come with a lot of fiber attached (green leafy vegetables), and then eating less sugars, by which I mean both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup.

And this brings us to the point of controversy on the show – where Oz and I disagree. (Okay, one of the many points on which we disagree, but the one that needs clarification sooner rather than later). This is also the point that public health authorities, physicians and nutritionists almost religiously refuse to accept or even understand, because one implication of what I’m saying is that the good Dr. Atkins was right all along, and they just can’t get it through their head, as Oz can’t, that a diet of the kind Atkins recommended might be not only healthy but the medically appropriate treatment for the condition – in this case, obesity.

There are a couple of helpful ways to think about the role of carbohydrates in obesity and chronic disease, and one of them (the other I’ll discuss at the end of this post) is that some of us are more  tolerant to the refined and easily digestible carbs and sugars in our diet than others. The more we can tolerate them the less we have to avoid them. Hence, the dose of carb-restriction that’s necessary to be lean and (probably) healthy is a small one. Again here’s how I put this issue of individual variation in WWGF:

…Multiple hormones and enzymes affect our fat accumulation, and insulin happens to be the one hormone that we can consciously control through our dietary choices. Minimizing the carbohydrates we consume and eliminating the sugars will lower our insulin levels as low as is safe, but it won’t necessarily undo the effects of other hormones—the restraining effect of estrogen that’s lost as women pass through menopause, for instance, or of testosterone as men age—and it  might not ultimately reverse all the damage done by a lifetime of eating carbohydrate- and sugar-rich foods.

This means that there’s no one-size-fits-all prescription for the quantity of carbohydrates we can eat and still lose fat or remain lean. For some, staying lean or getting back to being lean might be a matter of merely avoiding sugars and eating the other carbohydrates in the diet, even the fattening ones, in moderation: pasta dinners once a week, say, instead of every other day. For others, moderation in carbohydrate consumption might not be sufficient, and far stricter adherence is necessary. And for some, weight will be lost only on a diet of virtually zero carbohydrates, and even this may not be sufficient to eliminate all our accumulated fat, or even most of it.

Oz and physicians like him think that there’s so much to be gained by eating whole grains and fruits (we agree on the green vegetables, although I do so less because of any compelling scientific evidence than because my mother insisted they were good for me) that they think this should be recommended to anyone and everyone and a diet that restricts them can’t possibly be healthful.

Oz implies on the show that everyone can benefit sufficiently by improving the quality of the carbs they eat and getting rid of the sugars, that any more significant restriction isn’t necessary. And he thinks any significant amount of carb restriction will cause problems because a) people won’t stay on such a restricted diet; b) they’ll replace these foods in their diet with high fat, high saturated fat meats and eggs and so increase their risk of heart disease (a point I discuss at length in both my books and is obviously critical), and c) they’ll develop diseases like cancer that Oz believes can be prevented by eating fruits and vegetables and maybe even whole grains.

As I point out on the show (or at least  I did when the segment was taped, but it may or may not make it to the air as our taping session ran long), there’s precious little clinical trial evidence to support this last contention, but Oz and authorities like him believe in the healing power of fruits and vegetables, and they’re not all that bothered by the lack of clinical trials to support it.

This is the same take on the problem used by physicians and nutritionists  who recommend low glycemic index diets instead of carbohydrate-restricted diets. They think this is enough to improve the quality of the carbs we consume, and the implicit assumption is that if we cut back on the quantity of carbs to any great extent we’ll either eat too much fat (or too much meat, period) or we won’t stick to the diet and any benefits will be lost.

What I’m arguing is that for many of us who run to fat, cutting down on the refined carbs and starchy carbs (potatoes, for instance) and on the added sugars will help, but it probably won’t help enough. The dose of carb-restriction won’t be sufficient to deal with the problem. We may stay fat. We may even get fatter. A blanket recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables and whole grains, as Oz prescribes and now Weight Watchers and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, ignores this aspect of human variability completely. It assumes that people who are predisposed to fatten can tolerate the same foods and benefit from the same very mild dose of carb-restriction that the naturally lean can.

I don’t think that’s true. It’s that simple. I think that if we’re so predisposed to fatten that we’re already obese, we’re probably among those who have to restrict carbs far more severely – have a much greater dose of the intervention – to get even relatively lean, which means relatively healthy. So for some of us and maybe most of us, even fruit, the nutritionist’s darling of the early 21st century, can be fattening , and if it’s fattening, it means it’s probably causing far more problems than whatever antioxidants or phtyochemicals it contains may be preventing.  (As even Wikipedia says, as of March 6th 2011 anyway, “While there is abundant scientific and government support for recommending diets rich in fruits and vegetables, there is only limited evidence that health benefits are due to specific phytochemicals.”)

The way I see it, Oz, who’s naturally skinny, can eat fruits and vegetables and whole grains to his hearts content and remain lean. For him, they can be the bulk of his diet and he can tolerate them and burn them off. They give him energy. They don’t make him fat. But most of his audience is not naturally lean, and they probably can’t. I’d argue that many of them have probably been living on diets very similar to the diet Oz is prescribing and it hasn’t helped them or certainly not to any significant degree. I get e-mails all the time now from people who tell me they were getting fatter and fatter on just those “heart healthy” diets.

Assuredly some proportion of the population and so Oz’s audience will lose a little weight eating as Oz recommends and getting rid of the refined grains and sugars in their diet, and they’ll be a little healthier for the effort. Getting rid of the sugars alone might make a significant difference on both counts. But it’s an insufficient dose of the intervention for a serious medical issue that typically requires far more. For those who are obese and want to be anything close to lean and stay that way, they’re likely to be better off getting rid of all the grains and much or most of the fruit, and then eating more of whatever foods they happen to eat or like that provide protein and fat – pulses, for instance, and tofu (a more complicated issue than I have time for here) for the vegetarians and vegans and animal products (meat, fish, fowl and eggs)  for the rest.

This also speaks to a question I’ve been asked numerous times in e-mails from readers. Simply put, what about nuts and what about fruit? And here’s my answer: Nuts are not only Oz’s snack of choice, but the snack of choice of many low-carbers. And nuts and fruit are fine if your body can tolerate them. If you’re still heavier than you’d like, maybe it can’t. It’s a trade-off. If I eat fruit, other than maybe a handful of blueberries a day, I start to gain weight, so I don’t eat it. If I was fatter than I wanted to be — which I’m not — I’d consider giving up both the blueberries and the almonds I eat and see what happens. If it didn’t make any difference, I’d go back to them. If it did, I could decide how much I missed them and whether the trade-off of weight vs. fruits and nuts was worth it. You can look at any number of  the nutrition websites to see which nuts have the lowest carb content and which fruits have the lowest sugar content and glycemic index and use that as a guide. But there’s no website or diet book that will tell you what your body can tolerate.

Finally, here’s the other way to look at carbohydrate-restricted diets, and it speaks to Oz’s belief that saturated fats are the cause of heart disease.  As I explain in WWGF and did so on the Oz show, it’s almost assuredly the case that the same foods that make us fat are the same foods that cause heart disease and diabetes and cancer, etc. — the diseases that associate with obesity. These are the foods that were absent from human diets during the 2.5 million years of evolution leading up to the agricultural era, and so we’re still poorly adapted to dealing with these foods — easily digestible starches, refined carbs and sugars. When we remove these foods from our diets, we get healthier. Insulin levels come down and with them a host of metabolic disturbances normalize.

It was an email from my friend Bob Kaplan a few days before I taped the Oz show that reminded me of how best to phrase this argument.  So I’m going to end with Bob’s e-mail because he said it as well or better than I ever could.

I was just thinking about the “beneficial effects” of a low-carb diet and how it’s essentially a misnomer.

When we eat low-carbohydrate diets, our “good” HDL tends to go up, our LDL becomes larger and fluffier (less atherogenic), our blood pressure goes down, and our triglycerides plummet. Does this mean a low-carbohydrate diet is beneficial to health?

Yes and no. While it appears “beneficial,” for me, it’s more of an indicator of our serum lipids “correcting” to levels that we are supposed to find in a healthy individual. In other words, if we look at a population of people who are chronically over-consuming sugar and refined carbohydrates, their serum lipids are going to be abnormal. When they go on a low-carbohydrate diet, they’re correcting the abnormality and the associated lipids will become more “favorable” (while I would argue that they’re just trending toward a normal, healthy human being) depending on which MD or researcher you ask.

So it is with weight “loss,” water “loss,” lipid and metabolic “benefits” of a low-carbohydrate diet. There is nothing magical about restricting carbohydrates, rather it’s closer to the kind of diet that we’ve been eating and are presumably genetically adapted to eat, and any loss of weight and water, any beneficial effects on serum lipids are just a correction rather than an improvement in health.

Benefits v. Correction:

A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t make you lose weight; it corrects your weight.

A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t make you lose water weight; it corrects your water weight.

A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t improve serum lipids; it corrects serum lipids.

A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t improve health; it corrects unhealthiness.

Speak Your Mind

*

Comments

  1. Wyzdyx says:

    I think we low-carbers should reclaim the savory fruits (by scientific definition, fruits contain seeds, not sugar) and proudly proclaim that our diets are filled with fruits that are widely considered vegetables — peppers, squashes, cucumbers, okra, tomatoes, etc.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I haven’t eat fruit for around 3 years, and my vegetable intake has drastically reduced too, and I feel better, lighter and less bloated for it! Great post, Gary.

    • Amber says:

      when your muscles wither away and you get scurvy from a drastically reduced vitamin c intake you’ll kick yourself for being so ignorant. try listening to someone with a medical degree!!

      • Galia L. says:

        It is premature to worry about Leestoker getting scurvy . According to the experience of Vihljalmur Stefansson eating meat-only diet for years didn’t make him sick .
        On the Primal Wisdom blog http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/search/label/tooth%20decay I found the reference to his article http://www.harpers.org/archive/1935/11/0019032In in the November 1935 issue of Harper’s Monthly Magazine.
        I case you don’t know, usually the low carb diet includes 2-3 cups of leafy and low-starch vegetables daily.

      • Tracker says:

        I don’t eat carbohydrates hardly at all. I don’t have scurvy either. If you knew anything, you would know that carbohydrates inhibit the uptake of vitamin C into your cells. Without carbohydrates, you are not vitamin deficient. If this were so, the Inuit would all have died. They thrived eating primarily polar bear meat and some fish.

        • Anonymous says:

          Well said. I should have read a little further before posting my comment! Sorry.

        • Martha Peet says:

          As an Inuk, I’ve never eaten polar bear meat, tried it once when I was very young, didn’t like it, consistancy and taste is like pork and I don’t eat pork to this day, only because I don’t like it. Throughout my life (not some fish), lots of fish; char, trout, cod and white fish. I also ate lot of caribou meat. seal meat and ducks and their eggs. We ate berries during the summer months, lots of leaves which there is none of that kind in the south, roots of plants and some flowers of an arctic plant. We also ate lot of oatmeal put into cup of tea, lots of bannock. We ate what was edible on the caribou, seals and fish, not just the meat part. Hardly nothing goes to waste of any animals that were caught and what was caught was what was needed. It’ so different today.

        • Mellomel says:

          Tracker, The Inuit also eat the internal organs of these animals which do contain vitamin C. Nothing goes to waste.

          • Magarietha Zondagh says:

            I concur fully. We come from a line of meat eaters, but with great respect for the animal. So we eat everything – we actually prefer the offal, liver and kidneys. It’s just that my family were for many generation sheep farmers. No enough is being made in all the popular cheffy shows nowadays about slow cooking (which some parts of the animal requires) – it’s all about fillet and rib eye – what on earth happens to the rest of those animals? I digress. Before I purchase this book, please could someone in authority give me an inkling as to how my family would factor into this diet since we have Type II a familial hypercholesterolaemia. But then again, my mother has just turned 80 and she only started taking lipid lowering drugs in her 60′s. Without the pills our cholesterol levels are double digit unfortunately (11 – 13). My sons have it too. Once when I went on a strictly vegetable diet (zero cholesterol intake) for a full month but without pills, my cholesterol levels sky rocketed to the highest levels ever. So I went back to my beloved meat, olive oils and back to pills (hate them, but what can one do). So how would this diet affect my family with the faulty gene. Would so appreciate an answer.

      • Laurie D. says:

        I’m pretty sure this is the “amber” who showed up frequently on MarksDailyApple. He/she loves caps. Don’t feed trolls.

      • Mary says:

        Well, it’s 12 years later and about 90 lbs down in the first two years, from 235 to 148. Wonderful health, lots of Vitamin C via broccoli, bell peppers, tomatoes, etc. 12 years and counting of low carbing…oh, and wonderful cholesterol numbers.

        You sound like the dietician who used to chase me around work telling me I was “killing myself” and “it’s just water weight anyway, everyone knows that!” (I’m an RN.) Oh yeah, 90 pounds of water weight. Uh huh…

        So, I’m delighted, Amber to report that at age 57, with 12+ years of low carbing, I have no medical conditions, take no medications and am certainly not “withered” or suffering from scurvy, lol!

        Oh and I also have a BP that would be the envy of millions…

        • Anonymous says:

          Btw, if you look on the American Dietetics Association website, you’ll notice that their corporate sponsors include Coca Cola, Kellogs, and Hershey. Might shed some light on their recommendations.

      • Amber,

        Take a look at the diet of the native Inuit. Read some of Stefansson’s work. And no one who advocates low carb is saying you can’t eat strawberries or oranges. You clearly don’t know anything about the subject.

      • Amy Dungan says:

        Amber,

        Go tell that to my doctor (who does have a medical degree, btw), who advised me to eat this way. In the 10 years I’ve been on a low-carb plan I haven’t had scurvy yet, or withered muscles. I’m in the best health of my life and no longer need a myriad of medications I was on before trying a low-carb plan. I probably don’t eat as many fruits and veggies as you’d like, but my health and blood work shows I’m doing just fine. Instead of taking advice from someone with a medical degree and a public image to upkeep, I’ve chosen to listen to someone who has no vested interest in keeping me sick. My choices are paying off very well. We aren’t the ones who’ll be kicking ourselves, but sadly there will be many who pay with their health and lives because they won’t listen to us.

      • Anonymous says:

        I haven’t eaten any(!) fruit or significant vegetables in over 20years (I”m 40), and I’m thriving.

        What say you Amber?

        -Al

      • Anonymous says:

        2 questions for you:
        1. Why would leestoker’s muscles wither away because he doesn’t eat vegetables or fruit? Hint: muscles are made of protein.
        2. How is it that populations that don’t eat fruits or vegetables (because they can’t get them–Inuits, for example) don’t lack muscle power or get scurvy? Hint: The answer is in Gary Taube’s books.
        I’ve heard many people with medical degrees who don’t make nearly as much sense as GT. Having a medical degree does not make a person an expert in the science of nutrition, since the professors in most medical schools tend to lean toward the same conventional “wisdom” that they were fed. We need a change in paradigm, and GT is leading the way. Bravo.

        • Mario says:

          muscles are made of protein? just protein? really? :) )
          you understand the fact that muscles grow thanks to carbs? ARE YOU MORONS AWARE OF THAT?
          this MEAT ONLY diet is made for lazy asses such as yourself. and gary is full of himself. do everything that doesn’t includes exercise. no wonder we’re doomed to be extinct from this planet, knowing that you lazy asses are living here.

  3. “The way to get insulin out of fat cells and burn it” –> this is probably a typo, meant to be “the way to get fat out of fat cells”.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I think you meant “triacylglycerol” instead of triglyceride. I look forward to your appearance on the show, though I expect to cringe quite often. Oz often advises what looks like a low carb diet (veggies and meat – when he’s not pushing oatmeal). I thought it was funny a few months back when Oz had Andrew Weil on who advised eating whole grains, but eating them literally whole- i.e., so less of the carbohydrate is assessible and absorbed. What more do they need to see to recognize their own cognitive dissonance?

    Loved your book GCBC. It changed our lives for the better. Thanks!

    Cynthia

  5. Robert S. says:

    Hats off to you for even going on the Dr. Oz show and suggesting that different people may need different diets. That’s radical.

    Sadly, I seem to be one of the people who can’t eat alot of carbs. And feel much better eating relatively little to no carbs (with carbs coming from green veggies).

    I wonder how many studies have been done on saturated fat / heart disease on people eating a ketogenic diet?

    • Anonymous says:

      2 points: First, I think GT is not saying that “different people may need different diets” so much as different people tolerate different amounts of carbohydrates and process them differently. If a person is overweight/wishes to lose fat, there is only one “diet” that will actually work long term: one that is low in carbohydrates, particularly the refined and easily absorbed ones that come from grains, fruits and starchy vegetables. Secondly, re the studies you asked about regarding saturated fat/heart disease and eating a ketogenic diet: I believe numerous studies have been done. Uffe Ravnskov’s books cover this topic, as do Atkins’. GT also discusses some of these studies in his books.

  6. Neil says:

    When is this supposed to air? Hopefully not today as I am at work and can’t get home to program the Tivo. Read most of GCBC and am reading WWGF currently. View the previous discussion with Dr. Oz and company on you-tube. I don’t think the purveyors of the low fat/high carb CW are ready to admit defeat. I don’t think the public is ready to buy the “most fat isn’t bad for you” message yet since what they now “know” makes so much sense and they have been programmed that fat(EWWWW!) is gross.

  7. Drew Kime says:

    “Not benefit, correction.” Thanks for that. I’ll be (ab)using that little nugget from now on.

  8. The term correction is so much more apt. I often am confronted with a misconception that a low carb diet will cause inappropriate weight loss. People will say things to me like, “You/I shouldn’t stay on that diet, I/you don’t want to lose too much weight.”, and I have a hard time persuading them that it simply doesn’t work that way. In addition to the ongoing healthfulness in other measures, restricting carbohydrates can help normalize the underweight or the overweight.

  9. Cathy Knight says:

    What you say is true based on my personal experience.

    In 1997 I was put on a low fat diet (by my doctor). I got fatter–gained 50 pounds– and my cholesterol levels rose from low 200′s to 297.

    Then, in 2002 I was put on a diet (again by my doctor but under the direction of a clinical nutritionist) and told to restrict my carbs to 165 grams per day (I’d been eating at least 400 grams carbs per day), with fat at 20%–any kind of fat, including saturated, and protein unlimited, total calories unlimited.

    In 6 weeks time I lost 13 pounds, but more importantly to me–at the time–was that my cholesterol went down to 213. I thought it was because I’d lost weight. At that point in time I switched to Weight Watchers, went back to a high carb (albeit low calorie) diet. Continued to lose weight (mind you I was hungry all the time too), a total of 50 pounds, but alas–my cholesterol–which was the whole point of dieting, i.e. to improve it–went right back to the 300 level.

    At that point I was told I must have a genetic tendency to high cholesterol and needed to be on medication. I resisted Lipitor for 5 years, finally succumbed to taking it after being pressured and scared to death of heart disease by my doctor. And–voila–my number went down–in 2 months on 10mg per day of Lipitor I went from 297 to 167.

    But 5 years later with the realization that I’d have to be on it for life (at least 25+ years) I took myself off. My doctor didn’t like it, but too bad.

    I designed my own diet, with plenty of what I call good fat, including saturated fat, plenty of protein and fiber, and limited carbs. I have lost 30 pounds and my cholesterol profile is improving. To date my triglycerides have come way down–to 170, and my HDL increased while my LDL decreased.

    Now, I understand, that MY body needs carb restriction to have a what is considered a good cholesterol profile. It took me a while to figure this out–a few years.

    The common thread–the connection–to me ‘correcting’ my cholesterol profile is to reduce carb intake–not lose weight, not restrict fat, not restrict protein, not restrict calories to a very low level. (I’ve been eating between 1350-1500 calories daily–I never feel/go hungry, and yet I continue to lose weight. Methinks it is due to insulin correction.)

    I was given bad information back in 1997 (eat low fat) and I think it caused my body harm. So I am glad and very thankful there are people like you making a case for reducing carb intake. And making the point that each of us have a different body and that no one size fits all situations. AND…that science is science and trumps mistaken notions and beliefs.

    I encourage you to keep on getting your message out there. Poor Dr. Atkins did not get a fair shake, but I believe the worm is turning. When I heard Dr. Oz say on his program not long ago that “sugar causes high cholesterol and not fat” I thought ‘finally, the truth is beginning to come out’.

    Dr. Oz has had Dr. Mercola on his show, Dr. Andrew Weil, and now you. I’d love to see Dr. Walter Willet on as well.

    • Kudos to you, Gary. I think Dr. Oz made a great point by appreciating your perspective. Sadly, most people who have his same (false) understandings about nutrition aren’t so open-minded (even if it was just to look like the good guy on his show).

      Most of the audience probably believes what Dr. Oz has been telling them all the more, but there’s a decent chance one or two will go home, buy one of your books or just read the plethora of openly available information on the web, then make some positive changes in their lives.

      Even if you can’t convince someone like Dr. Oz, it’s a huge step forward in this rebellion against health and nutrition stupidity in the word.

  10. Love, love, love your comment about the foods that make us fat are the foods that make us sick. That said, I am looking forward to see if your views on carb consumption change based on the work you’re doing on fructose. Could it be that the benefits of a low-carb diet are largely due to the reduction of sugar, particularly fructose? If so, interventions that focus the amount of those in the diet may prove to be useful.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’m struggling with the fructose issue at the moment. For years we believed that fructose was the preferred natural sweetener, suitable even for diabetics because it did not require insulin to be metabolised.

      This idea was seemingly confirmed with the introduction of the Glycemic Index which measured fructose as GI=20 compared to glucose GI=100. Since sugar (sucrose) is 50% glucose and 50% fructose the GI of sugar is 60. This is about the same GI as many so-called “good” complex carbs (starches) like cereals, rice, etc, which are quite erroneously labelled low GI. [0 to 30 is low], but [55 to 65 definately is not]. Nevertheless this is yet another example of the nonsense being spread to promote carbs.

      Because of this similarity in GI between sugar and “healthy” carbs, the anti-fat proponents believed they were vindicated re their claims that it wasn’t sugar and starch that made us fat at all, but the “evil” high-calorie fats, which by the way, have virtually zero carbs, negligible GI and negligible GL.
      A totally contradictory notion given they were saying sugar is not as fattening as thought because it has a lowish GI. And then saying fat was the culprit even though it had almost zero GI. Yes they were quick to embrace the GI but they didn’t really want to understand it. Nor did they appreciate the purpose of GI was to measure glucose and therefore insulin impacts which are far more important in weight gain/loss considerations. The newer GL measures have made things look even worse for “good” carbs eg 1 cup of rice has nearly 3 times the GL of 1 slice of white bread.

      Back to fructose. Research is now showing that fructose is not the benign desirable sweetener we once thought. Shows you we should always be vigilant. It appears that it acts like a Trojan horse bypassing insulin and enters directly into the liver where it exacerbates insulin resistance. It also raises triglyceride levels. I deduce from this that maybe fructose containing foods like sugar are demonstrating artificially low GI/GL values, or if these are technically correct, maybe we haven’t quite gone far enough and need another measure which takes fructose’s negative activity into account. Maybe we could call it GE for Glycemic Effect.

      From the above I would suggest that the benefits of a low-carb diet are not just due to the reduction of sugar/fructose, although that is certainly a big reason. But just as important is the reduction of so-called “good” complex carbs (starches) which have very high carb, GI, and GL values. I’m sure they would be high in my proposed GE value as well.

  11. Frank Hagan says:

    Great post … I love the use of “correction” for the benefits of carb restriction.

    And to your point that different people tolerate carbs differently, as you state in WWGF, why is this so surprising? Different people have different reactions to gluten, with some outright intolerant and others able to tolerate it. We all know people with different food allergies.

    One of the things I noticed in most diet studies is that you get “outliers” in each study. A low fat group will average X pounds of weight loss, but some members of the group gain weight and some lose much more. The same happens with low carb diet groups. The tolerance for carbs may be the core issue for both groups (as you have pointed out earlier, even low fat diet plans restrict carbs quite a bit from the standard American diet).

    At least one study looked at “outliers” in the A-Z diet study, tested them for genetic markers, then re-assigned the participants to new groups based on the markers. The result was a group with far fewer outliers. My blog post on it is at http://lowcarbage.com/blog/2010/04/10/genetic-testing-and-weight-loss/ and a brief description of the study is at http://goo.gl/tBKIw

  12. scottshapiro says:

    You can find Gary’s segment on Dr. Oz entitled “THE MAN WHO THINKS EVERYTHING DR. OZ SAYS IS WRONG”, here: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/man-who-thinks-everything-dr-oz-says-wrong-pt-1

    I’m watching this over 5 fried eggs and salami.

    Also, note the 15-second weight watchers pre-roll video ad.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I am so glad you told your story on Dr. Oz. You have the science behind you. Your science is my testimony as I have dropped 60 pounds since April, 2009. Root carbohydrates has sugar and can make you fat. Any carb that raises your insulin, will pose health risks to you and knock you off target. Gary, you are right on target. I applaud what you are doing!!!!!!!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      I have been studying nutrition for 20 years now and I disagree with what Gary is putting out there. We didn’t have processed foods like cheese, bacon and sausage in our hunter gatherer days. Maybe a lot of grubs and bugs. Try reading The China Study by Colin Campbell or Eat For Health by Dr. Joel Fuhrman. Also the website healthpromoting.com. These men have done a lot of research and are doing a lot of good. Everyone wants to hear good news about their bad habits and I’m sorry to see a scientist doing so much potential harm.

      • Anonymous says:

        Dr. Campbell is a vegan propagandist that will string together any number of flimsy correlations to support his cause. Basically the Campbells cooked the data by carefully picking the variables they were going to control for, notably not controlling for wheat, which turns out to be the variable most strongly associated with heart attacks in the study.   Poor Campbell. This study is a vegan’s nightmare.

        Campbell’s extrapolation of his casein research to all forms of animal protein—as well as the assumption that casein behaves the same way in whole-food form as when isolated—is supported by neither clinical evidence nor logic.  The lesson here: don’t eat a diet primarily composed of isolated casein.

      • Anonymous says:

        We also didn’t have wheat, corn and other agricultural grains in any form during our hunter gatherer days. At least bacon and sausage are forms of what we did have: meat!   Talk about scientists doing potential harm, T. Colin Campbell et al, with their vegan propaganda, are going to do a lot more harm advocating a diet that is truly not natural, requires supplementation (with B12, which is essential to our health and does not occur in plants) and not followed by any traditional peoples anywhere, nor was it ever. The China Study has been soundly debunked by numerous people who looked at the actual data and found it did not match up to the conclusions the Campbells put forth in their book.  I actually started reading The China Study years ago when a friend asked me what I though about it, but stopped part way through after seeing a number of discrepancies, including a graph that showed the opposite of what the caption under it and the discussion claimed it showed.  Apparently I was right not to waste my time. The science in Gary Taubes’ numerous works is infinitely more sound.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I am so glad you told your story on Dr. Oz. You have the science behind you. Your science is my testimony as I have dropped 60 pounds since April, 2009. Root carbohydrates has sugar and can make you fat. Any carb that raises your insulin, will pose health risks to you and knock you off target. Gary, you are right on target. I applaud what you are doing!!!!!!!!!

  15. Yeesh, just watched the clips. After Dr. Oz gave the HCG diet essentially a pass recently, I wasn’t expecting too much. But how embarrassing for him that he 1) didn’t apparently consider the amount of refined carbs & sugar his “I’m elbow deep in their chests” patients were eating with their saturated fats; 2) that walnuts would have been a fine snack on his low-carb day — tho he wouldn’t need so many snacks if he wasn’t eating so many carbs; and 3) that he expected to eat no carbs without a period of adjustment.

    Ah well, aside from the horrible framing (it’s not really like your positions are so opposed, as you tried to point out multiple times), it is exposure. Hopefully “all publicity is good publicity” holds true!

  16. Wolf Rhys says:

    Oz is a salesman.

    Gary,

    Did you ever answer the Science Based Medicine entry about your new book?
    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9841

    They accuse you of prematurely promoting LC without enough evidence just as you say low-fat was prematurely promoted without enough evidence. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=9841

    “Yet he criticizes the low-fat diet campaign for doing just that: we went beyond the evidence and instituted society-wide changes based on inadequate data, with what Taubes considers to be disastrous results. How can he be so certain we should go beyond the evidence this time?”

    I’m a huge fan of GCBC. Not happy to see Taubes lumped together with homepaths and other quacks by Science-Based Medicine.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Of COURSE Dr. Oz can’t admit that low carb is healthy! He has to push ‘healthy complex carbs’ because his sponsor is Post Cereal (Grape Nuts, Shredded Wheat, and Raisin Bran) and Weight Watchers.

    The man can’t have his show if he loses his sponsors.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Of COURSE Dr. Oz can’t agree that low carb is healthy! His sponsors are Post Cereal (Grape Nuts, Shredded Wheat, and Raisin Bran) and Weight Watchers. He has to promote ‘healthy complex carbs’ or die. The man won’t have a show if he loses his sponsors. He won’t be dissing ‘healthy complex carbs’ any time soon.

    • Anonymous says:

      “He won’t be dissing ‘healthy complex carbs’ any time soon.”

      Of course not, he still needs to do heart surgery, it’s a great way to create more patients.

      • memries says:

        okay, now THAT’s a little.

        not disagreeing, just sayin’ ;-)

      • Anonymous says:

        Stephanie_o27, you realize that your comment, if taken seriously, implies that Dr. Oz is not only dishonest, but he’s knowingly harming other human beings. If you intended your comment as a joke, unfortunately it’s so easily misconstrued that I think it makes easy fodder for the opposition. Given the importance of the ideas being debated, I don’t think there’s anything light-hearted or humorous in that.

        • Anonymous says:

          dgpmjp,

          Bull-shitty-da!

          Opinions like his have messed up more folks than I can count, including myself. I don’t believe any one person is guilty of conspiracy, but my faith is wavering. Do I think he purposefully advises people to eat crap so he get them onto the OR table and earn a living – no. Do I think that since his body can deal with his diet, he wrongfully, and uninteligently advises others of the same – yup.

          Don’t come here trying to espouse bullshit to people that have been ass-fucked their whole life by the typical govt and medical authorities.

          Too much swearing? Too bad.

          -Al

        • Anonymous says:

          I think it’s hilarious!

        • Anonymous says:

          There may something to what you say but this is the only country where illness is big business.  I don’t think the medical, insurance and pharm community sit around plotting dishonesty and purposely harming human beings, however, I do think they are in a state of denial.  Human beings, of which Dr. Oz is one, tend to think that whatever works best for them is the right thing.

          • Anonymous says:

            If the fact that someone seeks to make a profit by creating goods or services makes them automatically suspect–whether dishonest or just rationalizing–then I’m afraid none of us can participate in this discussion, at least not with integrity. We all make a living; we all produce goods and services and trade them with each other every day. Money is a physical form of trade. I disagree it has some kind of psychological voodoo ability such that it can cause intellectual evasion.

          • Anonymous says:

            Money itself may not cause intellectual evasion but lust for it does.  Many individuals and organizations produce goods and services that are very harmful to users.  Sometimes they are aware what they are doing is wrong, such as meth labs, and sometimes they think they are right.  Money does have a voodoo ability and I think that even the most moral, honest person would be tempted by a large sum of money.  I have seen inside insurance companies and my opinions have formed my from  many of years of observation.  As to Big Pharm, have you noticed that many doctors have a separate waiting room for drug reps. most of them young, very attractive females.  I have waited 45 mins.  past my appointment time while several reps were called in to meet with the physician.  I have a close friend who worked for Phizer for 30 years and he quit over this very issue. 

            I have been accused of being the “eternal optimist” and I tend to look for the best in everyone, but I think you are in a philosophical bubbble. 

          • Anonymous says:

            I think maybe we’re going on a tangent (which I initiated), so I will just bring it back to this:  I think the broader point I made earlier about accusations would still stand: you have to actually cite specific evidence for claiming that some particular person–let alone an entire industry or field–is dishonest, immoral, or evading–and *heaps* of evidence to go so far as to state their psychological motive for so doing. (Such evidence is extremely difficult to come by, because we can only infer the mental states of others, even in the best of circumstances.) Merely having the philosophical view that “lust for money is the root of all evil” is not evidence that someone who lusts for money is therefore evil or evasive. Making a blanket statement that the “medical, insurance and pharm community” are intellectually evasive is extremely unjust to a lot of people for whom there is no specific evidence against them. And on the contrary, many of these individuals are extremely good people making a living doing good things. 

          • Drew Kime says:

            “And on the contrary, many of these individuals are extremely good people making a living doing good things.”

            I’m sure you are absolutely right. But as with lawyers, It’s the 99% who fit the stereotype who keep ruining it for everyone else.

          • Anonymous says:

            Thousands of ordinary people, just like me, work in these businesses.  I hope you understand that I did not intend to indict these people.  I am talking about the ultra-rich who are pretty much disconnected from the masses from whom they derive their vast wealth.  I am talking about those for whom this is a game of numbers; they get their first billion and start on the next one without concern for their methods.  Sure, on down the line we are following their directives and doing the dirty work, but I feel there is a difference between an employee just trying to make a living and someone just adding to their numbers.  Maybe you think that this is completely off the Dr. Oz subject but I think he is a small but highly visible symptom of this disease.

          • Anonymous says:

            And you are welcome to think it, but your view is unfounded so long as you do not cite specific evidence to indict him–or any such rich person. Again, the mere fact that they are wealthy does not in any way impeach their character.

          • Anonymous says:

            I am a special education teacher and also a grassfed beef farmer.  I can tell you that from the farming world, there are two different folks.  The ones paid by big AG to say what they want them to say and the ones who are small family and organic and do it all on their own.  I believe Dr. Oz has become an advocate of the government and big AG.  When you do something that is actually for the good of the people you do not need those advertisers behind you.  You do it the way Gary Taubes has and another of my favorites, Sean Croxton.  There is no use in citing facts or instances or studies.  After years of fighting the giants that want to put crap on your table, I still fight the fight and deal with the idiots that can’t understand it.  If you see it on TV, trust me it is made by the people who want to bioengineer your foods and make a ton of money, they care nothing about your health.

          • Anonymous says:

            I am a special education teacher and also a grassfed beef farmer.  I can tell you that from the farming world, there are two different folks.  The ones paid by big AG to say what they want them to say and the ones who are small family and organic and do it all on their own.  I believe Dr. Oz has become an advocate of the government and big AG.  When you do something that is actually for the good of the people you do not need those advertisers behind you.  You do it the way Gary Taubes has and another of my favorites, Sean Croxton.  There is no use in citing facts or instances or studies.  After years of fighting the giants that want to put crap on your table, I still fight the fight and deal with the idiots that can’t understand it.  If you see it on TV, trust me it is made by the people who want to bioengineer your foods and make a ton of money, they care nothing about your health.

          • basyfeltn says:

             I think that if the health care industry isn’t purposely trying to create patients, they ARE hiding evidence of the weakness of their patent medicines, just like the snake oil sales man did, with less knowledge than they have at their disposal.   they also actively try to discredit possible cures that won’t bring them more money, so while they’re not trying to make people sick, they’re trying not to let them learn to get better especially if it won’t like their pockets.  

    • Anonymous says:

      Beezer3446, you are psychologizing Dr. Oz. One can validly argue, as Lawrence did, that Dr. Oz made fallacious arguments. But unless you have actual evidence, your own personal cynicism is not valid grounds for claiming that Dr. Oz merely espouses the ideas he does for financial gain. Who are you to say he doesn’t actually hold to these ideas sincerely? Furthermore, I think it can be argued that our conventional wisdom on health, and the quality of our intellectuals, inform the products we make and buy, not the other way around.

      • Anonymous says:

        Clearly, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Keep those rose colored glasses on, dgpmjp. The world will look so much betther through them. Don’t worry about a thing. Believe whatever you want to believe. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, Dorothy.

        • Anonymous says:

          Those who are construing me as defending Dr. Oz do not understand the point I am actually making.

          Just to reiterate, my point in this was that so far no one here has provided any evidence which warrants the accusation that Dr. Oz is consciously harming other people, espouses his ideas for financial gain, or even that he is dishonest (as opposed to merely ignorant or honestly mistaken–though I grant that there can be a fuzzy line between evasion and stupidity. If someone wants to call him ‘intellectually dishonest’, I think that accusation might be more warranted.)

          He can be accused of a lot of other things, I think. I think he’s dead wrong on most of his dietary conclusions, and I think his conduct on the show demonstrates that he does not actually value the scientific method–perhaps he does not understand it. But these other things he’s been accused of here, are improper accusations, or at least not without actual evidence, none of which I have seen yet. One should not take lightly the impeaching of the moral character of man.

          If the distinction between this point versus someone actually defending Dr. Oz’s ideas and approach is not clear to you, then you should read more carefully what I am saying, and think about it.

          If Mr. Taubes has taught us any lesson, it should be that we need to be more scientific in how we treat these issues, and less swayed by emotions and authority.

      • Anonymous says:

        Perhaps Dr. Oz is espousing the ideas he does for financial gain or perhaps not–perhaps he holds those ideas sincerely. Either way, he is doing irreparable damage to a lot of people–as are the majority of mainstream health professionals–by continuing to espouse them despite the lack of evidence (and in the face of vast evidence to the contrary) by urging people to follow dietetic principals that are contributing to their diseases rather than making them better. But nonetheless, I thank him for having Gary Taubes on his show and hope that the exposure to his thesis does, regardless, get a lot of people thinking and reading!

    • Anonymous says:

      I wonder Oz he feels the same way as Gary backstage, that is, you think amongst themselves, Oz understand that Taubes has to be right on this issue but can’t admit it publicly..?

    • All 8 grams of whole grains!

  19. Anonymous says:

    Great appearance on Dr. Oz, Gary. It’s a shame Oz cannot open his mind more about saturated fats. You explained your points well. Dr. Udo Erasmus shares your views on carbohydrates I believe. There is something inherently fatting about them. Dates and bananas make me look smooth and I gain fat.

    My blog has links to your appearance and also has links to the Amazon 5 star comments on your book. I want to get the word out.

    The caloric “bank account” hypothesis of obesity has been a 50 year failure. I am glad you got a platform to expose the anti – saturated fat propaganda and the caloric hypothesis at the same time.

    Take care,

    Raz

  20. Amber says:

    CRACK POT!!!! GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL, GET A DEGREE AND DO SOME ACTUAL RESEARCH!!!!! MAYBE THEN YOU’LL HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY YOU FOOL!!!!

    • Bobby says:

      “Do some actual research”? I take it you haven’t read Gary’s book “Good Calories Bad Calories”. If you did, you would see that Gary has done far more research into the history and biochemistry of nutrition than most who come out of medical school, and he has more than adequately demonstrated his advanced knowledge on the topic. This is not just my personal opinion but the opinion of MANY other MD’s and PhD’s who have read and agree with Gary’s very thorough work. Please do some research of your own before trying to discredit someone’s credentials. Besides, discrediting an individual doesn’t discredit their argument. (Also, please refrain from using all caps.)

      • Clark Dixon says:

        And somehow he still can’t adequately explain how a single hormone is so dominant over a complex system, nor can he adequately explain the causation of this alleged scenario

        well, except to fanboys with no physiology background

        lol

        confirmation bias, what’s that?

    • Anonymous says:

      Read his books, Amber.

    • Tracker says:

      LOL, Taubes has a PhD. What do you have? Probably not even a high school diploma judging from your use of caps.

    • Anonymous says:

      Amber :

      Minnesota Coronary Survey

      Women’s Health Initiative

      National Diet Heart Study

      That ought to hold you a while.

      Most people tend to have this reaction when told the entire anti cholesterol dogma is a scam. However, take out your vitriol on those who imposed this on you. Namely, the medical “scientists” from the 1950′s and 60′s, and the current doctors who spew this.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s about time society stopped regarding doctors as all-knowing gods. Most doctors I have been to have wanted to send me off to dietitions or nutritionists for advice on weight-loss/diabetes2 control. If they had so much knowledge about diet why not give the advice themselves.

      Medicine is too broad and complex for a single doctor to know all there is to know. That’s why there are so many specialists. eg an Orthopedic Surgeon would know little about nutrition.

      Oh I know Oz is a cardiologist and it is his business to know about nutrition, but as 2 other famous cardiologists Dr Atkins and Dr Thompson had the honesty and humility to reveal in their books, all they learned about nutrition during their studies was condensed into a few lectures. There were too many other important things to cover. They go on to say that what was taught didn’t even work in practice and they had to look elsewhere for the truth. This was not always in the hands of other doctors.

      I have the highest respect for doctors who save lives on a daily basis, but they are human. They definitely are no more intelligent than say, Engineers or Scientists or Architects. Much of their theoretical studies involve rote learning. Many don’t even go on to do surgery, preferring to sit in a consultation room and hand out drug prescriptions or referrals to specialists.

      Oh and most definitely don’t do some of your “actual research”, they are too busy being doctors not researchers. It’s true that many doctors are involved in research, that is their specialty. But I doubt Dr Oz is one.

      Therefore who is the expert on nutrition? An experienced professional researcher like Taubes who isn’t bound to establishment nutritional dogma, and who has the capacity to produce widely acclaimed books on nutrition, following some of the most thorough investigations I have seen, or an establishment man who hasn’t the time or incentive to enhance his nutrition knowledge, and pushes the prevailing nutrition propaganda. A propaganda, by the way, which has resulted in/or at least failed to retard, unprecedented escalations of obesity and diabetes.

      • Anonymous says:

        Possible Oz reaction to Gary Taubes lab results:

        Dr. Oz: Look Rozien, Taubes’ results came back and they’re considered optimum, I need you to write something that discredits Taubes.

        Dr. Rozieen: Ok, I’ll say something like white flour and white sugar are bad, but the rest of his theories are nonsense. You owe me for this though Oz, let’s say at least two guest appearances.

        Dr. Oz: Done. Man, I had to eat some major crow on that one… I’ll never have that guy on my show again…

  21. Clark Dixon says:

    Good thing the insulin-induced dysfunction of fat tissue explains the neurological changes in the limbic system with the obese.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20348917
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387683

    To think, insulin’s even messing up dopamine regulatory networks in the brain through some unknown mechanism. A far more likely sequence than the reverse causation, which would require abandoning a useful franchise :V

  22. Hi Gary, just caught your interview….well done!

    Doug Varrieur, author FAT TO SKINNY series

  23. Hi Gary, just caught your interview….well done!

    Doug Varrieur, author FAT TO SKINNY series

  24. Norton says:

    Thank you Gary. After 2 years of doing the right things, including weekly exercise, I read your readers digest article, kicked out the carbs and have lost 12 pounds in the last 2 weeks. I don’t get hungry at nights anymore, my reflux has gone away, and my allergies have been behaving too.

    Now I’m reading GCBC. I was looking for an answer to the question: what carbs can I add back? The above post answered it for me: proceed, with caution.

  25. So Oz eats salad greens, pork rinds and cheese for 24 hours, and claims that low carb made him feel bad?

    Such absolute dishonesty.

    • lori gee says:

      so true!! I feel Dr Oz grossly misrepresented a “typical 24 hours” on a low carb diet. He really took exaggerating to the max! unbelievable.

      • Anonymous says:

        It annoyed me that they focused on cheese, processed meats instead on organic stuff, clean eating, good fats, veggies and fruits. They kept on trying to make it ” ridiculous”. 1 day try-out? ha he should have done it for at least 2 weeks.

        As for his ” I am a cardiologist” card… he didn’t present any science… all he did was repeat the good old mantra told by the food pyramid people.

        But hey, at least someone out there might be curious enough to go and check it out for themselves. HEck, people are keen on trying the twinkie diet for crying out loud!

        • Charles says:

          Oz took the tact that processed meats were bad for you due to their fat content. In another interview, he proclaimed that the unhealthy culprits in processed meats was nitrates, nitrites and other sodiums. Which is it Doc?

          • Anonymous says:

            I think that with processed meats you have to be careful that they don’t have nitrates & nitrates, or sugar, which some of them do. Otherwise, no problem. The more fat the better!

      • Anonymous says:

        It annoyed me that they focused on cheese, processed meats instead on organic stuff, clean eating, good fats, veggies and fruits. They kept on trying to make it ” ridiculous”. 1 day try-out? ha he should have done it for at least 2 weeks.

        As for his ” I am a cardiologist” card… he didn’t present any science… all he did was repeat the good old mantra told by the food pyramid people.

        But hey, at least someone out there might be curious enough to go and check it out for themselves. HEck, people are keen on trying the twinkie diet for crying out loud!

      • Evan E says:

        And Oz’s normal diet had ONE serving of grains for the whole day, some rice with dinner. His ‘what would have been’ diet for the day was hardly the thing that is causing all the issues today (except that it was way lacking in fats in my opinion…Oz will be at risk of a stroke someday, mark my words). Breakfast was a green drink and plain yogurt with blueberries, his snack was an orange and a cup of walnuts soaked in water, lunch was a salad of some kind with white meat chicken, I think the next snack was almonds and some dark chocolate squares (probably 80-85% cocoa since Oz avoids sugar), and finally dinner was salmon with spinach and brown rice. Not a single meal there will spike his insulin, except perhaps the rice, but not much probably since he is also an exercise lover. There is no way most folks would get overweight, let alone obese, on that diet (but they will have to deal with the AGEs). Meals like Oz’s are hardly the type Taubes has been indicting. It’s the cereals with skim milk, and bagels, and breads, and low-fat (high sugar) yogurts that are the most insidious because people think they are healthy and promote weight loss and are totally the opposite of course. I don’t think Oz understands that when he gives whole grains the thumbs-up, that doesn’t mean most folks have one serving of brown rice with dinner. I know I wasn’t in the past because I thought whole grains were healthful and of course that meant cereal for breakfast, a sandwich on whole grain bread for lunch, and often whole grain pasta for dinner. That is how it was for me and I am guessing millions of other Americans as well…(who now are mystified why they are still fat and diseased despite cutting out refined carbs, but then they join a gym next of course and continue to achieve little or no success rather than break free of this disproven carbohydrate paradigm).

    • Anonymous says:

      I completely agree. Friggin pork rinds? Come on…. I know they are low to no carbs, but geezus choose something else that has flavor.

    • Anonymous says:

      I completely agree. Friggin pork rinds? Come on…. I know they are low to no carbs, but geezus choose something else that has flavor.

    • Anonymous says:

      I completely agree. Friggin pork rinds? Come on…. I know they are low to no carbs, but geezus choose something else that has flavor.

    • Anonymous says:

      I completely agree. Friggin pork rinds? Come on…. I know they are low to no carbs, but geezus choose something else that has flavor.

  26. Like Gandhi said – ““First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    You’ve reached Stage 3 – Congrats!!!

    New study – Increased ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein shifts the focus of metabolic
    signaling from skeletal muscle to adipose – http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/pdf/1743-7075-8-13.pdf

  27. Galia L. says:

    Consider everything, Dr. Oz gave a pretty fair presentation to GT. After Dr.Agatson was presented as a whole grain activist during one of shows, I didn’t have much hope about GT appearance. To expect more would be unrealistic.

  28. Anonymous says:

    I like it! What are your thoughts on eating Paleo? I’ve adapted this eating habit last year and have never felt better! Very similar to your findings.

    Check out: http://www.whole9life.com.

  29. John says:

    One unexpected thing I’ve noticed since I’ve cut out the carbs is that my allergies have vanished. Yes – it’s anecdotal but, there it is.
    Great show though. I had to laugh at the ‘smack down’ tone of it.
    Let’s hope this keeps the conversation going.

  30. lori gee says:

    I think Gary, you tried your best to convince Dr; Oz. The only thing I was disappointed in was that he showed you would NOT take a blood test showing the good the bad and the lipids. I fully intend to do this myself in a few months or so because before I started low carbing my levels were great [they were not always so as a matter of fact because I spent most of my life going up and down in weight and trying this and that supposedly healthy diet]. I know that my body is insulin resistant and tends to hypoglycemia so low carbing seems to be the best for me. I hope that in the future you will reconsider getting your cholesterol levels tested; if anything, it will back up your research and show that your triglycerides and good cholesterol levels are where they ought to be for your body.

    • Paula says:

      I agree with your comment. I think the fact that GT said cholesterol numbers were meaningless made him look kooky. Why are they meaningless? You mention cholesterol in your book and I think if it was so meaningless, it would not be a big deal to get tested

  31. Janet says:

    I am living proof that your argument is correct. I got fat around age ten. And I struggled to follow low fat/high carb diets for most of my adult life. I lost a few pounds – but did so only by being painfully hungry 24/7 – and ultimately could simply not maintain that level of deprivation to get anywhere near a normal weight. I began the Atkins diet in 2009, now routinely eat low-carb and fit into my size 6 jeans (a size I never wore in my youth). I am stronger, and healthier in innumerable ways.
    Thank you for telling the truth! I spent my entire adult life doing what the experts said was best and they failed me completely.

  32. Janet says:

    I am living proof that your argument is correct. I got fat around age ten. And I struggled to follow low fat/high carb diets for most of my adult life. I lost a few pounds – but did so only by being painfully hungry 24/7 – and ultimately could simply not maintain that level of deprivation to get anywhere near a normal weight. I began the Atkins diet in 2009, now routinely eat low-carb and fit into my size 6 jeans (a size I never wore in my youth). I am stronger, and healthier in innumerable ways.
    Thank you for telling the truth! I spent my entire adult life doing what the experts said was best and they failed me completely.

  33. Hey Gary,
    I saw the Oz segment. I really wish you had defended saturated fat more directly, and maybe gone directly at his attack of saturated fat citing clinical trials. Also, if you had bulked together all hydrogenated plant oils, including, but not limited to, trans fats, that would have been more in line with the literature.
    Geoff

  34. Anonymous says:

    So then we agree that a person’s carbohydrate tolerance depends upon their insulin sensitivity. But here’s the deal: insulin sensitivity doesn’t necessarily depend upon carbohydrates so there is a huge section of the puzzle. Sure flour and sugar cause insulin resistance, but sweet potatoes do not. See the Kitavans. It is well known in the paleo community that a disequilibrium of tissue polyunsaturated fats, damage to the gut from grains, nutrient deficiencies, and a whole host of other things. See here I made a post on Mark Sisson’s forum about how to reverse insulin resistance with diet (hint hint, high fat is better) http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread25174-2.html#post364212

    So it isn’t necessarily the carbohydrate because you need that catalyst to see overly undesirable effects from carbs, and a low carb diet tends to be good for weight loss, but it may not be the case that a fat person needs to go on a low carb diet when they could just become insulin sensitive with the right carbs and lifestyle factors.

    Granted, carbs will cause higher triglycerides and worse blood lipids overall no matter how insulin sensitive you are compared. Fats raise adiponectin and a bunch of other things make lower carb diets superior, but the point is that insulin sensitivity is as important as amount of carbs.

    So is leptin. We have fat insulin sensitive people who have leptin resistance in their hypothalamus and can’t lose weight because their brain doesn’t know that they have any fat to begin with. There are also people with an inadequate thyroid. All are pieces of the puzzle.

    You are a smart guy and I would love to see you go into an in-depth epidemiological, biochemical, and philosophical defense of animal products in general. That would be beautiful. But I think you should look to paleo blogs and authors for guidance to really make the refutation systematic.

    • Galia L. says:

      I remember being confused by the same data too, until is was brought to my attention that daily dose of proteins for most people something around 60 gram. Shouldn’t cause an insulin spike worth to worry about. Imagine 2 eggs omelet + bacon breakfast in comparison with something traditional and differences in the secreted insulin.

  35. Anonymous says:

    So then we agree that a person’s carbohydrate tolerance depends upon their insulin sensitivity. But here’s the deal: insulin sensitivity doesn’t necessarily depend upon carbohydrates so there is a huge section of the puzzle. Sure flour and sugar cause insulin resistance, but sweet potatoes do not. See the Kitavans. It is well known in the paleo community that a disequilibrium of tissue polyunsaturated fats, damage to the gut from grains, nutrient deficiencies, and a whole host of other things. See here I made a post on Mark Sisson’s forum about how to reverse insulin resistance with diet (hint hint, high fat is better) http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread25174-2.html#post364212

    So it isn’t necessarily the carbohydrate because you need that catalyst to see overly undesirable effects from carbs, and a low carb diet tends to be good for weight loss, but it may not be the case that a fat person needs to go on a low carb diet when they could just become insulin sensitive with the right carbs and lifestyle factors.

    Granted, carbs will cause higher triglycerides and worse blood lipids overall no matter how insulin sensitive you are compared. Fats raise adiponectin and a bunch of other things make lower carb diets superior, but the point is that insulin sensitivity is as important as amount of carbs.

    So is leptin. We have fat insulin sensitive people who have leptin resistance in their hypothalamus and can’t lose weight because their brain doesn’t know that they have any fat to begin with. There are also people with an inadequate thyroid. All are pieces of the puzzle.

    You are a smart guy and I would love to see you go into an in-depth epidemiological, biochemical, and philosophical defense of animal products in general. That would be beautiful. But I think you should look to paleo blogs and authors for guidance to really make the refutation systematic.

  36. norml says:

    Unfortunately, Gary, maybe The Dr. Oz show may not be the most suitable venue for a topic such as this, especaially if it takes being described as “The man who disagrees with everything Dr. Oz says.” Really?

    For the sake of playing devil’s advocate, Oz does bring up some good points. One, what is the practical palatability of a low-carb diet in Western societies, much less in a nation where we’re constantly bombarded by ads for Pizza Hut, Domino’s, Olive Garden, etc.?

    Second, does following a low-carb diet lead to an inevitable, and potentially detrimental trade-off? While one may lose the weight and be able to keep it off following a low-carb diet, is one also in danger of depriving oneself of the countless phytonutrients and antioxidants found in foods such as blueberries, strawberries, and the like?

    Just food for thought.

    • Tracker says:

      Everyone has a choice. They can choose to eat what the corporations advertise to them. Or they can choose another way. But that can only happen if they’re given accurate information in the first place, and not lied to.

      I like eating low-carb and I don’t miss any of the high carb stuff. I eat eggs and sausage and bacon and steak and butter and all kinds of other yummy-delicious things every day and never get tired of it. Carbohydrates, especially sugar, are an addiction, and it can take a while to break that addiction. Without eating carbohydrates, you have less need for vitamins, like vitamin C for example. Insulin interferes with the uptake and usage of vitamin C, which is why if you’re not eating low carb, you need a lot of it. Read about Vilhjalmur Stefansson and his sojourn with the Inuit.

    • Amy Dungan says:

      I just have to say that I’ve been living a low-carb lifestyle for 10 years. I don’t feel deprived at all and could care less what “society” suggests I should eat. I’m happier and healthier than most of the people around me. Low-carb is sustainable if you want it to be and care about your health above all else. We can eat berries and melons without breaking the “diet”, among many other low glycemic foods Dr. Oz didn’t mention because it would make low-carb living look even better, so the argument that we are depriving ourselves of essential nutrients is pointless. As far as antioxidants go, refined carbohydrates cause oxidization. Without those in our system, antioxidants aren’t quite so “essential” anymore.

    • Anonymous says:

      Oz missed Taubes whole point! The book was written to educate about WHY we get fat, NOT practictical palatability. That’s a seperate and subjective topic and doesn’t really have a place in the scientific and medical discussion of why we get fat. Book was written for fat people who don’t want to be fat anymore. Oz couldn’t stay connected to the main point..Insulin puts fat in your fat cells, for the most part, this is determined by the carb-content of our diet. Simple! Taubes encourages us to think scientifically not subjectively. I’m an average girl with an average IQ, and I get it…geesh!

      • Razwell says:

        100 % agreed. Dr. Oz is a dogmatist like many in the medical profession. The conventional advice has failed us all.

        It is a HUGE development that Gary Taube is now blogging to expose this.

    • Anonymous says:
    • Anonymous says:

      Here’s a thought. Perhaps people who eat low carb don’t NEED all those phytonutrients and antioxidants! Just as they don’t need as much vitamin C (also an antioxidant.) Just a thought.

      • Anonymous says:

        Margaret

        I’m new to this forum and I love all your comments. Like me, you’re a true believer.
        Your point re fruit and phytonutrients, antioxidants and vitamin C. I am struggling with this issue at the moment. One conclusion is as you propose above, but I’m considering others (the jury is still out).

        It should be remembered that the green non-starchy (10% carb) vegetables with low GI/GL values also contain vitamin C, phytonutrients etc; even meat contains some vitamin C. I have personally found that the aforementioned vegetables do not interfere greatly with what we are trying to achieve ie glucose/insulin control.

        Now back to fruit. I have been wary of fruit since the Dr Atkins days when he bravely advised against their use in a low-carb climate because they contained significant glucose and therefore could spoil the diet.

        Some have argued that since fruits contain a significant proportion of fructose which has a low GI and evokes little insulin, and contain fibre, then they are OK.

        But recent research is painting fructose as a “Trojan horse” which bypasses insulin and sneaks into the liver and exacerbates insulin resistance.

        This now has me concerned about some of the GI values relating to fruit and surprisingly sucrose. ie are they artificially low because of the fructose content? Sure the number is lowish, but is this the way the Trojan horse bluffs its way in?

        I had just about made up my mind that fruits are indeed a no-no for more reasons than even Dr Atkins thought, when I recently read a GL (not GI) diet book by Dr Rob Thompson MD. He argues that since an average piece of fruit, a peach say (GL=47), is relatively small compared to say an average serve of starch, 1 cup of brown rice say (GL=222), then fruit is not nearly as bad as starches, and therefore could be included in a low GL diet, even by diabetics. Again, since GL is related to GI, this ignores the Trojan horse fructose issue. It would be nice to get an expert opinion.

        Now here’s the surprise. For about a week, I tried adding some fruit and avoiding all starches as Dr Thompson recommends, and to my amazement my blood sugar levels did not go up. I even lost a little weight, though I’m not getting carried away with that aspect. Is this a new approach which means we can include some fruit as long as we avoid starches (we do this anyway) as Dr Thompson suggests? or am I falling for the Trojan horse bluff?

        I think this issue is of vital importance. We as low-carbers need to at least have the right answers even if it’s to preserve our credibility. Could this revolutionise our diets? I have a gut feeling that the concept is too good to be true but we should investigate. I’d be interested in some thoughts.

        Regards

        • Anonymous says:

          Thanks for your complement. And your comment raises some good points. My comment about fruits/vegetables was in reply to the statement that by avoiding them, lo carbers “risk” being deficient in the nutrients they provide. Populations such as Inuits do not ingest any carbs, fruit or otherwise and are exceedingly healthy. There is evidence from studies of such populations that the fewer carbs, particularly simple and refined carbs, we ingest, the lower our need for the antioxidants and such that fruits and vegetables provide and I wanted to point that out. I wasn’t suggesting that fruits are necessarily off limits on a low carb diet. Here’s my take. As GT points out, we all have different genetically programmed abilities to manage the carbs we ingest. If you are genetically able to handle some carbs, then fruit carbs may be okay in moderation, particularly berries and such that have a low carb count and low GL. Some people may even be able to handle some higher GL fruits. Certainly they are better than sugar, flour, and other carbs derived from grains. But someone who is trying to lose a significant amount of fat and/or perhaps has or is approaching insulin resistance might be better off avoiding fruits all together or have very small portions of very low GL fruits and I don’t believe their health will be jeopardized by the lack of vitamin C and antioxidants (which they can get from leafy greens anyway.) And yes, I am a true believer–from everything I’ve read, it just makes sense. But I think the GL approach has merit, too, particularly as a preventive measure for not getting into trouble in the first place. One might wonder (and I am often asked when I discuss this with people) how it is that the French, or the Italians, or Greeks, just for example, don’t seem to have the same issues we have, even though carbs–even “bad” carbs–are part of their traditional diet. It think it’s because they traditionally eat low GL. They’ve never been taught to be afraid of fats, so they slather butter on their bread or dip it in olive oil, (something I’m about to do with my home made Italian bread which I allow myself once in a while) which not only lowers the GL, but satisfies them sooner so that they are less likely to over eat. Our government and health “science” induced fear of fats has caused us as a population to overload on carbs, and now we need to undo that damage. Gary Taubes and others like him are providing us with the tools to do so. It’s up to us to take advantage.

    • JeffreyB says:

      Are most Americans fat today because they eat too many blueberries and strawberries? C’mon, get real.

    • Anonymous says:

      i think its very palatable. i mean, i dont know what everyone else values in food, but when i think of pizza, olive garden, im thinking of cheese, sauces, meat. that is what i like the most about those foods, not the bread they are put on, or the pasta theyre mixed in with. that is where all the flavor is, and you can keep eating it while eating low carb. as far as detrimental trade off, gary spoke to this by saying most of the diseases people think to combat with antioxidants n such are caused by eating all the carbs to begin with. btw, blueberries n strawberries are relatively low carb fruits–actually, staple fruits for low carb dieters.

    • Anonymous says:

      i think its very palatable. i mean, i dont know what everyone else values in food, but when i think of pizza, olive garden, im thinking of cheese, sauces, meat. that is what i like the most about those foods, not the bread they are put on, or the pasta theyre mixed in with. that is where all the flavor is, and you can keep eating it while eating low carb. as far as detrimental trade off, gary spoke to this by saying most of the diseases people think to combat with antioxidants n such are caused by eating all the carbs to begin with. btw, blueberries n strawberries are relatively low carb fruits–actually, staple fruits for low carb dieters.

  37. Dear Gary,
    You did what you had to do. Tell the truth. In front of someone you knew was not going to agree with you. But the world is in danger not because of ignorant people. The world is in danger because of people who know better, but are afraid of acting. And so I am proud of you. Ludwig Johnson MD. http://www.ludwigjohnson.com

  38. Anonymous says:

    The best argument you could have used is that Dr. Oz has been diagnosed with early stage colon cancer. His response to the diagnosis was, “see, that shows that it can happen to anybody, even WHEN THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT!” Obviously his diet does not protect his own health.

    • Tracker says:

      See this is just sad. What they’re advocating is killing people, this low-fat-high-carb crap diet.

      Eades over at Protein Power blog had an article about how fiber may contribute to colon cancer, as it irritates the lining of the bowel causing high cell turnover (meaning your cells replicate more, leading to an increased risk in cell malformation/mutation, which leads to cancer).

      • Evan E says:

        This is something paleolithic diet researchers will also point out. Agriculture is quite new to the human species and we simply do not have an intestinal system built for grains. Agriculture didn’t begin until humans learned how to ‘refine’ grains, which makes them both more palatable and easier to digest. But then that of course creates large amounts of concentrated glucose that we also did not evolve to handle. Humans immediately shrank nearly a foot once grains came on the scene (with a plethora of new ailments as well probably). The argument is this simple and can’t really be refuted as far as I can tell. Take a cat and feed it stuff it didn’t evolve on, like grains, and it will get diseased. This can be repeated and confirmed with any animal. Humans are no different. Why can’t Oz and other grain lovers understand this? The only carbs humans evolved on were probably wild fruit (picture goji berries here, not grapefruit or other fruits literally dripping fructose), some seeds, perhaps some palatable leaves and grasses, and some roots (with nothing even remotely as glucose dense as a potato). Try getting 2500 calories out of that each day (including the 9 essential amino acids). The idea just doesn’t hold up. Meat was king then and it still is now. While humans are omnivores, I have little doubt we tilt toward the carnivore side (and this of course varies by person, which is why people like Oz can eat grains and stay thin but others will get obese on the exact same diet).

        http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-3a.shtml

        • baguio_beans says:

          My mother fed her dog Bruno white rice along with leftover pork meals (she’s Asian) ever since Bruno was a pup. The dog is still alive and kicking, with no major canine diseases to speak of at all. Anecdotal, you say? Perhaps. I guess my point is we should consider how different organism adapt, and have different degrees of success in general. To conclude that one mammal’s health degrades because it is on some dubious diet akin to that of a human’s is a stretch for me.

      • montmorency says:

         See also Barry Groves at his second-opinions website for views on fiber/fibre and a lot more besides. He backs everything up with published research.

  39. Tracker says:

    I must say that you were overly kind to Dr. Oz. I wouldn’t have been so magnanimous. I’d like to see Dr. Uffe on his show (who is an MD). I have a feeling it would be like celebrity death match. Good for ratings at any rate.

    The thing is, people like Dr. Oz are killing people by disseminating false information. That’s not hyperbole. These doctors are still telling diabetics to eat fruit. If only they could step back for a second and reconsider their “belief” in what they’ve been told, millions might be saved from dying of diabetic complications. But this is like a religion to them. They can’t let their “belief” go, even if it means people die because of it.

    http://ofLabRatsAndMen.blogspot.com

    • Anonymous says:

      I, too, would like to see Ravnskov vs. Oz. I just finished his latest book (Ignore the Awkward!), and although the last chapter or two degenerates into a bit of a rabble on personal discourse, the rest of the book is as solid as anything else Ravnskov has produced.

      • Anonymous says:

        I agree. People need to hear his message, too. It would reinforce what GT is saying about bad science. Way too many people are afraid of saturated fats and cholesterol, two natural and necessary substances for life!

    • Anonymous says:

      If you think about it, the “science” of nutrition has been hurting us for a long time by propagating many deadly dietary ideas that have turned out to have no basis in fact. They had us switch to low fat, high carb diets and made us trade natural fats like butter, tropical oils, and lard for oxidant laden, artery clogging trans fats and polyunsaturated vegetable oils, all to our detriment. Perhaps they had their hearts in the right place, but in doing so have damaged ours. What’s unforgivable is that they continue to do so despite an abundance of evidence that they’ve got it all wrong.

  40. Anonymous says:

    I read the book and I believed ,,,,,,,,,,, however ,,,,,,when you REFUSED TO HAVE YOUR CHOLESTEROL CHECKED you lost all credibility. What a shame.
    I hope you can address this on your blog with better reasons than 1) you don’t believe in the test !!!!
    2) you’re tired and 3) you have 2 kids.
    Or did I just miss something here entirely?

    • Anonymous says:

      Sandwaves:

      What significance is a cholesterol test result? Perhaps you still believe in the lipid hypothesis.

      http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/cholesterol-and-disease.html

      • Anonymous says:

        Indeed. Gary Taubes said that if you have your cholesterol tested and it is “high” the doctor will want to put you on medication. So true. My husband got his tested. As soon as the results were in, the doctor immediately said Lipitor is probably in his future and recommended a low fat (high carb!) diet. My husband no longer goes to that doctor, because he, too, clearly still believes in the Lipid Hypothesis. I consider it dead. Incidentally, the doctor claimed my husband’s blood sugar is pre-diabetic (it’s not) and recommended the low fat diet for that, too. Yeah, right. That makes sense. Not.

        • Anonymous says:

          I sympathize. My dad was put on a statin – atorvastatin.

          His memory now is absolutely horrible. He repeats things he just said literally 10 minutes back, and like he never said it.

          I am trying to convince him to confront his doctor.

          • Anonymous says:

            Watch for heart problems, too, especially if he isn’t supplementing with CoQ10. (Statins block the production of this very important coenzyme. ) My friend, too, was put on Lipitor years ago because her cholesterol was “high” (I don’t think it was even 230!) despite the fact that she had NO other symptoms of heart disease–no blockage, no pain, nothing. A couple of years ago she needed (unrelated) surgery and a routine exam revealed that she had very low ejection volume (EVF?) in her left ventricle. Like your Dad, she tells me the same stuff over and over again, forgetting that she already mentioned it, and had to take drugs to correct her EVF or whatever. I’d bet my retirement income that she wouldn’t have either of those problems now if she had refused to take Lipitor and other statins (I think she takes Vitorin now) all these years. My friend does take CoQ10 now, but still refuses to accept that the Statins she is taking might be doing more her more harm than good. I recently recommended she watch Tom Naughton’s “Fat Head” and check out “Big Fat Fiasco”. We’ll see.

    • Anonymous says:

      Cholesterol tests are a complete waste of time. Gary knows this from digging through the literature. There are 18 clinical dietary intervention studies to date. None of them can attribute saturated fat restriction or cholesterol lowering to any reduction in coronary artery disease mortality.

      The Kitivans have a low HDL( the supposed “good” lipoprotein) and virtually no CAD at all. The Tokeluans have a total cholesterol in the 200 – 240 range and have no CAD.

      The enitire lipid hypothesis is wrong. That is why Gary does not know his number. No one needs to know their cholesterol numbers. It’s not the CAUSE of coronary artery disease.

      See those tiny veins you have – they never become atherosclerotic. They have just as much cholesterol in them as do arteries. Atherosclerosis happens in “patches”, not uniform. Cholesterol in the blood is uniform.

      The arteries become atherosclertotic – never super tiny veins. That observation alone should tell you all you need to know about the validity of the cholesterol NONSENSE.

      Statin drugs work through their 11 pleotropic actions . Cholesterol reduction is not how they have had mild success- ( and only in younger MALE patients WITH CAD) The small subset of the population who takes these meds still take great risk. If anything statin drugs strongly contradict the lipid hypothesis.

      I have researched this for 4 years. Trust me, do some research on this. Cholesterol is NOT the cause of CAD, and until the medical establishment looks elsewhere – we will never make progress in lessening the incidence of that disease.

      Cholesterol tests are nothing more than money makers for doctors and labs. The entire thing is a complete SHAM.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thank you for this! I thought this was the reason for not taking the test as well. If Gary had said as much (given this is his reasoning, we might have witnessed some pretty scary hysterics from oz.

        • CarbSane says:

          What caught my ear was why did Taubes specify that LDL was the “bad cholesterol” ?

          Insulin resistance seems to be the underlying problem. In as much as lipid profiles give us a window into our metabolic functioning/balance, they remain a useful assessment of our health.

          • Anonymous says:

            I suspect he used the term “bad cholesterol” because that is what people think it is, not because that is what he thinks. In his books he calls it “supposedly bad cholesterol.”

    • Anonymous says:

      I totally agree with you. I haven’t read the book but watched the show and I thought it was good UNTIL …… REFUSED TO HAVE HIS CHOLESTEROL CHECKED! oohhh man! those excuses ruined everything.

      Yo Razwell!!!, I see you did your 4 year research on Cholesterol, right? The ONLY partially correct sentence you have in the whole post is missing “ONLY”. Ok, let me show you which one……”Cholesterol is NOT THE ONLY cause of CAD”…….and then you continue saying….
      “and until the medical establishment looks elsewhere – we will never make progress in lessening the incidence of that disease”.

      I’m just going to say that with all the info you posted in here you let me know you know nothing about Coronary Artery Disease(CAD) nor Cholesterol much less of the significance of a Lipid profile. How dare you say,
      “The arteries become atherosclertotic – never super tiny veins. That observation alone should tell you all you need to know about the validity of the cholesterol NONSENSE”

      ha! I recommend you to read a pathophysiology book before posting a NONSENSE sentence like this. What do you think an atherosclerotic plaque is partially made of?

      • CarbSane says:

        Yeah, the excuses were a problem. Perhaps he hasn’t been so good with his eating the past few months (which goes to sustainability of the diet). Otherwise, if he has been, isn’t the point that low carb is supposed to keep us healthy through the stressful times?

        He should have been better prepared for this because the “set up” was not one at all because they both indicated this had been discussed prior.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thus, using your “logic,” we should take drugs to reduce our macrophage count, since macrophages are part of atherosclerotic plaques. Sorry, but your argument is not very compelling, and neither is Carbsane’s.

        • Anonymous says:

          First of all, I don’t believe that taking a drug is the solution. Second, macrophages eat the BAD OXIDIZE LDL CHOLESTEROL………. which make the plaques!! If there is no BAD OXIDIZE LDL CHOLESTEROL there is no reason for macrophages to eat that and then plug!

          • Anonymous says:

            You need to read “The Great Cholesterol Con” by Dr. Malcom Kendrick – perhaps it will open your eyes (but probably not). You still have to account for fibroblasts, smooth muscle cells, and about eight other ingredients in arterial plaque. When researchers actually discover the root cause of CAD, they will win the Nobel Prize. But we cannot have people running around believing that the cause is high levels of LDL, which are caused by dietary saturated fat intake. That is complete nonsense. Try to find one research article that directly links dietary saturated fat to any disease of any kind – they do not exist.

      • Anonymous says:

        If you are implying that because atherosclerotic plaques contain cholesterol, the cholesterol is the cause of the plaque, then there are sources you have not read on this subject. Yes, atherosclerotic plaques do contain cholesterol, among other things. I haven’t read pathophysiology books, but I’ve read enough other books to know this is true. However I also know that cholesterol is involved in repairing damaged arteries–and membranes in general–so it makes sense that there would be cholesterol in plaques. Doesn’t mean it caused the damage or the resulting CAD.

        • Anonymous says:

          so you are telling me that oxidize LDL cholesterol is not the main reason plaques are form?!?!?!

          • Anonymous says:

            From what I understand, cholesterol becomes oxidized when it tries to repair damage that has occurred from other causes, but is not the cause of the damage. It may be incorporated into the plaque, but for cause, you have to look elsewhere–inflammation? infection? Much is still not known, but no, I don’t believe oxidized LDL cholesterol is the main reason plaques form. Read Dr. Uffe Ravnskov and others who have put out books on this subject.

      • Anonymous says:

        You desperately need an education on this topic. To start, I suggest you dig upp the full text of the following studies:

        Lyon Diet Heart Study

        Anti- Coronary Club

        Minnesota Coronary Survey

        National Diet Heart Study

        Women’s Health Initative

        *Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol do NOTHING at all to prevent coronary artery disease. Complete failures.

        Cholesterol levels, LDL or otherwise, are HORRIBLE predictors of coronary artery disease risk. People with normal to low LDL become just as atherosclerotic as
        those with elevated LDL.

        Take the focus OFF of cholesterol levels. Focus on blood pressure, stress, blood sugar, blood omega 3 levels, activity , great sleep and nutrient dense diet. Floss your teeth well. Avoid toxins , bacteria.

        Look into the great Dr. Uffe Ravnskov. A TRUE expert. .

      • Anonymous says:

        Cholesterol is there to save your life.

        DAMAGE and INFLAMMATION to the endothelium is the culprit. The

        • montmorency says:

          It probably will die off, but you can be sure there will be some former proponents who will claim never to have held that view or “that’s not what I meant” or some such weaselling. Don’t forget it’s not so long ago that we were being assured that “too many” eggs were bad for us. This has been demonstrated as false quite some time ago, but fairly quietly. You might imagine that no one in the “healthy eating” community had ever said anything against eggs.

  41. Anonymous says:

    I read your book and I believed ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, however,,,,,,,, after
    YOUR REFUSAL TO HAVE A CHOLESTEROL TEST you’ve lost your credibility. What a shame!
    I hope you’ll address this in your blog with better reasons than 1) you don’t believe in the test!!!
    2) you’re tired and 3) you have two kids.

    • Anonymous says:

      Why should he have a cholesterol test? Unless Oz springs for a VAP test and then devotes an entire show into explaining the predictive nature of every value, the audience isn’t going to gain anything from it.

      • CarbSane says:

        Dr. Oz did offer for cholesterol testing “any way he wanted”. It was disappointing that he declined that. He missed a huge opportunity and came off as having something to hide to all but his most ardent followers.

        • Paula says:

          So what do you think of the results of GTs blood work which he has now posted? Are you disappointed or pleased?

  42. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t “triacylglycerol” the other term for “triglyceride”?

  43. Anonymous says:

    You reached all the people who have been struggling with “conventional wisdom”. All those people for whom the Dr. Oz way has not been working. All those people who are told or think they must be stupid, or lazy, or just not trying hard enough. Your message, offering an alternative to what hasn’t been working for years, did get across to the masses who needed to hear it.

    Your message was loud and clear.

    There is another way! Thank you for doing the research Gary Taubes!

  44. chowstalker says:

    We just finished watching it and my husband said Dr. Oz looks like a nervous little squirrel and well, Gary’s just cool. :-)

  45. Great debate and Dr. Oz lost.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Gary, again, you knocked the ball out of the park. Just one question–if a person chooses to eat a few carbs that are low on the glycemic index, aren’t they sometimes risking ingesting dangerous fructose, or do most low glycemic carbs just happen to contain very little fructose?? In other words, could they be trading insulin for an increase in triglycerides via fructose?

  47. Anonymous says:

    Gary, you, once again, hit the ball out of the park. Just one question–If one chooses to eat a few low glycemic carbs, don’t they run the risk of ingesting dangerous fructose, which is not part of the G.I? Then, they’re simply trading insulin for, ultimately, triglycerides ??

  48. Anonymous says:

    If one chooses to eat a few low glycemic index carbs, aren’t they risking consuming dangerous fructose, so that they’re just trading insulin for triglycerides, ultimately? Thanks, Gary, for, again, hitting the ball out of the park!

  49. John Hanson says:

    We need to get Oprah on such a regimen!

  50. Anonymous says:

    Of course he felt like cranky and irritable, take away a crack from an addict for 24hrs and see what happens (hey I watch Intervention). The other issue for me is why he would eat 3 meals and 2 snacks, one of the great things of going low carb is not feeling hungry every 3 hours as your not dealing with the inevitable insulin crashes that tend to occur on the standard 6x per day meal plan that still seems to be the norm.
    As someone who shifted from the 6 meal per day, low fat eating mentality to a 2-3 x per day low carb/paleo diet, Ive been sick once in two years and no longer have any signs of being asthmatic (diagnosed when I was 6, I’m now 38) and I no longer get the shakes if I don’t eat for long periods of time.
    It’s to bad Dr. Oz couldn’t be more open minded. Keep up the great work Gary.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Dear Mr. Taubes,
    Have you heard of reddit.com? It’s a great social website, for anything and everything, from humor to meaningful discussions. I’d love to invite you to a ‘sub-reddit’ that I moderate, http://www.reddit.com/r/keto. Around 9 months ago, I created the sub-reddit so that people could talk about ketosis, low-carb and everything you discuss. It didn’t catch on too quickly, and for a while it seemed stuck at around 30 members, which is pretty low considering reddit now gets a billion views per month. In the past few months, however, r/keto has increased rapidly, and in the past week hit over 1000 members!
    At reddit, sometimes people start AMA (Ask Me Anything) discussions, and in the past we’ve featured a wide span of individuals; think members of Congress, Stephen Colbert, former cosmonauts, and thousands of others. It would mean the world to us at the keto sub-reddit if you could do one for us :) It would be a great way to celebrate reaching 1000 members! If you want to talk to us, just make an account at reddit, head over to reddit.com/r/keto, and write a post like “I am Gary Taubes, Grandest Visionary and author of Good Calories Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat, AMA.”
    Thanks for reading, and keep up the great work with your blog!
    - jarly

  52. “Good Calories, Bad Calories” changed my life. I lost 16 Kg over the last 12 months by reducing carb intake, increasing fats and proteins and embarking on moderate exercise (light weights twice weekly). I’m still finding that I need to fine tune the level of carb intake to keep my weight steady. BTW here’s some more research linking high carb diets to Type 2 diabetes: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-link-carbs-diabetes.html

  53. @Sandwaves maybe you need to re-read GCBC. When you eat low carb as Gary does, your cholesterol test score would be invalid and would not prove anything. LDL, the supposed Bad Cholesterol is only calculated from your Total Cholesterol, HDL and Triglycerides. I am sure Gary’s LDL would be slightly elevated but the actual test would not show what kind of LDL. Dr. OZ would most assuredly take advantage of this to paint low carb with a bad brush. There is also new research showing LDL to be beneficial, not harmful.

  54. @Sandwaves maybe you need to re-read GCBC. When you eat low carb as Gary does, your cholesterol test score would be invalid and would not prove anything. LDL, the supposed Bad Cholesterol is only calculated from your Total Cholesterol, HDL and Triglycerides. I am sure Gary’s LDL would be slightly elevated but the actual test would not show what kind of LDL. Dr. OZ would most assuredly take advantage of this to paint low carb with a bad brush. There is also new research showing LDL to be beneficial, not harmful.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Here are a couple of important things to remember: Sugar in Nature is good for us. Sugar Extracted from nature is bad. Let me explain briefly. Sugar molecules extracted from Corn, Cane or Sugar beets are still alive and when they enter the human body from Candy, Pop, Cereal and a million other products they need to survive and what they do is rob the body of vital nutrients we need thus throwing our system out of wack. (Dr Joel Wallach- “Dead Doctor’s Don’t Lie”) There is no Processed Sugar or “Natural” Sugar that’s good for us unless it’s in the fruit or veg or whatever natural growing living thing that contains sugar.

    Second Beezer3446 said it best and not to mention There are things That Doctors’ know but to admit them they would lose their license.

    BTW GMO’s have been in the market place for about 5 or more years and the FDA won’t allow labeling so we know what is Genetically Modified. Remember Milk back about 10 or more years ago and the uproar? Well Monsanto won’t let that happen again. Guess where FDA officials come from?

    T.M.I.? arrest me.

    Randy : aranma2@aol.com

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry. Sugar molecules are never alive–in or out of the fruit or whatever they come from, in or out of our bodies. They are molecules, not living entities. They do come from living things, but once that corn stalk, cane stalk, or sugar beet is cut or removed from the ground, its no longer alive–at least not for long. Whether or not we consume the sugar in the whole food or extracted, it will elicit an insulin response. The only question is how soon and how much, and that is where the sugar in the whole food has a bit (just a bit) of an advantage over the extracted version.

  56. Anonymous says:

    I am a frequent Redditor and an avid fan of the Keto boards. The knowledge I’ve gained there the last few months has literally turned my life around, and had an amazing effect on my health, mental well being and overall sense of wellness. I am sure we would all benefit greatly from an AMA with you. Please consider joining our little community, which is dedicated to embracing the wisdom you so eloquently share with the world.

  57. John says:

    Dear Gary
    I just by chance happened to see you on Dr Oz as I was surfing through the chanels and stayed watching to see how the duel turned out. I’ve been a fan of yours ever since hearing you on the CBC radio show Q with Jian Ghomeshi. I thought you did really well tonight on the OZ show, sticking to your guns when pressured by OZ, especially the very last comment you made in reference to his last qustion…NO! that was awesome.

    I just wanted to say that I believe everything you’ve said about carbs and why it makes us fat, if you look at the facts it’s a no brainer really, just very hard to convince people who are stuck in their ways. I originally read Dr Atkins’ book some 9 years ago (his 1973 version) and the light in my head just came on straight away, it was like he was telling me the secret of life. That might seem like an over reaction but as you know, after all the misinformation we’ve been given all our lives through school and from people who are suppose to be professionals…it’s not.

    Now I’m one of those lean people you talk about often. 6′ 2″ about 180 lbs. I’m not fat at all infact some people call me skinny. I take offense to that somtimes as I’m more of an athlete but my point is I’m a carb junky and I know it. For me, rather than seeing the results of indulging in carbs on the scale (I’m very active) i feel it more so in my well being. After your interview on Q I went on a low Carb diet for 5 weeks and from the very first day I could sense my thoughts were so much clearer. I felt more lively and yes I missed the carbs but I would just eat and eat and it took about 2 weeks for the cravings to stop and in the process I would get headaches, feel irritable but it was all worth it for the extra burst of energy I felt and the clearer mind set to boot, which for me was the most important factor.

    I have a few posts on my blog about this topic I’d like to share and hear people’s opinions on including depression and carbsferniemtbr thanks for reading.

    I agree with what Bob Kaplan said in his email below your post too.

  58. Paleogurl says:

    Great job on the Dr. Oz show Gary. I especially liked your closing statements in the exercise segment of the program. It really got the message across. I loved WWGF and recommend it to everyone. Keep up the great work!

  59. PhilipT says:

    In addition to Dr. Oz’s profit motive, there’s this:

    Part 2, 1:48 (“THE MAN WHO THINKS EVERYTHING DR. OZ SAYS IS WRONG,” The Dr. Oz Show, http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/man-who-thinks-everything-dr-oz-says-wrong-pt-2): “But see when I look at this [display of carby foods--grain foods and fruits], Gary, I see foods that are fundamentally sacred to who we are and how healthy we are.” –Dr. Oz

    Part 3, 4:00: “I also think that you ought to focus first on the sacredness of food.” –Dr. Oz

    “This bestselling author and renowned heart surgeon found inspiration for his family life and medical practice through the ideas of the Swedish scientist, philosopher, theologian, and Christian mystic Emanuel Swedenborg.” (Mehmet Oz Finds His Teacher, Spirituality and Health Magazine, Nov-Dec, 2007, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7430/is_2007_Nov-Dec/ai_n32107233/)

    “Swedenborg was practically a vegetarian. Shearsmith said he sometimes ate a few eels, and his servant informs us that he once had some pigeon pie; but his usual diet was bread and butter, milk and coffee, almonds and raisins, vegetables, biscuits, cakes and gingerbread.” (William M. White, Life of Emanuel Swedenborg: Together with a brief synopsis of his writings, p. 258)

    • Anonymous says:

      Good points! “Sacredness” of food. Yeah. That’s scientific! He bases his ideas on those of some spiritual leader? Where is the science? Uh, non-existent.

    • Anonymous says:

      But did this “superman” have underlying glucose metabolism problems? I doubt it, since judging by his almost junkfood diet – for God’s sake – biscuits, cakes and gingerbread, he would have had rampant diabetes.

      Dr Oz likely does not suffer underlying glucose metabolism problems either. That’s why he can eat some of the stuff that is like poison in these conditions. And that’s why his dietary advice is irrelevant to these conditions.

      Like the majority of people, these two were lucky not to be pre-disposed to the metabolic syndrome and therefore they have “genetic immunity” to the ill effects of some of the foods they promote.

      If Oz is basing his approach on the ideas of a teacher who advises eating biscuits, cakes and gingerbread, instead of all the scientific studies which decry these foods, (even the high-carb lobby doesn’t like them), then that explains why he made such an ass of himself on his encounter with Taubes.

    • Anonymous says:

      Did you see that he (Dr. Oz) got the Pigasus Award from James Randi’s Educational Foundation for all that pseudoscience stuff? http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-dr-oz-andrew-wakefield-james-randi-awards-20110401,0,3573991.story Fitting! Doubt he’s bragging about that award, though. I found out through Tom Naughton’s blog at http://www.fathead.com (Want to give credit where credit is due.) Also a great blog site, if you haven’t discovered it yet. Though if you follow this one, you probably know about it already as I found out about him through a comment here.

  60. Hi Gary –

    Bob said:

    “A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t improve health; it corrects unhealthiness.”

    I really don’t see the difference. If you adopt a diet that is unhealthful, your health will suffer. By switching to a healthful diet, your health will improve from an unhealthy state thus improving your health.

    Oz is a conman. Be careful. Don’t let him take the reins. Get your points across. Take him to task. When he says “eat whole grains” you should counter with “Why? Dr. Oz did you know that grains contain many antinutrients that are known to lead to autoimmune disorders?” Nail him. Set HIM on the defensive. If he ever says to you again “You’re not a doctor…” say in response “And you’re a cardiologist, not a professor of nutrition.” Don’t let him take the floor. Make it your show if there is a next time.

    My 4 cents.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hi Fred,

      I think the distinction between it corrects unhealthiness and it improves health, is that improves health opens the door to all those super food/super supplement/super dosage claims to super health beyond what is achievable. So I think the distinction is useful.

    • Anonymous says:

      I think what he meant by “doesn’t improve health; it corrects unhealthiness” is that all the carbs turn many people into unhealthy people. Once they drop the carbs, they return to normalcy-a normal healthy person. I’ve come to see the “normal” American diet as actually very “abnormal.”

  61. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for going on Dr. Oz and taking his abuse.
    Hope it sells many, many books for you as all the
    people who could not lose weight and get healthy on
    the Oz plan wake up “hungry” and seek your truth!!

  62. Aynur says:

    I think people like Dr. Oz are so stuck in the calories in / calories out paradigm that they simply cannot perceive anything outside it. I think you should more directly address this paradigm with such people and you should make it sound simpler. The law of conservation of energy (ie. the first law of thermodynamics) states that energy cannot be created from nothing and it cannot be destroyed into nothing. It cannot be interpreted to mean that your fat tissue grows unless you consciously match your caloric intake to your expenditure. It does not explain why fat tissue grows. However, it explains why people whose fat tissue grows may be more likely to overeat or be sedentary. Their energy cannot escape their fat tissue, so they don’t have the energy to move around. And you should just simply say that saturated fat and cholesterol don’t cause heart disease. You can use Ron Krauss’ meta analysis on the saturated fat issue. However, I don’t know how much of what you said was cut out. I think overall, it was a good performance. If I was a clueless person tired of unsuccessful attempts at weight loss, I would have bought your book after that show.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Somehow my comment didn’t make it on, so I’ll try again!
    Thank you for going on Oz yesterday and taking the abuse.
    Hope you sell many, many books as a result as people wake
    up “hungry” and seek your truth! Dr. Oz really made himself
    look foolish yesterday!

  64. Anonymous says:

    Gary,

    Your appearance on Dr. Oz reaffirms how the medical system is ignorant to scientific truth. Physicians, along with other health care practitioners have gotten comfortable in their ideas of the truth. Most no longer seek to understand how the world truly is. At the same time, the medical practitioners do not want to push their patients outside of the “comfort zone”. In turn, they will not agree with your low carb diet because people in today’s society do not have the determination and will power to adhere to a diet. Physicians like Dr. Oz do not want to be wrong. But, he is truly doing his society a disservice attempting to knock down strong and foundational ideas. Good luck with your battle.

    Amy

  65. Anonymous says:

    Great great great, and I love the simplicity of Bob Kaplan’s words, and i agree..

    I have one question, I’ve read both books, wow, and on page 54 of WWGF you mention: If you replace five pounds of fat with five pounds of muscle, you’ll burn only around 20 extra calories a day.

    I’ve looked in the reference and on the internet but couldn’t find the science behind it. Could you or anyone point me to the science behind this????

    Also do you know of a book or author that does the same thing to nutrition that GCBC/Taubes does, but to the world of exercises??? The real science behind muscle and metabolism and cardio and weight/resistance training??

    Thanks a million Guy

  66. Anonymous says:

    I was completely disappointed in Dr. Oz as a scientist and doctor. I was hoping to see a more open platform that both you and Dr. Oz were able to discuss your scientific findings and the work previously done by Dr. Atkins. The only wonderful part was that at least you looked relaxed and comfortable while Dr. Oz looked extremely stressed! Hopefully, people in the audience will go and read the book and make a decision based on what is good for them and not as the medical profession tells them. I am one of those people who cannot tolerate even a small amount of low glyemic carbs without gaining weight. Sadly, people need to understand that we are all different and that one diet does not fit all. This is strictly common sense that our medical society has seemed to forget.

  67. Anonymous says:

    As someone who has read GCBC twice, as many on this forum probably (or perhaps hopefully) have, it is difficult to take Dr. Oz seriously when he discusses his opinions on that segment. The argument given in GCBC is significantly more compelling than the one Dr. Oz and other practitioners put forth. It almost makes you feel like good science is much more difficult to accept for many people than what sounds or seems correct. Fat and saturated fat sounds really bad. But thinking that consuming fat or fat and protein in the absence of carbs will put fat on the body is as asinine as thinking that consuming fruit will make fruit grow out of your ears.

  68. Anonymous says:

    I finally watched the program all the way through – wading through the ads for cereals, weight watchers, and health insurance or some such (eyes glazing over for the most part) – and was entirely offended by Oz’s total set-up and attempt at sandbagging Gary by videoing his “eating low carb for a day. I mean really (others have mentioned this too) three meals and two snacks? And one of those had to be pork rinds? But his worst bit of malarky and the one I found most worthy of condemnation was his showing and then pushing aside his purported “healthy” dinner, which consisted of piece of salmon and spinach (and brown rice), as if that spinach and salmon weren’t a low-carb meal. Entirely duplicitous. A showman, a conman, and, dare I say it, a bit of a drama queen. So he opts instead for a giant piece of steak and green beans (which I think are probably higher in carbs than the spinach, no?). That and his display of a single strawberry on top of Gary’s food with the comment that this one thing would wreck an entire diet. It played strictly to visual power, which is much more effective than mere words (people have to THINK about them). He simply played to audience and viewer expectation, and structured his gimmicks to appeal to the primal brain and our emotions rather than anything scientific or intelligent. No surprise there.

  69. K N says:

    I wish Dr. Oz could have seen my breakfast this morning. Jalapenos stuffed with cream cheese and chicken wrapped in bacon and grilled. His food he ate was a joke. I wouldn’t eat like that. There are thousands of low carb recipes that go way beyond a piece of chicken and some leafy greens.

  70. K N says:

    I wish Dr. Oz could have seen my breakfast this morning. Jalapenos stuffed with cream cheese and chicken wrapped in bacon and grilled. His food he ate was a joke. I wouldn’t eat like that. There are thousands of low carb recipes that go way beyond a piece of chicken and some leafy greens.

  71. K N says:

    I wish Dr. Oz could have seen my breakfast this morning. Jalapenos stuffed with cream cheese and chicken wrapped in bacon and grilled. His food he ate was a joke. I wouldn’t eat like that. There are thousands of low carb recipes that go way beyond a piece of chicken and some leafy greens.

  72. K N says:

    I wish Dr. Oz could have seen my breakfast this morning. Jalapenos stuffed with cream cheese and chicken wrapped in bacon and grilled. His food he ate was a joke. I wouldn’t eat like that. There are thousands of low carb recipes that go way beyond a piece of chicken and some leafy greens.

  73. Peter says:

    It always surprises me you don’t tell people to test their own after-meal blood sugars to see which of their
    everyday foods raise their blood sugar and which don’t. That would be more convincing to me than either Oz saying “trust me, I’m a doctor”, or you saying “trust me, I’ve read the research.” I know from testing that whole grains raise my blood sugar severely, and that I can keep my blood sugar low all the time by avoiding them, but if I hadn’t tested them I would just have to decide who seems trustworthy, which is not that reliable a guide.

  74. Peter says:

    It always surprises me you don’t tell people to test their aftermeal blood sugars to see which of their everyday foods raise their blood sugar and which don’t. Telling people “trust me, I’ve read the research” is no more convincing than Oz saying trust me, I’m a surgeon.” When I saw for myself how much whole grains affect my blood sugar, I changed my diet.

    • JeffreyB says:

      I didn’t have to puncture my blood vessels even one time to know he was right. Instead, having seen the evidence(GCBC), I cut way down on grains and sugar, and took four inches off my waist.

      Advising people to pierce themselves again and again has nothing to do with health.

    • Anonymous says:

      I can’t work out what you’re saying. How did whole grains affect your blood sugar? Did it go up or down relative to what you were eating before? What were you eating before?

      More importantly, if you are advocating whole grains are good for blood glucose control, do you actually suffer from any symptoms of syndrome X, eg insulin resistance, obesity, diabetes 2 etc.?

      Because if you haven’t got any of these problems, you’re proposition is irrelevant. Taubes is aiming his advice at people with glucose metabolism problems like syndrome X, not necessarily those with normal metabolism.

      I do have these metabolic issues and I do test my aftermeal blood sugars. When I saw for myself how much whole grains affect my blood sugar ie cause it to skyrocket, I severely restricted them in my diet.

    • Anonymous says:

      Peter

      Apologies. I read your other post below and see that we are in agreement. Keep up the good work.

  75. Anonymous says:

    It has GOT to be tough to compete with someone like Oz (touched by Oprah – need we say more?) on his own turf while he waves his M.D. in the air as though it’s proof enough (or my favorite “I was just elbows deep in a patients chest cavity” so that means he’s right, or something).

    The foods I eat on a Paleo based, low-carb diet in 24 hours look vastly different that what Oz ate on the show. But hey, “that’s entertainment, folks!”

  76. Lawrence says:

    Dr. Oz’s interview is replete with so many problems that I could fill pages underscoring all the fallacious logic that he employed to mischaracterize Gary’s thesis, and how much of his own perspective on diet is flawed. But I will be mercifully terse. Despite how much Dr. Oz tried to make Taubes look like some radical who was out of touch with reality, Mr. Taubes’ message now has more exposure than ever before. As the old saying goes : “There is no such thing as bad publicity”. Most non-fiction books, however well researched, seldom get read that widely without first being talked about on network television. So next to going on Oprah, Dr. Oz’s show, despite being adversarial towards Gary, was high exposure advertisement. If even a fraction of Oz’s massive audience is adventurous and independent enough to read either of Gary’s books, it could have long term repercussions on the dietary community.

    What I find particularly odd about Dr. Oz is that when he interviewed Gary on his radio show, a few weeks before the TV interview, he was surprisingly open to Gary’s perspective on carbohydrates and the innocuous role of saturated fat in our diet. Though it would be a distortion to say that Oz was in complete agreement with Gary on the radio interview, he didn’t seem to show the level of skepticism that he did in his TV interview with him, nor did he seem as hell bent on trying to trip Gary up. I can only attribute this difference in behavior to the fact that many food corporations, which make a lot of money selling high carbohydrate foods and processed foods, would be hurt by Taubes’ anti-carb message, and since many food corporations advertise on Oz’s time slot, Oz had to do the bidding of his task masters. I don’t know how else to account for Dr. Oz’s duplicitous behavior.

    You could tell there were going to be problems with the interview from the get go, when a preview of the interview had Dr. Oz ask Gary the question (paraphrase):”Why should we believe you? You are not a doctor.” Anyone having taken an entry level philosophy or logic class knows that this is a logical fallacy of arguing from authority. A man of Dr. Oz’s erudition and education should know better than to resort to this. An argument must be judged on its own merits, based on the evidence and reasons given to support it, and not on the credentials of the person giving the testimony.

    Secondly, just because Dr. Oz has a “Dr.” in front of his name does not qualify him to talk about nutrition any more than Mr. Taubes. In fact Taubes (having studied engineering, physics and journalism at Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia) is probably more qualified because he has spent most of his career investigating what constitutes good science and what are the indicators of bad science, while Dr. Oz merely parrots the research of other people, without having the time or expertise to determine whether such research was conducted using appropriate methodology. One, after all, can be well versed in something completely false, and still sound to the layperson like you know what you are talking about – especially in a 20 minute segment where issues are only covered superficially and with sound bites.

    Also Gary didn’t make up his thesis out of whole cloth. His thesis is based on researching the work of highly credentialed men and women who rival Dr. Oz in education, if not exceed his level of education, especially with respect to nutritional research.

    So if you still place a lot of stock in the credentials of an individual, it should also be noted that there are many medical doctors and PhD level researchers that agree with Taubes, either entirely or for the most part, and more and more of them are coming over to Taubes’ side as more research accumulates.

    These include people like Dr. Stephen Phinney, Dr. Eric Westman, Dr. Loren Cordain, Dr. Matt Lalonde, Dr. Jeff S. Volek, Dr. Jonny Bowden, Dr. Rob Thompson, Dr. Robert Lustig, Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, Drs. Mary and Michael Eades, Dr. Kurt Harris, Dr. Richard Bernstein, Dr. Ann Childers, Dr Malcolm Kendrick, and the list can go on and on.

    If committing a logical fallacy of arguing from authority weren’t bad enough, Dr. Oz actually showed how he tried the low carbohydrate lifestyle for a WHOPPING DAY, and he had the audacity to call it an “experiment” and he complained about how bad he felt, and how he was constipated. Anyone who has passed middle school should be able to tell this is not an experiment in any scientific sense. What Dr. Oz did was actually anecdotal nonsense at its worst. Anyone who has transitioned to any diet, away from their previous eating habits, can tell you that they feel weird to downright bad the first few days because it takes time for a person’s body to adjust as well as for the mind to adapt to new habits. This will occur whether you changing to a restricted low calorie/low fat diet that the medical establishment and Dr. Oz advocates, or whether you are changing to low carbohydrate/moderate protein/high fat diet. I can just as easily do a one day experiment with Dr. Oz’s mostly carbohydrate rich, low calorie diet and feel bad for that one day. In fact I have done it before for much longer and I felt constantly hungry and lethargic. Would my one day of feeling bad be sufficient evidence for Dr. Oz that his dietary advice is bad? If the answer is no, then he is being intellectually dishonest for applying this same standard to Taubes’ concept of diet.

    I hope Dr. Oz’s audience is astute enough to see that what he was doing with his little experiment, was not scientifically rigorous at all, and that even as comedy it did a poor job. Such condescending caricaturing of Taubes’ very well researched thesis is not something you would expect from one of America’s most respected and high profile doctors, but this is what happens when a man tries to cater to the commercialism that catapulted him to fame in the first place. Dr. Oz, please leave the comedy to the sitcoms.

    Now since we are basically dealing with a puppet for conventional medicine, it is no wonder that Dr. Oz would eventually bring up the connection between saturated fat, cholesterol and heart disease. Of course, anyone who has read Taubes’ book, as well as the research and books of the illustrious figures that I mentioned earlier, could tell you that the work to show a connection between saturated fat, cholesterol and heart disease is dubious and no clear causal link can be drawn from the evidence we have. Unfortunately a paltry 20 minutes doesn’t allow a man like Taubes to show the mountains of evidence demonstrating that no causal link exists between fat, cholesterol and heart disease. After all, even the most adept orator couldn’t take Taubes’ meticulously researched book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories”, which is over 500 pages long, and condense it down into a sound bite effective enough to dispel this myth in the 5 minutes Oz allotted to this subject.

    It should be noted that there are plenty of people on a low fat diet who have high cholesterol. And there plenty of people on a low fat diet who have low cholesterol. The same holds true for people on low carbohydrate diets. The country of India has one of the largest populations of vegetarians in the world, and they also have high rates of heart disease and diabetes. Conversely the French intake high volumes of fat (yes even saturated fat), and the Inuit of Arctic regions and the Massai of Africa get most of their caloric intake from animal protein and fat, and yet they all have low rates of heart disease and diabetes. How would Dr. Oz explain that? He doesn’t. He just ignores contrary evidence. Granted I am no doctor, but that doesn’t sound very scientific.

    And all of this doesn’t even begin to take into account a big confounding variable which really throws in a wrench in the endeavor of drawing connections between dietary fat, cholesterol and heart disease. What is this big variable? It is genetics. Genes determine how your body interacts with food, and that is why certain people can eat certain foods without deleterious side effects, and others can eat the same food and get catastrophic results.

    And finally, with respect to cholesterol, the overall number for cholesterol is absolutely meaningless, as Gary pointed out, when it comes to predicting heart disease. That is why you have people who suffer cardiac events who run the gamut from having low cholesterol to high cholesterol, and why you have many who don’t suffer cardiac events that equally run the gamut from low to high. My father had low cholesterol and suffered blockages, but my mother, who has high cholesterol has no heart disease.

    So given all of this, why did Dr. Oz insist on asking Gary to have his cholesterol measured for the show? Because he knew that it would make look Gary look evasive when Gary pointed out the truth about the triviality of cholesterol and how LDL doesn’t tell the entire picture. Dr. Oz knew that his audience was already predisposed to associating an overall high level of cholesterol as a bad thing, and that they wouldn’t know that LDL measurements must take into account particle size to be at all informative concerning heart disease risk. So even supposing Gary’s overall cholesterol was high and his overall LDL was high, what does that tell us about low carbohydrate diets? NOTHING! After all, Gary’s numbers could have been high before he started low carb, because of genetic factors. No real connection could be drawn. It would be the equivalent of me associating Dr. Oz’s recent scare with a precancerous growth, inside his intestine (which was big news in September of 2010) with his whole grain/high carbohydrate/low fat diet. Using Dr. Oz’s specious logic of saying, because Gary Taubes has high cholesterol because he eats high fat, can’t I make the equally fallacious correlation between Dr. Oz semi-vegan lifestyle and his cancer? After all, if he is going to use disingenuous tactics to discredit the opposition, he cannot preclude the opposition from doing the same.

    All in all, the interview Dr. Oz did on his television program was appalling, and I think it affirms what Upton Sinclair said that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” In any case, despite Oz’s effort to discredit Taubes, the exposure Taubes received will reach curious viewers and in essence Dr. Oz’s stunt will backfire on Oz and on the medical establishment he represents.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well said. I couldn’t agree more, now that I’ve had a chance to see the segment.

    • Anonymous says:

      Beautifully summarised! and wonderfully constructed and accurate. Congratulations. I only wish Oz and his cronies get to read it. The credibility of Oz and his show has dropped considerably following this stunt.

    • Anonymous says:

      Very well put and in response to Mickch, I don’t think it will matter whether Oz and his cronies read this — I believe they KNOW this (but that’s a whole other topic). Case in point: his more open-minded stance on his radio show. I have listened to his radio show and it’s night and day from his TV show. I believe the difference is intentional — his producers know their target audiences, and I would imagine his radio audience is more well-informed (with longer attention spans). On the other hand, I find his television show condescending and disturbing, and it makes me cringe when I think how many people (including my mother) take what they view there as gospel.

      Kudos and congrats, Gary for taking the Oz machine on — the word is getting out.

    • Mercifully terse? I’d hate to see it when you feel the urge to wax prolix…

    • Incredibly well written Lawrence.

    • Anonymous says:

      “Why should we believe you? You are not a doctor.”
      ====
      I didn’t watch the program in question, but a question like that could be used as a “Devil’s advocate” rhetorical device to help establish Taubes credentials.

      In other words, even though arguing from authority is a logical fallacy, its still a common one.  Many individuals are predisposed to accepting health-related advice only from physicians, and probably for good reason.   Its probable that a good portion of Taubes audience would not take him seriously without the credential of a medical doctorate.

      So by asking this question explicitly, Oz gave Taubes an opportunity to try and establish his credibility.

    • tom says:

      You could tell there were going to be problems with the interview from
      the get go, when a preview of the interview had Dr. Oz ask Gary the
      question (paraphrase):”Why should we believe you? You are not a doctor.”

      Remember half the Dr.s out there finished in the bottom half of their class.

  77. Norton says:

    After more reading, a question: are there any studies that you know of, planned or ongoing, that are designed specifically to falsify any of the misconceptions discussed in your book?

    • Anonymous says:

      Probably! It happens all the time in medicine! But I personally doubt it. I would say that there could be researchers doing some studies to prove that their point of view is stronger than Gary’s.

  78. Norton says:

    After more reading, a question: are there any studies that you know of, planned or ongoing, that are designed specifically to falsify any of the misconceptions discussed in your book?

  79. Anonymous says:

    Thank you for trying to get Oz and others to understand… you were fantastic and very calm( I know I woulodn’t have been able to do it).I truely believe that Oz had no idea on how insuline works or how to control it… he is the doc that shoves pills at diabetics after they tell him to eat toast,juice and cereal for beakfast.

  80. Gary

    On my blog today, I suggested that:

    You ask Dr. Oz for a follow-up show

    2 months prior to the show, you both take a complete set of (agreed upon) diagnostic tests

    After completing the blood tests, Dr. Oz goes on a 4 week low-carb diet designed by you, while
    you go on a 4 week low-fat diet designed by Dr. Oz

    They run the tests again

    You both go back on your own diets for another 4 weeks, and

    Repeat the tests a third time

    Present the results live on Dr. Oz’s show.

    Of course, we know that the tests won’t work out in favor of Dr. Oz, so it is going to take some social pressure to get him to agree to a test like this.

    I posted my suggestion on Dr. Oz’s FB page. Perhaps if your fans were to unleash a social media storm, Dr. Oz could be convinced to do this follow up show

    link to the article – http://www.healthhabits.ca/2011/03/08/diet-war-dr-oz-gary-taubes/

    • Anonymous says:

      How do we get Dr. Oz to actually comply with the diet? It’d be very easy for him to sabotage what you are proposing.

      • In addtion to vlog-ing every meal with a smartphone (time,date,gps), we would have to trust that he didn’t chow down on seitan in between low carb meals.

        He would also have to trust Gary

  81. Anonymous says:

    Oz is quite a showman. Credit to him for letting you present the ideas you uncovered. Some folks will see that and make better choices for themselves. Don’t get too frustrated with the fluff. Oz still knows who pays his bills.

  82. Anonymous says:

    Dr. Taubes,

    I watched the show, and must say, I was stunned by Oz’s lack of scientific rebuttle to your arguments. It was too painful to watch. I’ve eaten nothing but meat and fat and very few vegtables the last 2 years and have lost about 50 lbs with relative ease. I agree with you that exercise is next to worthless for shedding fat and strength train about 10 minutes a week. I’m 52 years old and have never felt better or been in better shape. I eat maybe twice a day. Fruit is nothing more than candy on a tree. People like Oz refuse to see what the issues are really about. It hormones that control the body and wishing or willing fruit and whole grains to be the panecea for everything doesn’t work. Also you can’t out exercise a bad diet

    Greg

  83. Anonymous says:

    Dr. Taubes,

    I watched the show, and must say, I was stunned by Oz’s lack of scientific rebuttle to your arguments. It was too painful to watch. I’ve eaten nothing but meat and fat and very few vegtables the last 2 years and have lost about 50 lbs with relative ease. I agree with you that exercise is next to worthless for shedding fat and strength train about 10 minutes a week. I’m 52 years old and have never felt better or been in better shape. I eat maybe twice a day. Fruit is nothing more than candy on a tree. People like Oz refuse to see what the issues are really about. It hormones that control the body and wishing or willing fruit and whole grains to be the panecea for everything doesn’t work. Also you can’t out exercise a bad diet

    Greg

  84. Anonymous says:

    Why did you let Oz get away with this? Ive watched your lectures and debates online so I know you can be forceful.
    When Oz positions himself as an expert on the subject by explaining that he’s performed emergency operations on obese patients…this begs for a retort.
    When they visually juxtapose two eating plans and unfairly choose the most unappetizing foods to represent low carb meal options…this begs for a hard retort.
    When he fails to argue on the scientific merits but instead simply spews the party line…you should have slapped him.
    Oz is all noise and no signal pretending to know more than he does.

  85. Anonymous says:

    Gary – you are my hero. Do not stop pushing your message. I have dabbled with low carb for years and kept my weight within 10 lbs because of it. Since I read WWGF, I started with a clean induction and am working to lose about 65 lbs.

    I have been a faithful Dr. Oz fan for years. I have not been happy with the marketing science and entertainment twists the show has taken. After what he did to you, his show is no longer on my DVR list to record and I will never watch him again. He is not a real doctor – he is now an entertainer spouting malarky. He wants to keep his head in the sand and not even look at the data.

    You deserve an apology. There is absolutely NO excuse for the way he treated you. Yes you got your message across and maybe more people will look into it. As for OZ and the people pulling his strings, I am so done with the show and listening to him.

    You have the restraint of a saint – not to just walk off the show. At least you came off as the sane one, in the crosshairs of a bully. Thank you for doing the show and thank you for doing what you do. You may just be the reason people at the top wake up and realize WHY people are obese.

    Definition of insanity – You keep on doing what you have always done, expecting a different result.

    • Amrita Amy says:

      Thank you suncountry2 – you expressed my feelings exactly, including every idea! I finished reading GCBC a couple of months ago (not easy, but worth every minute!) and I just finished WWGF today. I watched Gary’s appearance on Oz online last weekend – totally appalled by Oz’s behavior. I’m sure many here noticed, as I did, how many overweight women were in Oz’s audience. How sad that Oz had, and blew off, the opportunity to really work with Gary to get this information to his audience. The show could have gone in a completely different and truly helpful, direction, but as someone here noted, one of Oz’s sponsors is Post cereal!! No need to say more! I’ve been carrying about 20 lbs of excess fat since going through menopause 9 years ago and while reading GCBC, it made so much sense to me that I applied the ideas and dropped 12 lbs effortlessly within a month, had more energy and felt great! Thank you Gary for GCBC and WWGF and for doing what you are doing, blogging, TV and radio appearances, etc. This is important information.

  86. Anonymous says:

    I was so disappointed in Dr Oz and how he tried to bias everything towards his way of eating but hopefully this interview will spark peoples interest and they will read the book and understand more in depth how this concept of eating works. After 40+ years of being fat I finally have concurred my weight issues by eating this way and have never been healthier or happier. (I am celebrating a year of a 65lb weight loss with never feeling starved of deprived) Thank-you for giving people a way to correct their weight issues.

  87. Anonymous says:

    I was so disappointed in Dr Oz and how he tried to bias everything towards his way of eating but hopefully this interview will spark peoples interest and they will read the book and understand more in depth how this concept of eating works. After 40+ years of being fat I finally have concurred my weight issues by eating this way and have never been healthier or happier. (I am celebrating a year of a 65lb weight loss with never feeling starved of deprived) Thank-you for giving people a way to correct their weight issues.

  88. Kimberly says:

    Dr. Oz ending the exercise segment with “proven correlation”

    That’s all he’s got? That’s his strongest argument?

    • Anonymous says:

      Had Dr. Oz read the same literature Dr. Linda Bacon and Gary Taubes did, he would not come to his conclusion that it is a fat loss panacea.

      I know that’s what Oz believes . LOL !

  89. What bothers me is that the focus on weight takes away from the most powerful research that Taubes found when preparing GCBC in the first place. This position on carbohydrates is far too soft. Saying that carbohydrates may be good for people who don’t get fat on them is very misplaced and irresponsible considering what he knows about the subject. The research in GCBC and elsewhere indicates the carbohydrates are the direct cause of metabolic syndrome. With that being the case, obesity is just one of the many symptoms of the disorder. Cancer occurs to 1 in 2 and Diabetes hits 1 in 5 at last glance at the statistics.

    I realize that WWGF was a condensed version of GCBC and it tries to distill the science down to that essential for weight regulation but it misses the most important thing. Carbohydrates cause metabolic syndrome in most everyone, lean or fat. Fat people are not the only ones who get chronic disease. Most running events that I participate in are raising money for a charity established in the name of a lean person who suddenly contracted one of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome.

    Go to http://www.breastcancer.org and take a look at the survivors, and even the founder of the site who is very famous. These women are all lean, they are not fat. Many are vegetarians yet they still have breast cancer. I didn’t watch the show but I’m sure Gary did not call Dr. Oz on the fact that the polyps showed up on his colon last year. Why didn’t his healthy diet protect him from that? Surely all the fiber should have saved him. The Inuit or the Natives of the Plains did not have colon cancer, nor did any population that did not eat carbohydrates. The fact that some populations did eat low glycemic carbohydrates and avoided metabolic syndrome does not detract from the fact that those who do not eat carbohydrates simply do not get metabolic syndrome.

    So the idea that weight loss should be the only marker we use in order to determine whether or not one should eat carbohydrates is irresponsible on its face, especially when Taubes has done the research that he has.

    • Anonymous says:

      Interesting point, Charles. BTW I’ve tried to comment on your blog and couldn’t figure out how. If you have interpreted the lack of comments as lack of interest, that might not be the case.

    • I think the reason Gary did not bring up the polyps in Dr. Oz’s colon (if he even knew about it) is he would have been guilty of the same thing Dr. Oz was with his ridiculous farce of an ‘experiment’ (more like a bad SNL skit) of going on a ‘low carb’ diet for one day. It’s unscientific and irrelevant to draw a conclusion from a sample of n=1.

      The entire show just made me mad, especially when compared to the radio show which was a much more civil discussion with a fair bit of common ground discussed.

    • montmorency says:

       I agree to some extent Charles. I was initially disappointed by the title of WWGF, since it would be immediately categorised as a “diet book”. GCBC/TDD was much more than a “diet book”, and I always tell people (whether they want to listen or not) that it is much more about health than about “diet”.

      To be fair though, the health message is also there in WWGF, but it is done subtly. “What makes us fat also makes us sick”, for example. Let people draw their own conclusions.

      I am guessing that one of the problems that Gary faced was what he could get published, and what he could get a mass market to read. Something with “fat” in the title was presumably more likely to appeal to a mass audience than something with “health”. And the same probably applies to the associated media events, such as the Oz programme.

      Regards,
      Mike Ellwood, Oxfordshire, England

  90. CarbSane says:

    It’s really too bad you didn’t use the opportunity to “shine” on your strong point: Cholesterol.

  91. Anonymous says:

    In addition to the fat-producing potential of insulin caused by even whole grains and fruit, and other good points Gary made to Oz, those who are insulin resistant are very aware of the ADDICTIVE nature of those supposedly healthy whole grains and [excessive] fruits. So sometimes having a “moderate” amount can trigger a raging desire for an immoderate amount!

  92. Anonymous says:

    In addition to the fat-producing potential of insulin caused by even whole grains and fruit, and other good points Gary made to Oz, those who are insulin resistant are very aware of the ADDICTIVE nature of those supposedly healthy whole grains and [excessive] fruits. So sometimes having a “moderate” amount can trigger a raging desire for an immoderate amount!

  93. Anonymous says:

    I am SURE that the producers sat Dr. Oz down well before the show and made it crystal clear that he couldn’t come out against ‘healthy complex carbs’ or else they would risk losing big sponsors. Look at Dr. Oz’s website — Post Cereal and Weight Watchers ads keep flashing up.

    He knows which side his ‘healthy complex carb’ bread is low-fat buttered on! LOL!

  94. Anonymous says:

    It’s so funny to read a lot of your comments. First of all, I’m not an advocate of either Dr. Oz or Mr. Gary, however I do have my thoughts.
    1) I don’t know Dr. Oz diet plan but I highly doubt it is as many of you mention in here as A HIGH COMPLEX CARBS Diet (correct me if I’m wrong).

    2) There are numerous studies(by good and bad researchers with whatever methodology you think is the most appropriate or not ) that prove that LDL-CH is linked to Cardiovascular diseases, regardless if you are skinny or obese; and that Whole Grain HAS a potential benefit in reducing the development of chronic conditions such as Cancer, Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes and the mortality related to these conditions. I mean if you are fine with living with a high LDL-CH knowing it could be the cause of an undesirable consequence like a Myocardial Infarction be my guest. I will try to avoided.

    3) LAWRENCE, I’m going to quote you here, ok!:”Dr. Oz merely parrots the research of other people, without having the time or expertise to determine whether such research was conducted using appropriate methodology” ………… do you truly believe this??? with that comment I just know that you don’t know how the medical system run. Ask Gary if Dr. Oz or any other respectable Doctor parrots research, just like that! Do you also think that Dr. Oz researched poorly credentialed men and women?

    4) I applaud Mr. Gary for maintaining his composure throughout the show (Dr. Oz wasn’t definitively the best host) but I didn’t expect less. He’s a professional plus he knew what he was getting into. The only BIG disappointment I had with Mr. Gary was that he refused to get a Cholesterol profile because he had kids to feed or something like that. That tells me that is all about the MONEY!!!. A true believer of whatever it is he is recommending wouldn’t have had a problem exposing himself to whatever he’s ask to do, give or present.

    5) I promised I wouldn’t write this but I just have to………….When Mr Gary or Dr Oz transform thousands of people physically, mentally, emotionally and even cure diseases like Bill Phillips has done with his program Body-for-Life (I’m a testimony), then you can go out and brag about how your info and research have the most updated and best proven way (through diet, exercises or both) to get healthy and lose weight at the same time (cause it is not the same)

    p.s To all of you that do not believe that EXERCISE helps you shed some of that ugly fat, besides all the other good things like rising your HDL-CH and energy levels, reducing your Blood Pressure, etc. I encourage you to visit Bill Phillips website body-for-life, or go to the library and get his book and look at the pictures and read the stories. NOW THAT’S THE RESEARCH I NEEDED!! and thank God I’m a living proof! Now, do yo have any argument about exercise?

    • Anonymous says:

      Before you criticize Gary Taubes and his research and his choice of not taking a cholestrol test, read the book. Otherwise, you come across as ignorant to those of us who have read his book. Oh and I have also read Oz’s book…and Eat to Live…and they are not as scientifically compelling as GCBC and WWGF. So do yourself a favor and read the book. Then you can make your arguments and they will be more meaningful.

    • Anonymous says:

      As someone who exercises regularly and has for over twenty years, yea I have an argument about exercise. I’ve worked out like a demon and gotten fat doing it and I’ve been injured (car accident) and done low carb and seen the fat just melt off with activity levels that can only be described as minimal, if not nonexistent. So I agree with Gary, there are health benefits to exercise, but fat loss isn’t one of them.

      • CarbSane says:

        Taubes offers up no scientific evidence to back his claims on exercise. Only the whole “working up an appetite” thing and assuming everyone is stopping off for ice cream on the way home from the gym and lying around the house the rest of the day.

        If only someone had done a rigorously controlled study to look at this!

        Oh wait! They have: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/04/effects-of-aerobic-exercise-and-dietary.html

        The exercisers in this study even got to eat a little more to account for the calories burned during the exercise itself. Results? Independent of diet (LC vs. LF), the exercisers lost more FAT mass because their TDEE remained high. Why? They moved around more during the rest of the day!

        Just one of tens if not hundreds of studies that contradict Taubes’ theories.

        • Anonymous says:

          lonely blog needs attention!

          • Anonymous says:

            Hahaha So true. Carbinsane blog is unable to gain traction beyond attempts to bait Gary Taubes and people who want to read about his work.

            Carbsane, Your point has been made. Go away.

        • Anonymous says:

          OK. There are reasons to exercise, but fat loss isn’t one of them. As far as the study goes, I don’t do aerobics – I’ve done aerobics – waste of time – from a return on investment stand point I find that any needed health benefits can be found in the weight room and maybe some sprinting.

          I’ve tried fat loss with exercise alone, diet (various) alone, diet and exercise. Did not see any significant improvements for fat loss diet and exercise over diet alone. There are many health benefits to exercise. I don’t do it for fat loss, but to maintain muscle while losing fat. I think that the conventional advise for exercise to lose fat simply sets people up for false expectations and disappointment. Therefore, I emphasize all the other benefits and the importance of maintaining muscle while losing fat when people ask me for advise.

          • CarbSane says:

            So, because it doesn’t work for you, exercise is “useless for weight loss” despite the fact that a well designed and controlled scientific study clearly demonstrated the opposite. How scientific!

          • Anonymous says:

            Like the results in that study were all that impressive. It was 12 weeks and circa 2 kilograms. We can’t do linear extrapolation regarding what the effects would be over a greater period of time, involving someone who had a great amount of weight, say 100ls to lose.

            Aerobics is not just worthless for fat loss, its worthless period. As I said, there are health reasons to exercise, but, yes, Gary’s point about hormones controlling fat loss and trumping exercise makes more sense than the conventional wisdom.

            I see people all the time disappointed with their exercise fat loss results and quiting because the other reasons to exercise are not emphasized enough and exercise’s affect on weight loss is over-sold.

            Laboratory conditions don’t always mimic real life.

          • CarbSane says:

            Doesn’t matter impressive or not. Long term weight loss averages in Shai were hardly that impressive for 2 years regardless of the diet. The lab conditions don’t mimic real life because in real life people don’t tend to adhere to programs strictly. I would note the exercisers ate a little more. Had they not done so they would have lost even more weight.

            Aerobic exercise is hardly worthless, but if you say so …

          • Anonymous says:

            Yet another small scale, short-term study of diet, exercise, and weight loss. I’d be interested in seeing an update on these women one month after the study, or six months after. My guess is that they gained the weight back – except for the low carb group, perhaps. Sorry, but your “tens if not hundreds of studies” argument is not very compelling..

          • CarbSane says:

            Yeah, right. As we all know low carbers are famous for maintaining their losses while everyone else gains weight back. Dana Carpender, Amy Dungan, Jimmy Moore, Laura Dolson, the lowcarbconfidential person, me (the first 2X), Jimmy’s 20 year clear artery veteran low carber, both Drs. Eades, the Shai study low carbers, just about every longer term study low carbers, and so so many many more.

            The non-exercisers probably regained more after study’s end if anyone because their TDEE’s were most depressed. Therefore if they ate more they would gain.

            But that wasn’t the point. These studies show that exercise IS beneficial for weight loss if there’s compliance. It doesn’t work alone for many people because of inattention to diet and lack of compliance. If you make an effort NOT to eat more, you will lose weight exercising. I hate anecdotal evidence, but my husband gained a lot of weight when he was out of work and lost a lot – like 100 pounds, not just piddly weight – when he started a new job. He eats a tad bit healthier these days but not during that weight loss he didn’t. There were evenings when I asked him what he ate that day and I got “a bag of gummy worms” in response. He just ate less of the junk but was moving a whole lot more. No, I’m not holding him out as an example of a healthy way to lose weight, but activity is a part of it.

            The other studies show that Taubes is just up to his usual cherry picking in citing unnamed animal studies for his compensation claim. Both Hockey’s and my studies show no decrease and/or increased non-exercise activity.

          • Anonymous says:

            Cherry picking.
            What that means is that the person leveling that accusation can’t find anything wrong with the studies/methods/conclusions so they fall back on the cherry picking idea as a last final futile attempt to convince us their theory is the correct one.

          • CarbSane says:

            No, this person has found where Taubes’ own references state the opposite of his claims! You can’t get much more damning than that. It’s one thing to highlight just those studies that support your hypothesis, it’s quite another to cite just one quote out of context to say the opposite of what is said in the rest of a paragraph.

          • Anonymous says:

            And I have 30-40 extended family members that went low-carb ten years ago, lost a lot of weight, and have kept it off – but I won’t drop their names on the internet (it would not add any meaning to the discussion). Some of them exercise, and some of them don’t. And the few that gained the weight back admitted that they didn’t follow the diet as closely as they should have (in other words, they went back to the carbs).

            But my point was that short term studies are not very meaningful. To date, there has been no long term, well-controlled study of diet, exercise, and weight loss – it would be too expensive. So what we’re left with is anecdotal evidence if we’re talking about time frames of a decade or more. I lost 60 pounds eleven years ago doing low carb. My wife lost a lot of weight two years ago (she won’t tell me how much, nor what she weighs now). We both strength train twice per week, and we continue to eat low carb, and we don’t walk around hungry all day.

            Back in the early 90’s I ran 5 miles per day for 18 months – and I didn’t lose a pound. So I agree with Walter _R above about aerobic exercise – I found it useless.

            And you accuse Taubes of cherry-picking, but you do the same thing. The whole “de-novo lipogenesis” thing over on your website, and in your Jimmy Moore interview, is a total cherry-pick. If you actually read the entire reference (in “Biochemistry” by Stryer, Tymoczko, and Berg), it says that de-novo lipogenesis is not an important pathway in humans, as long as your energy intake does not exceed energy expenditure. In other words, it’s not an important pathway, as long as you don’t overeat. And we’re right back to Gary’s first blog post..

            And you’re also wrong in your analysis of the whole glycerol 3 phosphate issue. I’ll be happy to correct you on that one if you like. But I’ve got better things to do on my vacation than debate you on biochemistry issues. But if there are others in the low-carb community that would like to hear my argument, I’ll be happy to indulge them.

          • CarbSane says:

            In case you missed it, Taubes has taken this back too. In this very post. Read closely. Of course he blames the textbook he references, and he’ll blame his readers for the fact that there’s so much “excess sugar is turned to fat” mythology around the internet and cited by primal authors amongst others. When, had he read his own Frayn reference he would have known that DNL is not a significant pathway for body weight gain in humans. Do you have studies I’ve ignored or mischaracterized demonstrating that conversion of excess carbs to fat is a significant contributor to obesity? Taubes likes to take metabolic activity and biochemistry out of context. Yes, insulin’s action is to suppress HSL, but it doesn’t act in a vacuum to do that 24/7.

            I would encourage all those here who long term low carbed and have kept it off to join the NWCR. What’s stopping you? What I see of MOST prominent advocates of LC is that they either never were heavy (Sisson is a former professional athlete for crying out loud), or they are continually cycling weight, sometimes in a dramatic fashion. Some going off LC, some not. Most are heavier than they should be (and I am still as well). That goes to Oz’s sustainability argument which must be considered because weight swings are worse for you than just being weight stable obese. The Carb Smart guy is HUGE. About.com’s LC advocate Laura Dolson is HUGE.

            There are many studies demonstrating that exercise is beneficial to prevent regain and gaining in the first place.

          • Anonymous says:

            And I have 30-40 extended family members that went low-carb ten years ago, lost a lot of weight, and have kept it off – but I won’t drop their names on the internet (it would not add any meaning to the discussion). Some of them exercise, and some of them don’t. And the few that gained the weight back admitted that they didn’t follow the diet as closely as they should have (in other words, they went back to the carbs).

            But my point was that short term studies are not very meaningful. To date, there has been no long term, well-controlled study of diet, exercise, and weight loss – it would be too expensive. So what we’re left with is anecdotal evidence if we’re talking about time frames of a decade or more. I lost 60 pounds eleven years ago doing low carb. My wife lost a lot of weight two years ago (she won’t tell me how much, nor what she weighs now). We both strength train twice per week, and we continue to eat low carb, and we don’t walk around hungry all day.

            Back in the early 90’s I ran 5 miles per day for 18 months – and I didn’t lose a pound. So I agree with Walter _R above about aerobic exercise – I found it useless.

            And you accuse Taubes of cherry-picking, but you do the same thing. The whole “de-novo lipogenesis” thing over on your website, and in your Jimmy Moore interview, is a total cherry-pick. If you actually read the entire reference (in “Biochemistry” by Stryer, Tymoczko, and Berg), it says that de-novo lipogenesis is not an important pathway in humans, as long as your energy intake does not exceed energy expenditure. In other words, it’s not an important pathway, as long as you don’t overeat. And we’re right back to Gary’s first blog post..

            And you’re also wrong in your analysis of the whole glycerol 3 phosphate issue. I’ll be happy to correct you on that one if you like. But I’ve got better things to do on my vacation than debate you on biochemistry issues. But if there are others in the low-carb community that would like to hear my argument, I’ll be happy to indulge them.

          • Anonymous says:

            Sorry for the re-post earlier. Here’s my response:

            Gary has backed off because of the glyceroneogenesis pathway, but it’s most likely that he doesn’t want to delve deeply into the biochemistry. Atkins knew that low-carb worked for his patients, but he didn’t know exactly why. Gary at least made the attempt to explain the observations. But, you need to examine the glyceroneogenesis pathway and do a little critical thinking. PEPCK is the enzyme involved in the rate limiting step in the glyceroneogenesis pathway. If adipocytes make a lot of glycerol 3 phosphate, then re-esterification can proceed and fatty acids remain in the cell. The substrate for PEPCK is oxaloacetate. So where did this substrate come from? It came from malate that leaves the mitochondria. So how was the malate made? It has to be produced from the citric acid cycle, which is fueled by acetyl CoA. So where did this come from? It comes from three sources: glucose (via glycolysis and pyruvate decarboxylation), fatty acids (via beta oxidation) or amino acids (via deamination and further modifications). So now you need to ask yourself a question: How is glycerol 3 phosphate produced again? Gary suggested it was glucose via glycolysis, but he has backed off. But my point is that even if the G3P is coming from glyceroneogenesis, the fuel that is driving that pathway could STILL be glucose that is fueling the citric acid cycle.

            And I joined the NWCR a long time ago. And my “story” was used in Atkins’ book back in 2002. And I was not lean when I began advocating low-carb (far from it).

            And I thought I already made my point about short-term studies and their lack of meaning. What I do know is my own experience with starchy foods. As soon as I eat them, I start putting on fat. So where is all this triglyceride coming from? I’m not consuming the triglycerides directly, so how can they magically appear in my adipose tissue? It has to be DNL. And I don’t care if the studies haven’t been done to back up my claim.

            We cannot make progress in the battle of obesity if people continue to shout that it’s all about overeating and sedentary behavior (and therefore we need to eat less and move more). Have the proper studies been done? No. And they probably won’t be until proponents of the lipid hypothesis are no longer living.

          • Hockey Guru (aka Poisonguy) says:

            Gman, it seems like glyceroneogenesis might be a red herring in terms of weight loss (the rate of re-esterification is always lower than the rate of “de-esterification,” so fat burning is always occuring). So, it would appear, so far as my reading of the literature would suggest, that it’s a reactive (secondary) pathway, not an active (primary) one in terms of weight loss. As in, it seems to be a “fine tuning” mechanism that evolved to control free fatty acid concentration in the bloodstream (when talking about WAT) in order to protect the body from the FFAs unmitigated effects, rather than the subject at hand. Just a thought, though.

          • Anonymous says:

            Sounds like a good thought, Hockey Guru. My understanding is that glyceroneogenesis is a back-up pathway to allow re-esterification in WAT. The gene for glycerol kinase is inactive in WAT, so PEPCK’s function may have evolved to compensate. PEPCK’s other function is for gluconeogenesis in liver and skeletal muscle. So you are right about the weight loss issue – it may not be important. But if we’re trying to limit re-esterification as much as possible, it would seem prudent to limit glucose uptake into WAT – which means limiting starch in the diet.

          • Anonymous says:

            Looks like it does NOT work for the overwhelming MAJORITY CarbSane. That THIS IS scientific

            http://razwell.blogspot.com/2010/10/exercise-lose-pound-myth-of-exercise-as.html

            OOOOOOPS huh ?

          • Anonymous says:

            CarbSane says;
            So, because it doesn’t work for you, exercise is “useless for weight loss” despite the fact that a well designed and controlled scientific study clearly demonstrated the opposite. How scientific!

            Then CarbSane says minutes later:
            …….but my husband gained a lot of weight when he was out of work and lost a lot – like 100 pounds, not just piddly weight – when he started a new job. He eats a tad bit healthier these days but not during that weight loss he didn’t……

            Cherry picking lines from scientific studies.
            Using anecdotal evidence.
            Exactly what she accuses GT of doing.

            What exactly is this CarbSane person trying to accomplish? An anonymous writer who runs a blog that is dependant on baseless attempts to smear Gary Tubes – what exactly is her (his?) point?

            Attention to her own writing is the goal.

            Untill a week ago fully four of her top five posts were about GT and her facile arguements attempting to refute his mountains of research. She (he) and her blog are dependant on her making loud, wild and thin accusations about GT. (He is a liar, profiteer, using bad science, a fraud, etc, etc)

            She (he) is proof of an internet truth. Scream loud and often and the openess of the internet platform will allow you a level of noteriety that has no bearing on the veracity of your claims.

            She is little more than a gussied up troll.

          • CarbSane says:

            Hi Alan ;-)

          • Anonymous says:

            yeah, she is obviously just trolling for attention–directing it to her blog. maybe her husband is out of work again and she needs some money? cant make much money with blogs unless you have stuff people want to read though… :(

            perhaps she should get a 2nd job rather than waste peoples time with spam.

          • Galia L. says:

            Once, or more then once, Carbsane was criticized for putting a dollar sign after GT’s name, implying all his books and lectures were inspired only by the need to make money. Kicking the man into his balls was rightly considered an unethical behavior . I think it should go both ways, or let everybody turn loose. Lets treat one another with respect and behave like adults.

            BTW, I don’t think that Dr. Oz is a heartless jerk who cares only about pleasing his sponsors. Looks like he doesn’t think his advice may harm anyone. I don’t agree with him, but I understand how difficult it may be to change own point of view. I am ashamed when I remember how I fed my family a Smart Balance, trying to replace “unhealthy” saturated fats. Now it is a grass-fed batter, coconut oil, olive oil.

          • Anonymous says:

            dr oz was putting on a show for the cameras, he is pushing the same thing, only not to the same degree. he pushes complex carbs for the same reason gary pushes nearly none. and he knows this. i will give credit to dr oz for at least giving gary a platform. i think oz really appreciates what gary is doing.

          • Anonymous says:

            LOL ! Exactly, Alan.

            James Krieger, CarbSane, Colpo. They all are trying to smear Gary Taubes out of jealousy.

          • Anonymous says:

            Alan and other fellow low-carbers. I note you have encountered the ubiquitous Carb(in)Sane. I feel I need to report that I also have been involved in a running verbal battle with her on another site (diet-blog.com). I have to agree with your impressions. She rants a lot but doesn’t bring much value to the discussions. From what I can decipher in all her vitriolic gibberish, she is in the grip of the following:

            1) She is “a post menopausal (early onset :( ) woman who has yo-yo’d in weight for decades” (her words)

            2) She is hypocritical in that she endorses low-carb diets (she is on one) and says “I advocate low carb all the time when folks ask me about my weight loss”, while simultaneously denouncing virtually every principle they are based on.

            3) She believes calories are the indisputable bottom line when it comes to weight loss/gain yet she does low-carb.

            4) She doesn’t seem to understand GI/GL concepts and dismisses the validity of the insulin factor in weight loss/gain.

            5) She doesn’t like the idea of high fat consumption, especially saturated fat, but says she doesn’t avoid fats in general to support her claim that she rarely eats more than [100g,75g, 20g carbs/day]. She adds that she eats 1600 cals/day on average. She then proudly proclaims (in defence of complex carbs in the Japanese diet) that she shops at her Asian market “There are stacks upon stacks of bags of white rices and aisles upon aisles of noodles and sweets. I’m sure someone buys them besides me”
            “I find it hilarious that the way I eat now fits well within the original Atkins maintenance (I probably average 75g carb/day) plan”

            6) She doesn’t believe low-carb diets should get below 30% calories from carbs, yet by her own numbers above, I figure she does 25%,19%,on her 100g,75g,1600 cals/day diet and 7% on 1200 cals/day when she does 20g/day. Her reply to this (which was unusually and mercifully short and sweet) was “There is nothing hypocritical about eating low carb and not believing the fairy tales circulated in the low carb community”.

            7) She cites an endless list of studies which supposedly support her claims but ignores the fact that Gary Taubes revealed in his book “The Diet Delusion” that many such studies were commissioned and funded by anti low-carb interests, and many of the peer reviews were carried out by colleagues of the author.

            8) She seems to have a vendetta against Gary Taubes, or any other low-carb/higher fat proponent.

            On the positive side she has to watch her weight and uses much the same diet as many of us (even if for the wrong reasons) and therefore she merits a little sympathy. But I would suggest she needs to re-set her thinking and attitude.

          • CarbSane says:

            How pathetic that it wasn’t enough for you to mischaracterize my posts on that other blog, you must quote out of context here.

            I’ll answer to your points here:

            1. So? My point is that my mainenance levels are quite low due to years of yo yo dieting (in the past now) and the usual slowdown that occurs going through menopause. I maintain on 1500-1700/day, most days I estimate eating closer to 1500. It’s quite possible even that is overestimated. The last time I logged my foods I came in around 1000 some days w/o trying to limit intake, so who knows. I’m not trying to mislead anyone with my statements, it’s a good faith estimate of what I can eat these days. Don’t know why you have such a hard on for “gotcha!”

            2. What is hypocritical of sharing how I lost weight using low carb without believing fairy tales? This is nonsense. If anyone wants to know why I eat low carb it’s up on my blog now. For most where weight loss is concerned it’s the easiest way to reduce intake. This is counter to what Taubes is claiming in his flawed analysis of Shai for example.

            3. Yes, so? Metabolic ward studies back this up.

            4. I understand it. I don’t buy it. The insulin hypothesis doesn’t hold up.

            5. Who says I don’t like the idea of high fat consumption? Define high I guess. I think the notion of upping fat content either by % or by absolute amounts is counter to weight loss on low carb. I probably ate under 1000 cal/day (without trying or going hungry) many of my VLC days during weight loss. How I eat in maintenance differs from when I was losing. For whatever reason I no longer achieve quite the spontaneous decrease with VLC these days. Perhaps after this respite of higher carb intake it shall return? One can hope. Wish me luck! I question VLC/VHF for reasons that it is a diet that promotes insulin resistance in maintenance. That’s where the scientific literature from Taubes’ experts like Keith Frayn points.

            I didn’t defend the Japanese eating complex carbs, that’s another one of Taubes’ fairy tales he made up. I stated that the Japanese are buying the white rice, noodles of all varieties *except* for the shiritaki noodles (that *I* buy but have yet to see an Asian person buy in that store) and sweets. You are now deliberately quoting me out of context for what, the third time? Here is what I actually said, (http://www.diet-blog.com/11/poll_do_you_agree_with_dr_oz_or_gary_taubes.php?page=2#comments)

            There are stacks upon stacks of bags of white rices and aisles upon aisles of noodles and sweets. I’m sure someone buys them besides me, but I’ve never seen a Japanese lady buy shiritaki noodles at the market I frequent!

            and how I set you straight.

            Mick, you attached the beginning of sentence 2 to the end of sentence 1, and left off what came after the comma in the second sentence.

            Now you even leave out the comma. So much for your credibility. You claim I’m eating all that stuff to the tune of 200+g carbs a day and when I called you on that you call me paranoid. Get a grip man. Learn to read and debate honestly.

            Mick, I should clarify something else as well. I’ve been thinking in net carbs for so long that I don’t – as Paul Jaminet advises – count veggie carbs at all. So when I say 75g on average, I’m talking 75g of predominantly starch carbs (some fruit and very little sugar in chocolate or the occasional cookie/pastry/etc.). Do the math on that what you will do. I average over 100g protein/day as well, of this I am certain because getting my protein in each day is my only “driving” objective. So there’s 800 cals or so. OK, you caught me. I guess I eat less than I’m claiming in maintenance because I can’t see that I eat more than around 70g fat/day most days. Even my prime rib can’t put me much over that since I don’t dip it in melted butter. I’ll be sure not to mislead anyone in the future!

            6. True

            7. Gary’s says so condemnation doesn’t cut it. Show conflicts in the actual studies I cite or move on.

            8. Whatever. I’m a stickler for intellectual honesty and conclusions based on scientific evidence not misrepresented evidence or making stuff up.

            I’ll take your suggestions under advisement. LOL

          • Anonymous says:

            CarbSane
            We meet again. I admire your tenacity and resilience under fire. I would like to think that one day you will channel these into a more positive and productive approach to the low-carb discussion.
            As you would be aware, activity on the other site has almost ground to a halt. When I arrived at this site, it didn’t take long to see you were well and truly entrenched and let’s say, having differences of opinion with even more people than before. I knew you would read anything I wrote on this site (as you have proved) so you can’t say I tried to go behind your back.
            I wrote what I did re my exchanges with you, mainly in response to Alan and some of the others who were wondering, as I have been, – to quote Alan “What exactly is this CarbSane person trying to accomplish? An anonymous writer who runs a blog that is dependant on baseless attempts to smear Gary Taubes – what exactly is her (his?) point?” At the very least I was able to clarify that you were female, post-menopausal, dealing with weight issues, and doing low-carb.

            I’ll respond to your comments in the above numerical order:
            1) For someone who professes: “I’m a stickler for intellectual honesty and conclusions based on scientific evidence not misrepresented evidence or making stuff up”, you now refer to your own numbers as “estimated”, “possibly overestimated”, “good faith estimates”. These terms may be honest but they are hardly scientific. Once you quote figures to make a point you should expect them to be scrutinized.
            If you are then “caught out”, it’s on your head nobody else’s.
            Your remark “Don’t know why you have such a hard on for “gotcha!”, is hitting below the belt so to speak. I don’t know what post-menopausal woman experience in these circumstances, but whatever it is, isn’t this akin to what you are indulging in when you relentlessly pursue Gary Taubes? saying things like: “Stay tuned to my blog in the coming days. Just when I thought I was done finding errors and out right misrepresentation of his own references, I’ve just found more”. Isn’t this “gotcha”? Who’s being pathetic?

            2) Well for a start you refer to most of the concepts the low-carb diet is based on as “fairy tales”. What makes you the ultimate authority? You only have your selective research to back you up, and as Gary Taubes revealed (and most people know) all research is not always bona-fide. It can be tailored to achieve a desired outcome depending on who commissions/funds it.
            I know this can work both ways, but at least Gary attempts to analyse and differentiate, whereas you embrace that which supports your biased opinions and dismiss the rest as “fairy tales”. I believe the likes of Taubes, Atkins etc are far more qualified than you to determine what the truth is.

            3) But as I’ve just pointed out, other metabolic ward studies don’t back it up. If interested see
            http://www.lowcarbohydrate.net/httblog/archives/000066.html
            In addition, Dr Atkins, Dr Pennington, and others, documented hundreds of patients who ate far more calories than prescribed by low calorie diets and still lost plenty of weight. This may not be as scientific as you would like, but all these doctors can’t be foolish or dishonest.

            4) Of all your dubious tenets, THIS IS THE MOST PREPOSTEROUS!!! There wouldn’t be enough room on this site to list the research linking insulin to glucose metabolism and it’s influence on weight gain/loss. Almost every book on low-carb diets, and all the newer progressive books on Glycemic Index/Load and Metabolic Syndrome X, identify insulin as the KEY FACTOR. In addition, as Taubes reports above, “Lehningers Principles of Biochemistry or Williams Textbook of Endocrinology, which are the authoritative texts in their respective fields” confirm this.
            But you say you understand it???…and you know better???
            Your outrageous stance on this issue alone is sufficient to destroy your credibility.

            5) But when you go on a low-carb diet you must, like it or not, increase fats. Most protein foods contain fat. So you simply can’t avoid fat, including saturated fat, because it would not be practical to concentrate on so-called good fats like oils and nuts.
            You say: “I question VLC/VHF for reasons that it is a diet that promotes insulin resistance in maintenance”. This is yet another preposterous idea. Why then do all the current books on Metabolic Syndrome X, Glycemic Index/Load, Diabetes 2, identify foods high in carbs/GI/GL as the triggers? There is no suggestion that fat, saturated or otherwise, promotes insulin resistance. You surely know fats are metabolised differently to carbs. Now you rely on a single selective bit of research to try to refute all this.
            Re your obsession with your Asian market anecdote. When you say “I’m sure someone buys them BESIDES me”, you are saying AS WELL AS ME, not INSTEAD of me, as you are now insisting.
            So unless I’m mistaken, I think I can read, but can you write?
            I Appreciate your honesty and concession re your numbers here and in (6)

            7) It’s not only Gary who says so, many of us and others say so. Suffice to say this will not be resolved here.

            8) See (1) above. On this issue you are once again placing yourself in the position of “ultimate authority”
            in opposition to many who are better qualified. Or at least you tend to be selective to support your bias.
            I know you could accuse me of doing the same, but then we get back to some of the earlier arguments.
            Notwithstanding this, you condemn yourself with a number of absolutely ridiculous statements, particularly with regard to insulin and insulin resistance, which makes your position very tenuous.

            In parting let me say. Many skeptics of Dr Atkins are now realising that he was right in many ways.
            Gary Taubes and others go to great lengths to explain why. Maybe someday you too will accept this.

          • CarbSane says:

            Mick,

            You demonstrate your lack of integrity by repeating your intentional misquoting. I’ve explained this at diet blog, but since nobody was reading your crap there anymore, you decided to repeat it here. During my stricter low carb days I bought my shiritaki noodles at the Asian market. I never saw any of the slim Japanese ladies buying them, rather their baskets contained rice and noodles of all sorts. I’m sure I’m not the only person who bought those shiritaki noodles or they wouldn’t have carried them, but they are not some popular item the Japanese ladies all eat as their secret to slimness that much is obvious.

            As to accuracy, I’m referring to statements of facts and science. Something sorely lacking in GCBC as I’ve blogged about. If I estimate how much I’m eating to maintain does that have any impact on anyone? I mean really man, get a grip here. Stop trying to twist my words for some purpose. I’ve never said I avoid fat or fear fat or whatever words you’re trying to put in my mouth here. I don’t count calories but I do tend to portion my starch carbs. I also choose leaner proteins more often than not, and I do still eat a low carb diet except to the extremists that feel only a ketogenic high fat diet qualifies as “authentic”. Good luck with that approach folks – you’ll turn away more than you’ll convert.

            On the “gotcha” I was going about my merry way looking at something free fatty acid related (what I have a research interest in) and low and behold I find this paper on FFA’s and beta cell dysfunction bearing McGarry’s name as an author. I thought to myself that the name sounded familiar and what do I find? More misrepresentations in GCBC. I thought I had reached the end of those. Apparently GT’s mangling of the facts to fit his hypothesis went further than even this most skeptical of skeptics thought.

            As to Dr. A, do you have his original book? I do (though I’ve temporarily misplaced it). It turns out he wasn’t right in many ways. He claimed we peed out enormous amounts of calories as ketones and that’s how his diet worked. He also talked of some fat mobilizing substance in the urine (not ketones). The whole CCL, ACE thing is a gimmick. It’s not mentioned in the New Atkins.

            Total cholesterol and LDL are useless. Too bad Gary messed up so royally on that point on Oz.

            The glycemic index based diets are not high fat diets. When you can show me the studies – carefully controlled – where isocaloric low GI diets outperform high GI ones, then you’ll make a compelling argument. Until then you did a good job of shouting nonsense over at dietblog.

            Buh bye now.

          • Anonymous says:

            CarbSane

            You are one stubborn ornery broad.

            By the way, nobody is reading your crap at diet blog either, because as I said, activity there is almost zero. Very few agreed with you there and even less here. If you continue spewing forth your vitriolic, biased, ill-conceived, contradictory nonsense, nobody will read your crap anywhere, including your sacred blog.

            So here we go again, back to the Asian market. Your words as quoted above are:
            “There are stacks upon stacks of bags of white rices and aisles upon aisles of noodles and sweets. I’m sure someone buys them BESIDES me, but I’ve never seen a Japanese lady buy shiritaki noodles at the market I frequent!”.

            As I pointed out, and you conveniently ignored, this means YOU buy the “bags of white rices etc” AS WELL AS someone else, not INSTEAD of someone else as you insist. I am not misquoting you at all, your poor English is to blame.

            Having been caught out in your lame attempt to demonstrate how you can do low-carb without really doing low-carb, you now dismiss the exercise as harmless. But that doesn’t stop you from re-visiting the notion by throwing revised numbers around – “I maintain on 1500-1700/day, most days I estimate eating closer to 1500. It’s quite possible even that is overestimated. The last time I logged my foods I came in around 1000 some days w/o trying to limit intake, so who knows.” “Who knows” – that’s a great scientific conclusion! Incidentally your revised figures for your “most days” indicate 27% carbs, 27% protein, and well well 46% FAT. Given that most proteins also contain fat, this is about as close to a classic low-carb/higher fat diet as it gets. So what have you proved?

            You say – “I’ve never said I avoid fat or fear fat or whatever words you’re trying to put in my mouth here.” But then you say – “I think the notion of upping fat content either by % or by absolute amounts is counter to weight loss on low carb.” This is one of many instances where you state or imply that fat is undesirable. eg elsewhere you have said saturated fat exacerbates insulin resistance. GET A GRIP GIRL!! YOU ARE CONFUSED AND IN DENIAL.

            You need to accept a fundamental fact. When you lower carbs, you MUST (like it or not), correspondingly increase fats. Even if you replace most of the carbs with protein, you still add more fat. In practice, as your own figures show, FAT becomes the dominant factor.

            Ah yes, poor Dr Atkins, still maligning him I see. To answer your question – I do have his first book, and all his others. I also have many more progressive books dealing with metabolic syndrome X, low GI/GL, and Diabetes 2. Most point out that Atkins was correct in his approach, even if more advanced research has provided some different explanations as to why some of it worked. So where’s the problem? Thousands have benefited and continue to benefit from his advice.
            You say – “The whole CCL, ACE thing is a gimmick. It’s not mentioned in the New Atkins.” MORE BS FROM YOU.
            How much of the book did you read, the first page? Have another look. The index references no less than 30 pages for ACE, and 17 pages for CCL now termed CLL. It should be made clear that the book [New Atkins New You] is not written by Dr Atkins who is sadly deceased, but 3 other doctors.

            You say – “The glycemic index based diets are not high fat diets” – That’s a brave statement. What are they then, high carb diets? I have often accused you of not understanding GI/GL principles and here you provide more evidence. Have a look at the tables. Most fats have GI = zero. Most carbs (except low-starch vegetables) have GI >/= 40. Many cereals and starches have GI >/= 70. Which is lower, zero or 40-70? The even more meaningful GL tables put many of the so-called “good” carbs in an even worse light. Mind you some so-called low GI diets indeed do push so-called “good” carbs in preference to fats, but they are not genuine low GI diets, simply because they ignore their own GI numbers. This is why GL diets are now flourishing.

            Honestly, the more outrageous rubbish I read from you the more convinced I am that you are, how can I put it mildly, simply stupid.

            “Total cholesterol and LDL are useless. Too bad Gary messed up so royally on that point on Oz.”

            Too bad you messed up on this point because I didn’t say it. Once again, you are confusing me with someone else.

            In parting may I also compliment you on your good job of shouting nonsense over at dietblog and may I add you are outdoing yourself here.

          • CarbSane says:

            And you’re one obnoxious jerk.

            To lose weight – e.g. being in calorie deficit – one does NOT need to “up the fat”: see http://www.annals.org/content/142/6/403.full.pdf+html
            The subjects didn’t change fat and protein intake much.

            If memory serves this study is cited in TNA, but if not it is cited by Westman et.al.: http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/2/276.full

            I don’t have my ebook version of the New Atkins hand but the ketosis gimmick was avoided in this latest version. If I’m not mistaken (this is from memory) the only time “keto” is mentioned is in the stuff about epilepsy in order to tout the legitimacy of the diet. Atkins was wrong about how LC diets work, his claims of folks eating 5000 calories and still losing were sensational. Shai as well showed that the low carbers DID reduce intake, as did this BBC documentary: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/01/must-see-tv-for-those-suffering-from.html

            Atkins spurned a whole new eating disorder whereby folks actually believed a bite of mashed potatoes could undo days of dieting. In TNA they discuss an “Atkins Edge”. Here is what I wrote when I read the book.
            http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-atkins-ketosis-atkins-edge.html

          • Anonymous says:

            CarbSane
            We meet again. I admire your tenacity and resilience under fire. I would like to think that one day you will channel these into a more positive and productive approach to the low-carb discussion.
            As you would be aware, activity on the other site has almost ground to a halt. When I arrived at this site, it didn’t take long to see you were well and truly entrenched and let’s say, having differences of opinion with even more people than before. I knew you would read anything I wrote on this site (as you have proved) so you can’t say I tried to go behind your back.
            I wrote what I did re my exchanges with you, mainly in response to Alan and some of the others who were wondering, as I have been, – to quote Alan “What exactly is this CarbSane person trying to accomplish? An anonymous writer who runs a blog that is dependant on baseless attempts to smear Gary Taubes – what exactly is her (his?) point?” At the very least I was able to clarify that you were female, post-menopausal, dealing with weight issues, and doing low-carb.

            I’ll respond to your comments in the above numerical order:
            1) For someone who professes: “I’m a stickler for intellectual honesty and conclusions based on scientific evidence not misrepresented evidence or making stuff up”, you now refer to your own numbers as “estimated”, “possibly overestimated”, “good faith estimates”. These terms may be honest but they are hardly scientific. Once you quote figures to make a point you should expect them to be scrutinized.
            If you are then “caught out”, it’s on your head nobody else’s.
            Your remark “Don’t know why you have such a hard on for “gotcha!”, is hitting below the belt so to speak. I don’t know what post-menopausal woman experience in these circumstances, but whatever it is, isn’t this akin to what you are indulging in when you relentlessly pursue Gary Taubes? saying things like: “Stay tuned to my blog in the coming days. Just when I thought I was done finding errors and out right misrepresentation of his own references, I’ve just found more”. Isn’t this “gotcha”? Who’s being pathetic?

            2) Well for a start you refer to most of the concepts the low-carb diet is based on as “fairy tales”. What makes you the ultimate authority? You only have your selective research to back you up, and as Gary Taubes revealed (and most people know) all research is not always bona-fide. It can be tailored to achieve a desired outcome depending on who commissions/funds it.
            I know this can work both ways, but at least Gary attempts to analyse and differentiate, whereas you embrace that which supports your biased opinions and dismiss the rest as “fairy tales”. I believe the likes of Taubes, Atkins etc are far more qualified than you to determine what the truth is.

            3) But as I’ve just pointed out, other metabolic ward studies don’t back it up. If interested see
            http://www.lowcarbohydrate.net/httblog/archives/000066.html
            In addition, Dr Atkins, Dr Pennington, and others, documented hundreds of patients who ate far more calories than prescribed by low calorie diets and still lost plenty of weight. This may not be as scientific as you would like, but all these doctors can’t be foolish or dishonest.

            4) Of all your dubious tenets, THIS IS THE MOST PREPOSTEROUS!!! There wouldn’t be enough room on this site to list the research linking insulin to glucose metabolism and it’s influence on weight gain/loss. Almost every book on low-carb diets, and all the newer progressive books on Glycemic Index/Load and Metabolic Syndrome X, identify insulin as the KEY FACTOR. In addition, as Taubes reports above, “Lehningers Principles of Biochemistry or Williams Textbook of Endocrinology, which are the authoritative texts in their respective fields” confirm this.
            But you say you understand it???…and you know better???
            Your outrageous stance on this issue alone is sufficient to destroy your credibility.

            5) But when you go on a low-carb diet you must, like it or not, increase fats. Most protein foods contain fat. So you simply can’t avoid fat, including saturated fat, because it would not be practical to concentrate on so-called good fats like oils and nuts.
            You say: “I question VLC/VHF for reasons that it is a diet that promotes insulin resistance in maintenance”. This is yet another preposterous idea. Why then do all the current books on Metabolic Syndrome X, Glycemic Index/Load, Diabetes 2, identify foods high in carbs/GI/GL as the triggers? There is no suggestion that fat, saturated or otherwise, promotes insulin resistance. You surely know fats are metabolised differently to carbs. Now you rely on a single selective bit of research to try to refute all this.
            Re your obsession with your Asian market anecdote. When you say “I’m sure someone buys them BESIDES me”, you are saying AS WELL AS ME, not INSTEAD of me, as you are now insisting.
            So unless I’m mistaken, I think I can read, but can you write?
            I Appreciate your honesty and concession re your numbers here and in (6)

            7) It’s not only Gary who says so, many of us and others say so. Suffice to say this will not be resolved here.

            8) See (1) above. On this issue you are once again placing yourself in the position of “ultimate authority”
            in opposition to many who are better qualified. Or at least you tend to be selective to support your bias.
            I know you could accuse me of doing the same, but then we get back to some of the earlier arguments.
            Notwithstanding this, you condemn yourself with a number of absolutely ridiculous statements, particularly with regard to insulin and insulin resistance, which makes your position very tenuous.

            In parting let me say. Many skeptics of Dr Atkins are now realising that he was right in many ways.
            Gary Taubes and others go to great lengths to explain why. Maybe someday you too will accept this.

          • Galia L. says:

            Yes, my post is not scientific and about my personal experience. I also know that I am not unusual or alone.There are way too many female members in my sport club attending aerobic classes religiously and looking fatter every year. There others, of course, looking like jumping jerkyes. I know it doesn’t sound scientific as well. Somehow not everybody could recreate any result of any scientific research in his or her own personal case. The famous Dr.Shai study is a good example – not about people like me. I honestly don’t know how to react on results of some study that is about people different then me. Adain, I am not so unusual as somebody who lost weight while eating Twinkies or potatoes (Peter the Hiperlipid explained the Potatoes Diet phenomenon in his blog http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com).
            I know personally some people too who lost weight by exercising, all males, by the way. My point is – when it works for a weight loss,it works much worse then a diet or not at all , has very high potential for injuries, unsustenable on a long run, may interfere with a diet because many people believe that fitness virtues will cancel out dietary sins .

            I am asking you not as a person who does a lot of reading of scientific materials about nutrition, but as a person who went through a roller-coaster of a dramatic weight loss, do you remember, what it is to be insanely hungry and seemingly bottomless? I do remember it. It is what I experienced on Dr. Weill’s recommended (in his books) diet. Not very different than the Mediterranean. Actually, all my life till last 4 years I was always ready to eat, had to have something in my mouth every 2 hours. Like for most low-carbers, only low-carbing cured my appetite. Who in my place would be convinced by Dr. Shai’s results that Mediterranean diet is better or equally effective then low-carbing? People are influenced by personal experiences. Dr. Oz is preaching what he practices, GT got interested in nutrition because of his weight loss on Atkins diet. May be I am wrong, but I think the fact that you can loose weight easily and not necessary by the low-carbing, makes you more skeptical when people like me claim that low-carb diet is the best. Whatever is dialing the best with that constant hunger and that preoccupation with a food. Actually, for me it is the only think that works. I am sure you don’t need any links about the satiety of the meat + fat combination. You know it as well as me.

            Dr. Oz’s wife is approaching the age (or is already there) when what was working before is no longer useful. Probably, he is about to broaden his experience.

          • CarbSane says:

            as a person who went through a roller-coaster of a draCas a person who went through a roller-coaster of a dramatic weight loss, do you remember, what it is to be insanely hungry and seemingly bottomless?

            Actually not in over 20 years since my days of eating disorders, fasting and crash diets.

            I’m not the one-size-fits-all person here. I don’t look to studies to explain my results with any WOE. Shai,schmai, I doubt I would have lost the weight doing Mediterranean even though on average that group lost the same as the LC group from about the 1 year mark. But, studies like that are instructive for weight loss strategies, determining the best diet for diabetics, etc.

            Taubes is now stating that only carbs make us fat and that once we’re fat, only cutting carbs can make us thinner. Nonsense. And since he used Shai to argue this point in his second blog post, it is fair to call him out on his deception there because the Med group cut carbs the least. His message is now bordering on dangerous because he speaks of the “dose” of intervention. Not losing weight? Cut carbs more. And if you go to zero, that’s the best you can do. Lots of people do not do well with extreme carb restriction. Others see vast improvements early on and ignore slow deterioration in their health as time passes because they’ve convinced themselves that carbs are poison and swigging fat is healthy because the Inuit are such fine role models.

            Taubes unequivocally states that exercise is useless for weight loss. Again, the science doesn’t back his claim. If exercise essentially reverses all the damage carbs do as Taubes claimed, then shouldn’t exercise with low carb not work even better for weight loss?

            As for injuries, if exercise is good for health – Taubes and Oz agree – we can’t use that excuse. Nobody is saying to abuse exercise. It’s why I don’t do certain things. But as a commenter on my blog stated so well, if you’re sedentary (as most obese are) to begin with, exercise certainly can’t make you any more sedentary!

          • Galia L. says:

            I am glad we are on the same page about the MD diet at least on a personal level. There is another thing that I found difficult to accept in Dr.Shai research – it contradicts to the advice and the experience of Dr. Bernstein. It may give even more ground for pushing whole grains on diabetics. Of course, you are right and it is a fair game to refer to the research given by your opponent as an example, in order to make your point.

            How different we are in the ways our body works! I still relish on not being hungry all the time probably first time in my life, some insulin resistant people remark on not falling asleep after meals after cutting curbs.I had no idea you are free from the hanger issue for so long There is something very particular about your metabolism, which is very different from my case. Probably, people should try to avoid a rapid weight loss. Easier said than done.

            I thought before your post that you would be able to loose an extra weight with MD because you lost on the low-carbing too quickly and something higher in carbs could provide more gradient weight loss . It is all just guessing, no one could tell in advance how another person may respond to a diet. I still agree with GT that carbs should be cut first ( for example, to 50 gram a day) and the individual suppose to decide for himself/herself what to do next based on the body reaction ,not on religious belief that all carbs are created evil. You mention that some people ignore negative changes in their health. What is ignored? I hope you feel well now, I have only positive changes so far. I wish Dr.Oz would ask me to give my blood for testing.

            When people say “exercise”, they often mean several things. In my opinion, it is possible to be sedentary and to do exercise. It is when injuries happen, especially when the exerciser believes he is maintaining or loosing the weight. Somebody is trying to compensate in one hour or 1.5 hours his/her 23 hours of sitting or sleeping . It is very often difficult to figure out if you are damaging your body on a long run. I couldn’t. May be, an experienced coach could provide the difference in injury prevention. It is much safer to loose weight first. BTW, I don’t think that walking is an exercise, it is something like Thai-chi – meditation in motion. I do believe in importance of exercising and being non sedentary for health reason. When majority of people make their living by sitting behind computers and driving cars, it is difficult to arrange. So, why not to tell them that the diet is the most important part of any weight-loss plan, any exercise is a welcome addition(for reasons your mentioned), but it is not advisable to try to compensate with physical activity any wrong food choices? Or it will be more of “Loosing Fat at 15″ or “The Big Looser” with that sadistic Julian Mitchel. I am a lay-back person, but I just hate her.

          • Galia L. says:

            False expectations and disappointments would be the small price to pay. What about multiple sport injures inflicted by the combination of excess weight and exercise? From my personal experience I would advice overweight people to loose at least some weight first than go into exercise program later.I don’t mean they can’t walk or stretch or do some weight lifting just for toning or pleasure. People should be more aware of the long-term dangers of exercise for overweight people. I especially concerned about children .

          • Anonymous says:

            A very valid point and part of the reason why in one of my replies to carbsane I said “Aerobics is not just worthless for fat loss, its worthless period”. I don’t like the cost/benefit, risk/reward profile of aerobics or steady state cardio.

            I didn’t mention your point simply because when someone asks me for advice (and people do, because to answer one of carbsane’s other points, I’ve kept the weight off for eleven years – formerly 283 lbs at a height of 6’7″ now cycle between 200 and 220lbs (count that as putting weight back on if you want, but my health and fitness have always remained far above what they were at 283) I advise beginners to lift weights in a way that is appropriate for beginners and to walk for the health benefits associated with walking, not to burn calories).

            I’ve seen too many people handed a bad plan, which then when it didn’t work be accused of not being compliant, doing it wrong, lying, etc. and suffering a loss of self-esteem/confidence in their self-efficacy and that bothers me, but risk of physical injury probably trumps this concern, because it could also lead to a loss of self-esteem/confidence in their self-efficacy.

        • Hockey Guru (aka Poisonguy) says:

          Here are two more of those thousands that you apparently haven’t reviewed yet.

          Finlayson G, Bryant E, Blundell JE, King NA. Acute compensatory eating following exercise is associated with implicit hedonic wanting for food. Physiol Behav. 2009 Apr 20;97(1):62-7.

          Turner JE, Markovitch D, Betts JA, Thompson D. Nonprescribed physical activity energy expenditure is maintained with structured exercise and implicates a compensatory increase in energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov;92(5):1009-16.

          In the interest of full disclosure and honesty–novel concepts to some–Gary has recently admitted that he’s keeping an open mind on HIIT as regards weight loss as research in this field has recently picked up quite a bit and good studies are coming daily (maybe not by the thousands, though).

          • CarbSane says:

            Hockey do you have the full texts of the first one?

            From the abstract of the first:
            An enhanced implicit wanting for food after exercise may help to explain why some people overcompensate during acute eating episodes. Some individuals could be resistant to the beneficial effects of exercise due to a predisposition to compensate for exercise-induced energy expenditure as a result of implicit changes in food preferences.

            SOME. Not “all exercise does is make you hungry”. There were others who did not compensate.

            From the second one:

            …Structured prescribed exercise increased total PAEE and had no detrimental effect on nonprescribed PAEE. Indeed, there was a trend for greater nonprescribed PAEE in the EX group (P = 0.09).

            …The adoption of regular structured exercise in previously sedentary, middle-aged, and overweight men does not result in a negative compensatory reduction in nonprescribed physical activity.

            Thanks for providing us with further refutation of Taubes’ claims. So much for his false claim that all exercising does is cause us to be lazier the rest of the day.

          • CarbSane says:

            Another from the references of one of your studies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19568195?dopt=Abstract

            We conclude that in middle-aged overweight or obese subjects participating in an extended exercise intervention, total PAEE increased, and there was no compensatory decrease in nonexercise PAEE.

            Taubes claimed on Oz that studies show there IS a compensatory decrease in nonexercise PAEE. Now my count is up to three that show it’s not or even increased. Isn’t Dr. Eades always talking black swans to Taubes’ null hypothesis schtick?

            Three black swans. Don’t suppose that will convince willingly blind mice though.

          • Anonymous says:

            carbsane:

            Taubes offers up no scientific evidence to back his claims on exercise. Only the whole “working up an appetite” thing and assuming everyone is stopping off for ice cream on the way home from the gym and lying around the house the rest of the day.

            hockey guru:

            Here are two more of those thousands that you apparently haven’t reviewed yet.


            Turner JE, Markovitch D, Betts JA, Thompson D. Nonprescribed physical activity energy expenditure is maintained with structured exercise and implicates a compensatory increase in energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Nov;92(5):1009-16.

            carbsane:

            …The adoption of regular structured exercise in previously sedentary, middle-aged, and overweight men does not result in a negative compensatory reduction in nonprescribed physical activity.

            article conclusion (without quote mining):

            Conclusions: The adoption of regular structured exercise in previously sedentary, middle-aged, and overweight men does not result in a negative compensatory reduction in nonprescribed physical activity. The less-than-predicted weight loss is likely to reflect a compensatory increase in energy intake in response to a perceived state of relative energy insufficiency.

          • CarbSane says:

            James, unless Hockey is Taubes, his offerings are not Taubes’

            Also, “less than predicted weight loss” is still weight LOSS, as opposed to the controls who gained ever so slightly on average. AND, although the authors estimate about 100 cal/day more consumed, they did not actually measure this. The exercisers didn’t compensate completely if that was what happened.

            Which goes to Oz’s point about exercise: The calories you burn gives you more of a cushion to eat a bit more on a regular basis or perhaps splurge on a special meal or treat more infrequently.

            http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2011/03/exercise-weight-management.html

          • Anonymous says:

            the posts are there for all to see the exchange between you two. your omission was unflattering, to say the least. exercising for a cushion to eat more is not exercising to lose weight–thats taubes point.

          • CarbSane says:

            No, Taubes’ point was that exercise is useless for weight loss because it will make you hungry and eat more (even those that ate more didn’t completely compensate) and move less the rest of the time (not demonstrated in any of the studies I posted, although in http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2010/06000/Behavioral_Compensatory_Adjustments_to_Exercise.23.aspx this study some of the participants gained weight and had reduced non-exercise activity expenditures.

            Exercise alone without attention to diet is not likely to produce losses in most, but exercise can sure assist ones weight loss efforts if they are careful not to adjust intake. And the most important thing of all … maintaining those losses is … is definitely improved with exercise.

            You can either cut back on intake and lower your metabolic rate eventually, or maintain intake and increase your metabolism with exercise. Or a little of both. Diet alone does one thing for sure – it lowers ones metabolism and energy expenditure. Matters not how one goes about it macronutrientwise.

          • Anonymous says:

            “…if they are careful not to adjust intake.” So to lose weight by exercising, you have to go hungry? No thank you! Been there, done that. It’s not fun and impossible to maintain because it’s NOT NATURAL. Which is why diets in general don’t work long term–who wants to be hungry all the time? Lo carb isn’t a diet, it’s a way of life that doesn’t involve being hungry–just healthy.

          • CarbSane says:

            No. It means you watch what you eat.

            If low carb doesn’t involve being hungry, why worry anyway right?

          • Hockey Guru (aka Poisonguy) says:

            “…if they are careful not to adjust intake.”

            Thank you, MargaretRC. Great pick up. Someone didn’t just stick her foot in her mouth. She left footmarks half way down her trachea.

          • CarbSane says:

            How so? Care to address how YOUR study demonstrates that

          • Anonymous says:

            “exercise can sure assist ones weight loss efforts if they are careful not to adjust intake”

            yeah, because “you work up an appetite.”
            that was taubes point… lol.

            tip: to be a great troll, you can never drop hints that you actually understand/accept the other persons arguments. you have to be contrarian to the extreme; unreasonably so. you really dropped the ball here, carbsane. you probably lost like 10 hits to your blog because of this lapse in troll judgment.

        • Anonymous says:

          CarbSane:

          You’re misinformed. Give up your crusade. Science is moving us in another direction – away from the caloric “bank account” hypothesis of obesity. You are either truly ignorant or you are deliberately turning a blind eye to what science has shown us.

          You are completely wrong about exercise. Exercise IS overrated for fat loss – extremely so. This IS what the literature shows. Dr. Linda Bacon, a PhD in body weight regulation says the same thing Gary is saying about exercise.

          Exercise is only good for about ONE POUND weight loss. My blog has the studies. Read them. Educate yourself for once.

          http://razwell.blogspot.com/2010/10/exercise-lose-pound-myth-of-exercise-as.html

          You, James Krieger and Anthony Colpo are also WRONG about thermodynamics.

          The laws of thermodynamics CAN and DO get VIOLATED.

          *The Big Bang itself ( which created all physical laws by the way) VIOLATES The First Law of Thermodynamics.

          *Black Holes VIOLATE thermodynamics and Einstein’s theories.

          As we approach the Event Horizon of a black hole the laws of thermodynamics COMPLETELY BREAKDOWN AND FALL APART.

          As we approach the very center of a black hole ( the singularity) Einstein’s theories become MEANINGLESS and USELESS and COMPLETELY FALL APART.

          The laws of thermodynamics, as well as Einstein’s theories are NOT good enough anymore to explain the observations of our MULTIVERSE.

          Scientists now think we live in a MULTIVERSE, and the evidence for this is almost conclusive.

          The physics textbook are being RE – WRITTEN. We need to MOVE BEYOND Einstein- to the QUANTUM THEORY, THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY.

          We now know Einstein’s version of the universe as this slow moving bubble is outright wrong. This is no disrespect to this great man though. Modern scientists have gained knowledge from the crumbs of Einstein’s table.

          LOOK UP DR. MICHIO KAKU.

          So you, Colpo and Krieger can put that in your pipes and smoke it ……..

          You will never convince the caloric hypothesis dogmatists.

          The calorie hypothesis people FOLLOW the MONEY TRAIL. Once science shows how wrong this hypothesis was, they will follwo the next thing and act as if they never supported the caloric hypothesis.

          You will NEVER convince the calorie hypothesis people. Their time is limited. Science will expose this. THEN they will follow the money trail and back something else and proclaim they never suported the caloric hypothesis……..

          • JeffreyB says:

            The laws of thermodynamics are not violated. MOST human’s bodies have different hormonal responses to different foods; it is science, it does not rewrite science.

            The Big Bang is a creation myth; it is not science. The Standard Model is based on the Big Bang, and is therefore also not science.

            No such thing as a “black hole”, or “dark matter”. Over 99% of the matter in the universe is plasma; that means it’s an ELECTRIC universe, NOT

          • JeffreyB says:

            sorry, hit wrong button.

            NOT a gravity universe.

            http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

          • Anonymous says:

            Tell that to STEPHEN HAWKING, you Internet crackpot.

            A theoretical physicist of the first order. ONLY on the Internet can a person like you criticize a world renowned genius.

            I was not talking about obesity either. I was talking about the false assertion that The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot be violated. That is WRONG. BLACK HOLES COMPLETELY VIOLATE THERMODYNAMICS . They are VERY REAL. We OWE OUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE TO BLACK HOLES.

            Scientific laws of subject to change with new evidence.

          • Anonymous says:

            Tell that to STEPHEN HAWKING, you Internet crackpot.

            A theoretical physicist of the first order. ONLY on the Internet can a person like you criticize a world renowned genius.

            I was not talking about obesity either. I was talking about the false assertion that The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot be violated. That is WRONG. BLACK HOLES COMPLETELY VIOLATE THERMODYNAMICS . They are VERY REAL. We OWE OUR ENTIRE EXISTENCE TO BLACK HOLES.

            Scientific laws of subject to change with new evidence.

        • Anonymous says:

          http://razwell.blogspot.com/2010/10/exercise-lose-pound-myth-of-exercise-as.html

          GARY TAUBES IS SPOT ON about the exercise literature.

          Exercise for HEALTH – NOT WEIGHT LOSS.

          • josef says:

            I love Gary, but I disagree somewhat with his stance on exercise. Jogging and walking are mostly useless for fat-loss (but, from a motivational standpoint, the fact that you are exercising seems to create positive momentum that people then often translate into eating better).

            But Volek has some very neat stuff on reduced carb diets and reduced carb diets + resistance training; and the difference in fat-mass lost and lean body mass preserved (total improvement in body composition) is pretty impressive.

        • Anonymous says:

          I exercise because the things I love to do involve exercise. I play tennis twice a week for a couple of hours, walk and bike ride daily, hike whenever I can and even do a few strength training exercises for my bones. Oh, and I swing dance two hours a week. That adds up to about what, 13 or so hours a week. Not only have I not lost any weight, I’ve actually gained more than a few pounds and can still “pinch an inch” here and there–a remnant of the 10 years when I thought a low fat vegetarian diet was the way to go and gained a lot of weight and inches. I got off that band wagon years ago and put fat and meat back in my diet and cut down on carbs. Just not enough. I don’t plan to stop exercising, but can and will cut my carbs even further. No, exercise is not the answer.

          • Galia L. says:

            Similar experience with exercise before low-carbing. I hope you will not add to your pounds some sport and overuse injuries. I recently had to stop going to my beloved Zumba class due to a plantar fasciitis. My knees also limit what I can do (definitely no tennis for me). One year ago I had to have a surgery to repair a big toe joint. All that is what I got from intense and regular physical activity, not a weight loss.

      • Anonymous says:

        Do you know that there’s a variety of exercises and you can do them with different type of intensity level, right? Well, let me tell you that not all types of exercises nor the intensity level, work in the same way. Some are for endurance, other for strength and some are optimal for weight loss. So my bet would be that you were not doing them the right way or with the intensity level that was right for YOU (yeah I understand that you are going to say you are a certified personal trainer or went to one or has read many books or whatever) Then why are thousands of people in Bill Phillips website and books that SHOW PHYSICALLY not SAY WITH WORDS or MENTION ANY RESEARCH that exercise HELPS shed fat from your body.

        • Galia L. says:

          I had a similar experience . I had a foot surgery at February last year – the result of heavy me doing intense cardio for years. I was terrified to stop – I was sure I would gain weight. By then I was stack on a weight loss plateau after initially loosing 20 lb on a low-carb diet.It happened that after surgery I went on a ketogenic diet to treat my migraines. As a result I’ve lost 8 lb by now since then. My foot was healed by April. I continue to do exercises for pleasure, but scaled back. So what if you can do exercises for different conditions? It is so liberating to know that you can simply got a brake from all that activity , to do it by choice and not out of fear to gain that lost weight. By the way, I am not completely buying Gary’s point that exercise inevitably causes us to overeat to compensate. After intense cardio it is common to loose appetite. I am under impression that if body is in a good shape, it gets very efficient in doing all that stuff we force it to do, and to trick it into stressing out may require too much time and too much effort , to the point that on a long run it gets unsustainable. So I just separated two things – exercise is for a pleasure and staying in shape, diet is for a weight loss and health. After my low-carb diet became ketogenic, I stopped having colds, not to mention it reasonably works for migraine management and prevents all sorts of mood-swings (very important for a premenopausal female).

        • Anonymous says:

          Ah yes, the ubiquitous “you didn’t do it right” . As far as what I’ll claim its simply that for fat loss I won’t exercise, I’ll simply cut the carbs – its more efficient.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’m only going to address your second point: “there are numerous studies…that prove” Right there, with the use of the word “prove”, you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about science. Science doesn’t prove anything. It can only disprove. Science does continue to accumulate evidence in support of something–until that something is disproved by contradictory evidence, at which time it should be discarded. Secondly, just because something is linked to something else does not mean it causes that something else. The reduction in piracy throughout the world is linked to Global Warming, but does that mean that if there were more pirates, Global Warming would stop? (Credit the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for that one.) And lastly, you don’t list any of the studies that supposedly “prove” that “whole grains have a benefit… in preventing…”

  95. Anonymous says:

    BTW, would glucagon injections assist in weight loss? I figure they’d be safer than epinephrine, as that causes elevated pulse and blood pressure..

  96. Anonymous says:

    Before you criticize Gary Taubes and his research and his choice of not taking a cholestrol test, read the book. Otherwise, you come across as ignorant to those of us who have read his book. Oh and I have also read Oz’s book…and Eat to Live…and they are not as scientifically compelling as GCBC and WWGF. So do yourself a favor and read the book. Then you can make your arguments and they will be more meaningful.

    • Anonymous says:

      First of all, I did not criticized Mr. Gary or his research nor I need to read his book (which I know will be the same as reading Dr. Atkins, correct me if I’m wrong) or Dr. Oz. What I said was that there are other research out there of very reputable scientist people that prove the relationship of LDL and cardiovascular disease and the benefit of whole grain and chronic diseases. If he wants to argue against that or you want to take his word for granted, so be it. At the end of the day it is not MY health that is put in the table. I found the perfect program FOR ME with Bill Phillips (body-for-life) which basically overlap Gary’s and Dr. Oz’s “research” or diet plan. NOW, I think that the excuses Mr. Gary gave for not taking the cholesterol test were shitty, TO ME (I’m tire, I have two kids to feed, etc.). It would’ve been awesome to have him gotten the test and be normal………boom!! CASE CLOSED! Dr. Oz would have had to put his foot in his mouth. If the test were abnormal then he could’ve had explain why the test is MEANINGLESS, cause I wasn’t going to buy his book to find out…….. I ALSO HAVE KIDS TO FEED!!!

      • Galia L. says:

        GT’s books are quite different from Dr.Atkins books. I especially like GCBC – it is about medical research in nutrition and obesity. Somehow some people find it too complicated and thick. His last book is like condensed version of GCBC. It don’t think you could have an adequate impression of his work without reading his books.

      • Charles says:

        Well then, you should be all over OZ for constantly saying, “You’re wrong” over and over again to Gary without ever explaining WHY.

        • Anonymous says:

          Like i said, I am not an advocate of Dr. OZ!! If I were to say I advocate some diet, it is the diet that Bill Phillips give you because I transform not only my physique if not my entire life!!!

      • Anonymous says:

        You say

        “there are other research out there of very reputable scientist people that prove the relationship of LDL and cardiovascular disease and the benefit of whole grain and chronic diseases.”

        But by the same token there is a lot of other research of very reputable scientists (eg Glycemic Load studies) that proves that most whole grains have an adverse effect on [excess glucose/excess insulin /insulin resistance] and an even greater adverse effect than even many simple carbs (sugars). These conditions in turn are precursors to rises in LDL,insulin resistance and weight, and in the longer term, diabetes 2.

        Therefore If you are glucose intolerant you simply can’t avail yourself of the purported benefits of whole grains.

        This is the point anti-Atkins/Taubes people miss.

        Studies need to be specific to the type of individual. eg if you fed 1,000 individuals who have glucose intolerence (metabolic syndrome X is a better term), significant amounts of the “good stuff” ie whole grains, you would not get the same results you refer to. You would instead get the negative results I’m referring to. How do I know? Research including above Glycemic Load studies tells me.

        If on the other hand, you fed 1,000 individuals without syndrome X the same diet, you may well achieve your positive results.

        Taubes and Atkins etc have been a Godsend for people with syndrome X because they focus on their problems. The diets that these marvellous gentlemen espouse are tailored to treat the underlying condition based on studies into that condition. By removing the trigger (ie excess glucose production), the negative effects can be controlled and/or reversed. This then results in lower LDL, suppression of excess insulin/insulin resistance, weight loss and diabetes2 control.

  97. I know big exposure like TV is important to reach a lot of people…but don’t forget us little guys…we’re listing to you and passing on your message because we are living examples of how low carb eating really works. Honestly, what’s more influential, watching a 10 minute clip on TV or seeing someone close to you thrive on a particular diet, or have a natural health practitioner such as myself suggest a way of eating that when you try it, actually makes you feel better? I think the latter, keep up the good fight!

  98. Paul Kayley says:

    Firstly I am 100% in GT’s corner regarding the message he is broadcasting. However, I would suggest that our physiology’s drive for maintenance of homeostasis is complex beyond our current understanding and appears to always vito or over-rule some of our generalistic biochemical principles.

    For example, all of GT’s above observations regarding insulin’s relationship to lipolysis and lipogenesis hold true, EXCEPT when they clash with an over-riding homeostatic drive.

    For example, in an acute situation where muscle glycogen stores are depleted, the body will preferentially oxidise fats and conserve glucose regardless of significantly elevated insulin levels. Up until the point at which an individual’s ‘normal’ glycogen status has been normalised, glucose is directed towards these stores in order to satisfy the body’s over-riding drive for homeostasis.

    From this perspective, the body’s definition of ‘homeostasis’ is based upon it’s interpretation of what physiological parameters are most important to sustain successful survival in its current environment.

    Check out – Skeletal muscle fat and carbohydrate metabolism during recovery from glycogen-depleting exercise in humans – http://jp.physoc.org/content/548/3/919.full.pdf+html

    Also, I have just written a series of articles demonstrating that low-carbohydrate nutrition is easier to justify from a health-care perspective – http://www.paulkayley.com

  99. Dr. Oz actually came across as conflicted about Gary’s work, like someone who is both attracted to and repelled by an idea that challenges his deeply held beliefs. You get the sense that, deep down, Dr. Oz knows that something is awry with his viewpoint. Hence his repeated expressions of respect for Gary’s work, and his reliance on paternalism-masquerading-as-practicality (“Yeah, but nobody would be able to stick to this kind of a diet”).

  100. midkid2004 says:

    Lawrence is right about advertising. It was your appearance on Oz that lead me to listen to/view the lecture you gave (via youtube). Oz may not have let you say much, but the lecture was eye-opening. I ordered both your books and look forward to reading more information.

  101. Gary, please continue what you do. Your books are based on solid science, and you are not alone in your belief (many doctors, nutrients, etc agree with you). Dr Oz is just following conventional wisdom. I don’t really think He will ever come around, as he is star of his television show. If he start preaching the Primal/Paleo lifestyle, He will have to admit on live television that he was wrong all along and that He has been giving unscientific advices to the public.

    I went Primal/Paleo more than a year ago. I take no grains, sugar, high starches potatoes, but my diet is center around fatty meats [lamb, beef, pork, buffalo, and some poultry], oils [extra virgin olive oil, 100% grassfed beef tallow, and organic extra virgin olive oil] pasture eggs, pasture butter, veggies, and fruits when in season [mainly the ones with low sugar/carbs]. I have lost weight (I was never overweight, but it came naturally from the diet), but gain lean muscle mass. My energy increased, better sleep, etc. I feel great getting 60% of my calories from fat, 25-30% from protein, 10-15% from carbs.

    Anyone here feel the need to have a 16 ounce 100% grassfed rib eye, topped with lots of butter, and some low starchy veggies on the side (also with butter!)? :)

  102. Kathy says:

    There is a tragic show on the Style channel called Too Fat for Fifteen where obese teens are at a school that also focuses on their losing weight. Yep, low fat, low calorie, and lots of exercise for these poor kids, away from their families, friends, hoping for a new life. Corn flakes, fruit, skim milk. Ugh. I feel so sorry for them. One girl is over 500 lbs. and has blisters on her feet from walking. She has to lose 357 lbs. One boy is so tired in the morning; last semester he was late and missing classes, losing credit. He hates exercise, too. The ‘nutritionist’ is far from thin, yet she’s teaching them how to eat. It’s disgusting.

  103. Anonymous says:

    Dear Gary,
    THAT was powerful…what a read-thank you! You certainly have a way with words-what an amazing Gift you are to this world and in this specific timeframe in history…. -What else can someone possibly say about this issue? A pretty wise Man once said, “For all of you who have ears, Listen.” You could talk ’til you’re blue in the face, to which they’d attritube a heart attack-i.e. from talking until blue in the face- to the steak you ate-especially, the fat on that steak- and still, they would have their scientific correlations all mucked up.

    All I can say is that your line, “…but there is no website or dietbook that can tell you what your body can tolerate” is golden. Gary, I “live” this truism (as does everyone) and had once-”just once”-put myself out there on an Atkins forum and said as much, only to be publically attacked. You see, I am one of those people (type II, non-insulin diabetic) who cannot lose weight on Atkins at 20 grams per day!! When I said that Dr. Atkins only put the veggies on his program for their “vitanutrients” in that we lose a great deal of them in our modern day due to processing and overcooking our meat, and that is why he offered the 20 net carbs per day on Induction (plus, feeling more full due to the bulk of the veggies), you should have seen the attacks roll in…i.e. “You’re doing Atkins wrong if you don’t live by the exact number and go lower, you’re starving yourself, etc.”…even though the great Dr. Atkins said exactly what I just explained in one pamplet he put out (which was a wonderful validation for me) which said as much by saying (and I’m paraphrasing), but he said that some people may prefer not to go up the “carbohydrate ladder” at all; that they may feel totally comfortable at 20 grams or less, for the rest of their life…and that this would be fine!

    Thus, when individuals decontextualize anything to suit their own purposes and philosophies, they’ve stopped doing science at that exact point (narrow lens, narrow focus). When Dr. Oz thought your own cholesterol reading would somehow be the magic bullet to make or break the arguement for low carb living as somehow “unhealthy” if your number happened to be up, it was akin to the crew on the Atkins forum who thought that by me not consuming 20 grams of carbohydates per day, I was somehow starving myself and not “doing Atkins right”. This is decontextualizing the entire focal point of the Atkins philosophy. It made me so upset, because it happened right on the late Dr. Atkins public forum in 2004, I believe. You see, even THEN, I intuitively knew that I was intolerant of even the smallest amount of carbohydrate (i.e. 20 net carbs/day) in order to achieve the goal of losing weight.

    Today, I know better and I am still trying to lose my excess weight, but like you said before, when one’s fat metabolism is disregulated, it makes it that much more of a battle to lose the weight. Exercise is not the magic pill (done that-could run an hour on the treadmill at 190 lbs), fruit and veggies are not the magic pill, eating no saturated fat is not the magic pill (been there, done that-lol!), the only thing that does help my body respond to inch loss-this is what I seem to lose first on a strict low carb regimen-is a very low carb diet, meaning that 20 or less will take the inches off, but that 10 or less will take weight in pounds off more efficiently. -Staying at 20 may eventually move some excess pounds, but not if I give up in dispair first, for the time that it takes to see the needle move on the scale. Knowing this about myself took time and careful observation, so that I no longer lose hope about losing the excess belly bulge, but that I learn from what didn’t work and do what does work…and hang in there and wait to “heal”!

    A last point that does not pertain to the Dr. Oz show, but one that I’d love to see you cover, is a study on how one’s disregulated fat “responds” after large volume liposuction and tummy tuck (i.e. skin removal with the tuck and fat removal with the LVL lipo simultaneously). With disregulated fat “removed” from the body, I cannot help but wonder if the person’s metabolic resistance to weight loss would be corrected to the point that perhaps 20 net carbs could finally help those resistant to weight loss, to finally respond normally and see more effeicient weight loss and healthy weight achieved. Hmm…a study like this could separate groups of people according to what they eat, so that a group eating a high carb/lower fat diet like Dr. Oz advocates could be represented, and of course, a low-carb/high fat/moderate protein group could be represented and anything in between and follow these groups through a Large Vol. Lipo and tummy tuck…It’s been something I tried to post to you but it didn’t go thru when I first joined your blog. What do you think, Gary? -”Food for thought!” :) ))

    Thank you for having this outlet, Gary….I am a true fan of yours-your work is so important…but please never let them draw you out until you are blue in the face (I know you won’t :) ). If anything could be said of Dr. Atkins heart, he was in amazingly exceptional good health to be as old as he was, taking on all of those attacks, disguised as professionalism. I sometimes think that whether they are cognizant of it or not, many medical docotrs like Dr. Oz are fostering a culture of unacceptance of pure science…and pure decency.

    Truly & Respectfully,
    Mary (a.k.a. “Zephir)

  104. Anonymous says:

    • Dear Gary,
    THAT was powerful…what a read-thank you! You certainly have a way with words-what an amazing Gift you are to this world and in this specific timeframe in history…. -What else can someone possibly say about this issue? A pretty wise Man once said, “For all of you who have ears, Listen.” You could talk ’til you’re blue in the face, to which they’d attritube a heart attack-i.e. from talking until blue in the face- to the steak you ate-especially, the fat on that steak- and still, they would have their scientific correlations all mucked up.

    All I can say is that your line, “…but there is no website or dietbook that can tell you what your body can tolerate” is golden. Gary, I “live” this truism (as does everyone) and had once-”just once”-put myself out there on an Atkins forum and said as much, only to be publically attacked. You see, I am one of those people (type II, non-insulin diabetic) who cannot lose weight on Atkins at 20 grams per day!! When I said that Dr. Atkins only put the veggies on his program for their “vitanutrients” in that we lose a great deal of them in our modern day due to processing and overcooking our meat, and that is why he offered the 20 net carbs per day on Induction (plus, feeling more full due to the bulk of the veggies), you should have seen the attacks roll in…i.e. “You’re doing Atkins wrong if you don’t live by the exact number and go lower, you’re starving yourself, etc.”…even though the great Dr. Atkins said exactly what I just explained in one pamplet he put out (which was a wonderful validation for me) which said as much by saying (and I’m paraphrasing), but he said that some people may prefer not to go up the “carbohydrate ladder” at all; that they may feel totally comfortable at 20 grams or less, for the rest of their life…and that this would be fine!

    Thus, when individuals decontextualize anything to suit their own purposes and philosophies, they’ve stopped doing science at that exact point (narrow lens, narrow focus). When Dr. Oz thought your own cholesterol reading would somehow be the magic bullet to make or break the arguement for low carb living as somehow “unhealthy” if your number happened to be up, it was akin to the crew on the Atkins forum who thought that by me not consuming 20 grams of carbohydates per day, I was somehow starving myself and not “doing Atkins right”. This is decontextualizing the entire focal point of the Atkins philosophy. It made me so upset, because it happened right on the late Dr. Atkins public forum in 2004, I believe. You see, even THEN, I intuitively knew that I was intolerant of even the smallest amount of carbohydrate (i.e. 20 net carbs/day) in order to achieve the goal of losing weight.

    Today, I know better and I am still trying to lose my excess weight, but like you said before, when one’s fat metabolism is disregulated, it makes it that much more of a battle to lose the weight. Exercise is not the magic pill (done that-could run an hour on the treadmill at 190 lbs), fruit and veggies are not the magic pill, eating no saturated fat is not the magic pill (been there, done that-lol!), the only thing that does help my body respond to inch loss-this is what I seem to lose first on a strict low carb regimen-is a very low carb diet, meaning that 20 or less will take the inches off, but that 10 or less will take weight in pounds off more efficiently. -Staying at 20 may eventually move some excess pounds, but not if I give up in dispair first, for the time that it takes to see the needle move on the scale. Knowing this about myself took time and careful observation, so that I no longer lose hope about losing the excess belly bulge, but that I learn from what didn’t work and do what does work…and hang in there and wait to “heal”!

    A last point that does not pertain to the Dr. Oz show, but one that I’d love to see you cover, is a study on how one’s disregulated fat “responds” after large volume liposuction and tummy tuck (i.e. skin removal with the tuck and fat removal with the LVL lipo simultaneously). With disregulated fat “removed” from the body, I cannot help but wonder if the person’s metabolic resistance to weight loss would be corrected to the point that perhaps 20 net carbs could finally help those resistant to weight loss, to finally respond normally and see more effeicient weight loss and healthy weight achieved. Hmm…a study like this could separate groups of people according to what they eat, so that a group eating a high carb/lower fat diet like Dr. Oz advocates could be represented, and of course, a low-carb/high fat/moderate protein group could be represented and anything in between and follow these groups through a Large Vol. Lipo and tummy tuck…It’s been something I tried to post to you but it didn’t go thru when I first joined your blog. What do you think, Gary? -”Food for thought!” :) ))

    Thank you for having this outlet, Gary….I am a true fan of yours-your work is so important…but please never let them draw you out until you are blue in the face (I know you won’t :) ). If anything could be said of Dr. Atkins heart, he was in amazingly exceptional good health to be as old as he was, taking on all of those attacks, disguised as professionalism. I sometimes think that whether they are cognizant of it or not, many medical docotrs like Dr. Oz are fostering a culture of unacceptance of pure science…and pure decency.

    Truly & Respectfully,
    Mary (a.k.a. “Zephir)

  105. Anonymous says:

    Gary, great work. I’m surprised, however, to see fruits and nuts discussed together, when their macronutrient profiles are so radically different. If low-carbers are stalling in weight loss because of too many nuts, which is a more likely culprit, the small amount of carbs in them, or the huge amount of fat calories?

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1809/2

    http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3125/2

  106. Anonymous says:

    Gary You did a great job on the show (so far as I can see from clips on the oz site: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/man-who-thinks-everything-dr-oz-says-wrong-pt-1).

    I’ve never heard you speak so simply, keep it brief and repeat key points at every opportunity. Above all you maintained a pleasant demeanour and level voice, in spite of some of the muck thrown at you.

    I liked the way you challenged the old ‘truths’ with the simple statement that there’s no scientific evidence to support them. It was noticeable that Oz had no response to that. He seemed to rely on the old ‘Trust me, I’m a doctor’ routine, later on talking about opening up people’s chests and sinking his arms in to work on diseased hearts, as the reason for wanting to get the message right. So… ‘I have my hands on many diseased hearts’ seems to equal ‘I know what causes heart disease by just looking at it’ in the Oz universe.

    I’m in the UK, where lower profile doctors regularly trot out the traditional guff on radio, but with less impact than American equivalents. Your work does get discussed, but it’s passed around in cyberspace by those who are interested in the science and what works.

    For me, the question raised by this show is: Are Americans stupid, or do they have the capacity to think for themselves?

    Nina

    • Anonymous says:

      Some of us do have the capacity to think for ourselves and to look at the evidence, rather than blindly accepting what someone with a medical degree tells us. I like to think I’m one of them.

  107. if you don’t address and incorporate potential changes of NEAT between varied macronutrient distributions, your entire argument is invalid

  108. Anonymous says:

    I wonder if any folks in the audience actually approached Gary afterward to find out more about his postulated dietary advice, that is if any of them were actually convinced to some extent. Based on what I saw, it did not seem likely.

  109. Anonymous says:

    I’ve watched the Dr. Oz show since the beginning, and prior to that read one of his books, “You on a Diet.” I have observed him slowly changing his opinion and advice over the term of his show, more favoring the previously “evil” saturated fats as he would say things like, “I don’t have a problem with eating grass-fed beef.” But within this season of the Dr. Oz show it has deteriorated rapidly, turning into a comic strip game show with buzzers and squealing and ridiculous gimmicks. Dr. Oz himself clearly doesn’t believe many of the things presented on the show; clearly knows nothing about many of the show themes. My opinion is steadily declining, but he’s the one who trapped himself in contractual obligations to TV show producers. If, as someone said, Dr. Oz seemed like a nervous squirrel making weak counters to Mr. Taubes’ points, I would suspect that’s because he didn’t want to put forth strong counter arguments. At least I hope so, and hope he takes control of that show and his image and returns it to being a useful medical discussion show.

    • Evan E says:

      I have the same thoughts about Oz. I think he is well meaning for the most part, but still stuck in these damn paradigms common of the medical establishment. I see some hope that he might change one day. That he even does shows featuring Taubes, Mercola, and the HCG diet surprises me since they do not conform in the slightest with the powers that be.

  110. Anonymous says:

    Dear Mr. Taubes, I was ecstatic to see your segment on Dr. Oz. I am a physician and I have been telling patients this same information for years. I admire your courage. The primary hormones that promote fat are insulin ( by insulin resistance from stress hormones like cortisol) and estrogen that results in multiplication of fat cells which is why women grow those fatty tumors on their chest (we call breast). It is true that insulin causes us to turn glucose (our primary fuel source) into triglycerides vs. glycogen. However there are larger hormonal complexities. When we are emotionally stress or stressed by infection, allergies, toxic from our environment or have nutrient deficiencies, this too causes insulin resistance, conversion of carbs into triglycerides and increased fat cell deposition around our organs–> belly fat as well. The economics of our health care system, food industry, obesity industry, etc keep us from seeing the truth. I opted to educate women (who are most often blamed for their own obesity, called liars when they proclaim that they don’t consume the calories their doctors assume, or that they do actually exercise). The mostly male scientific community trained all of the women scientists and doctors. I spent 18 years in a medial training induced drug prescribing stupor before I realized that what I has learned from my professors, my own male physicians, and mostly male colleagues is simply the world as they see it through their male perspective, influenced by living in male bodies. They have simply been passing along what they were told. So, I’ve been changing the world one woman at a time. She in turn educates other women. When women stand in the mirror and proclaim that they hate what they see, their stress hormones actually circuitously make them gain more weight.

    I routine challenge the overeating =obesity, by asking them to explain thin people who eat a lot. Everyone knows that thinness is not from undereating. I have studies obesity for over 20 years because of my own weight gain. Prior to that I gave patients the same bad advice.

    • Charles says:

      Great response, sir, but do you equate skinny with healthy? I don’t. There are some very unhealthy thin people out there.

      • Anonymous says:

        Why do you assume this doctor is a man? And while s/he did not say skinny equals healthy, it is far more likely the leaner person will be healthier than the obese.

  111. Anonymous says:

    I admire the work of Gary Taubes more than I can say. After 55 years of digestive issues I learned I had celiac disease, and the scientific ignorance and misinformation out there on this particular issue was astounding. So few doctors knew a thing about this condition that it was truly remarkable and it told me volumes about the state of medical research/knowledge in this country vis a vis the grain lobby and political/governmental meddling in the 1960′s, when the food pyramid was created. I always say: “Follow the money.”

    After a 30 pound weight gain and feeling desperatively horrible all the time, I first tried the Atkins diet in 2003. After a few uncomfortable days of adjustment as my body purged itself of sugar and my high insulin levels lowered, I started to feel truly wonderful and dropped weight easily and without cravings and hunger. I was astounded at feeling perfect for the first time in my life. At the time I couldn’t explain it, because all the naysayers said I should feel really bad and sick from eating this way. So many in the medical community said this low carb diet was terrible, and I worried about this. Dr. Atkins was and still is so incredibly maligned. I didn’t yet know what to think about it all, but my recurring thought was this: “How could eating a way that makes me feel so wonderful be so bad. And eating how “medical wisdom” suggests makes me feel so terrible.” How to explain this?

    Fast forward 6 years, and a lot of dietary experimentation has showed me how my particular body needs to be fed, and it pretty much lines up with what Taubes thinks. I eat meat (some fatty, some lean), chicken, fish, leafy vegetables and things like broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage, very moderate full fat dairy mostly in the form of half and half in my coffee, occasional cheese. I feel truly sick if I eat more than just a tiny bit of occasional fruit, and despite loving these things, I cannot eat starches like potatoes, and I cannot eat legumes because they lead to horrible digestive distress. Obviously I eat no gluten, but I also learned I don’t do well with any of the other grains either, such as rice and corn. And I no longer eat sugar in any form on a regular basis. What I do eat is very limited and only occasional. Eating this way, I’ve easily lost all the weight I needed to lose and I feel wonderful all the time. As an above post noted, everything problematic for me was “corrected.” I have genetically somewhat high cholesterol (257 range generally), but I requested advanced testing recently and my HDL is wonderfully high (75) and my LDL is at the top of the fluffy range in terms of particle size. I’ll add that even in my Dr. Oz type dietary days, my cholesterol was a similar total but the HDL was lower and I didn’t have fluffy particles. From what I’ve learned about cholesterol testing, I no longer worry about the numbers given the results of my recent test.

    Reading “Good Calories, Bad Calories” was so very eye opening for me, and it explained fully all the things I’d experienced myself and gave me a context for my own observations and a sense of relief that yes, I WAS eating the correct way for my own body. “Why We Get Fat” was not merely a condensation of the earlier book, it provided a lot more information and was equally interesting to me. What has amazed me is how much controversy Taubes’ work evokes by those who are obviously very close minded and resistant to considering these ideas. The people who are most angry about his ideas seem to be those who haven’t tried eating this way more than a day or two. A day or two simply isn’t enough, sorry to say to the naysayers. As with Dr. Atkins’ ideas, those who haven’t read Taubes’ books are dismissed his impressive research and categorized him and his books as just wacky diet books. And as with Atkins, people who attack the ideas and the work don’t actually know what was said. So many people persist in thinking the Atkins diet, for example, is a diet where you stuff yourself with fat fat fat. Yet the same people haven’t even read the book to learn what the program consists of. Superficial thinking, to say the least. The more vociferous someone is again the low carb/low sugar ideas, the less they seem to know about it all. Amazing.

    As for the Oz show, I saw him do a show on celiac disease, which I had studied extensively and knew a great deal about. I found his show incredibly superficial and misleading, and he did somewhat the same thing with Taubes’ episode. I used to watch Oz, and would agree that overall he presents fairly sketchy information with a whole lot of entertainment fluff thrown in. I got tired of the superficiality of it all and rarely watch now. Oz has done a real disservice to the unhealthy and overweight people who were perhaps denied an opportunity to consider different approaches to weight loss and restoration of overall health.

  112. Anonymous says:

    I admire the work of Gary Taubes more than I can say. After 55 years of digestive issues I learned I had celiac disease, and the scientific ignorance and misinformation out there on this particular issue was astounding. So few doctors knew a thing about this condition that it was truly remarkable and it told me volumes about the state of medical research/knowledge in this country vis a vis the grain lobby and political/governmental meddling in the 1960′s, when the food pyramid was created. I always say: “Follow the money.”

    After a 30 pound weight gain and feeling desperatively horrible all the time, I first tried the Atkins diet in 2003. After a few uncomfortable days of adjustment as my body purged itself of sugar and my high insulin levels lowered, I started to feel truly wonderful and dropped weight easily and without cravings and hunger. I was astounded at feeling perfect for the first time in my life. At the time I couldn’t explain it, because all the naysayers said I should feel really bad and sick from eating this way. So many in the medical community said this low carb diet was terrible, and I worried about this. Dr. Atkins was and still is so incredibly maligned. I didn’t yet know what to think about it all, but my recurring thought was this: “How could eating a way that makes me feel so wonderful be so bad. And eating how “medical wisdom” suggests makes me feel so terrible.” How to explain this?

    Fast forward 6 years, and a lot of dietary experimentation has showed me how my particular body needs to be fed, and it pretty much lines up with what Taubes thinks. I eat meat (some fatty, some lean), chicken, fish, leafy vegetables and things like broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage, very moderate full fat dairy mostly in the form of half and half in my coffee, occasional cheese. I feel truly sick if I eat more than just a tiny bit of occasional fruit, and despite loving these things, I cannot eat starches like potatoes, and I cannot eat legumes because they lead to horrible digestive distress. Obviously I eat no gluten, but I also learned I don’t do well with any of the other grains either, such as rice and corn. And I no longer eat sugar in any form on a regular basis. What I do eat is very limited and only occasional. Eating this way, I’ve easily lost all the weight I needed to lose and I feel wonderful all the time. As an above post noted, everything problematic for me was “corrected.” I have genetically somewhat high cholesterol (257 range generally), but I requested advanced testing recently and my HDL is wonderfully high (75) and my LDL is at the top of the fluffy range in terms of particle size. I’ll add that even in my Dr. Oz type dietary days, my cholesterol was a similar total but the HDL was lower and I didn’t have fluffy particles. From what I’ve learned about cholesterol testing, I no longer worry about the numbers given the results of my recent test.

    Reading “Good Calories, Bad Calories” was so very eye opening for me, and it explained fully all the things I’d experienced myself and gave me a context for my own observations and a sense of relief that yes, I WAS eating the correct way for my own body. “Why We Get Fat” was not merely a condensation of the earlier book, it provided a lot more information and was equally interesting to me. What has amazed me is how much controversy Taubes’ work evokes by those who are obviously very close minded and resistant to considering these ideas. The people who are most angry about his ideas seem to be those who haven’t tried eating this way more than a day or two. A day or two simply isn’t enough, sorry to say to the naysayers. As with Dr. Atkins’ ideas, those who haven’t read Taubes’ books dismissed his impressive research and categorized him and his books as just wacky diet books. And as with Atkins, people who attack the ideas and the work don’t actually know what was said. So many people persist in thinking the Atkins diet, for example, is a diet where you stuff yourself with fat fat fat. Yet the same people haven’t even read the book to learn what the program consists of. Superficial thinking, to say the least. The more vociferous someone is again the low carb/low sugar ideas, the less they seem to know about it all. Amazing.

    As for the Oz show, I saw him do a show on celiac disease, which I had studied extensively and knew a great deal about. I found his show incredibly superficial and misleading, and he did somewhat the same thing with Taubes’ episode. I used to watch Oz, and would agree that overall he presents fairly sketchy information with a whole lot of entertainment fluff thrown in. I got tired of the superficiality of it all and rarely watch now. Oz has done a real disservice to the unhealthy and overweight people who were perhaps denied an opportunity to consider different approaches to weight loss and restoration of overall health.

  113. Tomasz M says:

    I am pretty sure dr. Oz understands Gary’s arguments and agrees with them but for obvious reasons, he cannot declare it openly: 1. the money from the commercials on and around the show and 2. what Gary mentions in GCBC: a heart surgeon cannot just tell his patients to eat more steaks and avoid grains because should it happen that the patient has any health problems later on (even remotely related to the diet), the surgeon would risk getting sued. What I think is important here is that Dr. Oz did invite Gary to his show to give him a chance to present them and, deliberately or not, did NOT present any serious arguments in favour of his ‘healthy carbs’ rich diet. My guess is that his true goal is to help Gary publicise ‘the truth’. With more people exposed to these ideas and truly understanding them, dr. Oz won’t have to stick to healthy carbs BS, and maybe that’s what he is trying to achieve. Well, at least I wish it was true…

  114. Jesse Barnes says:

    I just checked out clips from the show at Dr. Oz’s website. It was fun to watch, even though it came without all the detail and study references I’ve come to expect from you (on that note I’d like to see the studies regarding fruits etc that are so convincing to Dr. Oz).

    On cholesterol measurement though, I’m surprised you were so reticent. Test after test have show that those eating a low carb diet have better blood chemistry (lower triglycerides in particular) than those eating the standard food pyramid diet (or worse).

    As for LDL breakdown, there’s a lab in Berkeley that will do it: http://www.bhlinc.com/cirm.php?chapter=7. So if your doctor tests your cholesterol and you have very good HDL and triglyceride levels, but slightly elevated LDL levels (as mine were last time I had a test), you could always ask for more detail from a lab like the Berkeley clinic.

  115. NaomiE says:

    I think we should have a biggest loser show featuring low-carb diets with less excercise.

  116. Anonymous says:

    I am a 60 year old woman 5’8” and 182 lbs.
    After just seeing Fat Head last week I am now monitoring my carbs. 100 is the limit I am using.
    I noticed at the end of your book in the appendix you inserted the ‘no sugar, no starch’ diet.
    They are recommending only 20 carbs a day. I honestly do not think I can do that. I eat a lot of low carb veggies for fiber (plus I have upped my fats and meat).
    Can you comment on 100 carbs a day?

    • Anonymous says:

      Wolfgang Lutz in “Life Without Bread” determined that one needed to be under 72g to get healthy. I have lived on less than 20g per day for weeks at a time; you can adapt to what you want. I have done long water only fasts as well. You just have to decide you want the benefits and get over irrational fears. One has to get the attitude that my health is more important to me than doing what is “normal” or easier to do.
      All that said, depending on how insulin resistant a person is– most obese people are which is why they got fat–some people can eat more carbs than others. I am not obese, but I would soon be if I ate very many carbs.

    • Galia L. says:

      Looks like you just started to limit your carbs. Very often people have trouble to change a lot in a short period of time. I remember how it was at the beginning, in time you will adjust more. Who knows? May be 100 gram is just the right amount for you,especially if it is not from bread, grains, potatoes, fruits, sugars. Are you loosing weight, is your blood pressure is well controlled without medications, do you experience the normalization of appetite?

    • Anonymous says:

      thanks for all of the support.
      I have gone from 100 carbs a day down this weekend to 50 carbs a day
      and yesterday (Monday) I did only 20.
      My appetite feels normalized!
      Today o far I have only had 7 carbs and still have supper to make.
      I did exercise yesterday, first time in 6 weeks as my dad died and I was out of the country. (I did lots of walking while away but finally did weights and the eliptical yesterday at the gym) The exercise made my colon very happy! I will go to the gym tomorrow too.

      • Anonymous says:

        thanks for all of the support.
        I have gone from 100 carbs a day down this weekend to 50 carbs a day
        and yesterday (Monday) I did only 20.
        My appetite feels normalized!
        Today o far I have only had 7 carbs and still have supper to make.
        I did exercise yesterday, first time in 6 weeks as my dad died and I was out of the country. (I did lots of walking while away but finally did weights and the eliptical yesterday at the gym) The exercise made my colon very happy! I will go to the gym tomorrow too.

      • Galia L. says:

        I am sorry for your loss.
        About your regiment – try not to ignore potassium and especially magnesium supplements. At the beginning of low-carbing, it is likely to have leg cramps due to initial water dumping. Do not get magnesium oxide – is adsorbs poorly, chelated magnesium (for example magnesium citrate) absorbs much better. It could make your colon even more happy.Don’t overdo it, or you may develop a diarrhea.

  117. ferniemtbr says:

    So I’ve been on a low carb diet now for 6 weeks and feeling much better mentally and physically. I have fallen off the wagon a few times including the past weekend where I just had to have a pepperoni and mushroom pizza after a good hard run (jog). That same evening and also the next day, I felt like crap with low energy levels and feeling irritable. If you continueously eat that sort of diet, it’s hard to tell the difference in the way you feel but when it’s only on occassion, you can.

    If you remember from another post I wrote, I was a self proclaimed carb junkie and my belief is that when you are a junkie of any sort it will take a long, long time to truely be free of addiction, if infact it is at all possible. I feel this addiction to carbs is one of the reasons so many people including DR OZ will find a low carb diet of any sort boreing and in their eyes, impossible to maintain.

    I also believe there is a link between sugar addiction (carbs) and depression.

    You can read an article on this subject here at ferniemtbr

    Thanks

  118. Alan says:

    I thought that Gary Taubes missed several good opportunities to make salient points. He failed to explain how saturated fats are preferable to PUFAs, saying only that trans fats should be avoided. Then he failed to refute the logic behind Dr. Oz’s demonstration of artery-clogging fats when Oz made a tube out of pepperoni and stuffed it with the cheese stick. This is consistent with Oz’s general miconception of the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease. (In a previous show, Dr. Oz had made the comment that saturated fat remains solid in the human body, which is ridiculous on at least two fronts: 1) saturated fats become liquid at 98.6 degrees F, and 2) dietary fat does not enter into the bloodstream without first going through a complex digestion system.) Taubes also failed to explain why Total Cholesterol numbers are meaningless and why excessive carbohydrates, rather than fats, are responsible for high triglyceride numbers, which are important. He also failed to talk about rancidity issues in PUFAs that lead to oxidized cholesterol, which is a problem. Taubes also failed to mention how the imbalance of Omega3s to Omega 6s is a factor in obesity and other chronic diseases. Taubes failed to ask Oz why he now approves of coconut oil if saturated fat is so bad for you. Finally, Taubes should have said that for people who are highly sensitive to carbs, eating a “moderate” amount can lead to loss of control, which leads to splurging.

    • Anonymous says:

      Alan, it’s just such a shame you weren’t on the program instead of Gary. You sure ‘woulda’ put Dr. Oz in his place…right?

    • Anonymous says:

      You make some very good points which are absolutely spot on and important to the debate. However, in defense of GT, it seemed to me that Dr. Oz didn’t give him much time to talk, even interrupted him pretty much every time he was trying to make a point or rebut things that Dr. Oz said, so I don’t know how easy it would have been to insert all the points you list. A couple of minor clarifications: Some fats–namely those containing MCTs, lke coconut and palm oil–enter the blood stream more easily and directly, and melt at lower temps (high 70s) than those containing primarily long chain fatty acids. Of course that doesn’t change the fact that all fats are liquefied as soon as they enter the body and don’t hang around as solids in our blood stream or anywhere else! A doctor should absolutely know that and the fact that Oz doesn’t is just one of many reasons to take everything he says with a grain of salt.

    • JeffreyB says:

      The public should never have been taught to think of dietary fat in terms of “saturated” or “un-saturated”; that has only increased confusion. The healthy sources of dietary fat for humans are: animal, nut, and fruit. All other sources of dietary fat should be strictly minimized.

    • JeffreyB says:

      The public should never have been taught to think of dietary fat in terms of “saturated” or “un-saturated”; that has only increased confusion. The healthy sources of dietary fat for humans are: animal, nut, and fruit. All other sources of dietary fat should be strictly minimized.

  119. The real weak thing in your TV-performance in my point of view was that you let Dr. Oz hit you around the ears with the fact that you also advocate processed meat like sausages and bacon. I know you don’t (I’ve read GCBC), but now the audience does not know that. For the rest you did fine, but for Dr. Oz and the public opinion one weak spot is enough.

    • CarbSane says:

      Umm… Oz didn’t “hit him around the ears” when in his intro it was Gary himself who says he eats eggs with cheese, bacon and sausage every morning. Taubes may not advocate eating them, but he sets an example of eating them.

    • Anonymous says:

      If they are made without the junk of hfcs, nitrates, etc, there is nothing wrong with a moderate amount of sausage or cheese. Eggs would have been one of the easiest foods to find for paleolithic humans, and are still good food. We should whenever possible go with traditionally raised meats, eggs, etc.

      • CarbSane says:

        Eggs would have been one of the easiest foods to find for paleolithic humans, and are still good food.

        I agree eggs are an excellent food, but easy to find? Obviously paleo’s had access to eggs as a food source, but somehow I doubt large birds and reptiles were giving up on their eggs = survival w/o a significant fight, and these would only have been available intermittently as a food source. Surely 2 eggs every morning is quite a bit more than our ancestors had access to.

        • Anonymous says:

          There are thousands of egg laying creatures that are not large birds or reptiles. Two eggs a day probably was not paleo humans’ way to eat; more like a dozen at a time in the season.

          • CarbSane says:

            Does that even make common sense? If they were so good at stealing eggs their supply would die off now wouldn’t it. Small birds don’t lay very big eggs and tend to nest in hard to get to places. Loren Cordain says: “Without question our preagricultural ancestors would have collected and consumed eggs from birds’ nests whenever possible. However, in the wild, bird eggs only appear seasonally. Hence, pre-agricultural humans could have never consumed two eggs for breakfast every morning of the year similar to some westernized people, but rather only occasionally for a few brief weeks or months.”

          • Anonymous says:

            Sounds like the same is probably more true about modern fruit, or vegetable, or grain intake. Pre-ag humans would’ve been scavenging and hunting a wide variety of animals and insects, so if the question is was their diet more “egglike” or “fruitlike”, I think the point is that it would have been more equivalent to two (or more) eggs a day for breakfast.

            And FWIW, there were lots of die offs thanks to human predation in paleolithic times. Nearly every north and south american large animal was hunted to extinction shortly after we crossed the Bering Strait.

          • CarbSane says:

            That wasn’t the question though. Who more qualified to answer the question than Loren Cordain?

        • Anonymous says:

          There are thousands of egg laying creatures that are not large birds or reptiles. Two eggs a day probably was not paleo humans’ way to eat; more like a dozen at a time in the season.

        • Anonymous says:

          Carb Sane is now a paleolithic expert, on top of being a nutritional expert, on top of ‘knowing’ that GT is wrong about his central hypothesis, on top of having a full time job.

          CarbSane is this trolling really worth whatever level of click through you get from Gary’s blog?

          • CarbSane says:

            I didn’t claim to be a paleo expert. I got the info on eggs from Loren Cordain.

            You seem to like to troll my blog!

          • Anonymous says:

            I had gone to your blog a few times to see if there was any basis for your Taubes fixation and I did make one comment. I don’t troll your blog because I don’t find it credible or interesting. Why you continue to troll GT’s blog is obvious – click throughs to your own blog.

            Happy Trolling Ms (Mr?) Carbsane.

        • Anonymous says:

          an anecdote from a non-contemporary source.

        • Paula says:

          Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “Little House” series talks about wild birds so thick the skies were dark with them. The American prairie was teeming with bird life, and not a few birds are ground nesters. I myself have watched a good mamma bird (in my native Minnesota) hop and pretend to be hurt, JUST keeping out of reach, in order to lure me away from her nest — I roamed the country side quite often so experienced this on not a few occasions… Before they took to cutting the tall grass along the highways in MN (in the mid-1960s), on the way to the lake we’d COUNT the pheasants — would count between 9 and 12 on average every trip into Fergus Falls from Jewett Lake (11 miles) where we lived. After they started the grass cutting along the roads, we’d rarely spot them…BUT IMAGINE before those roads were even BUILT!?!

          Our ancestors didn’t have a lot to do all day but look for food. IF evolution is true. I prefer to read the brilliant and hilarious David Berlinski and have my doubts. Do I know where we come from? No, but I have my doubts that it was a warm pool — actually that reference came from a throw-away line by Darwin, that once Darwin was made a Man-God, got spun into some pretty wild stuff. Francis Crick’s “directed panspermia” (earth was seeded people-wise from outer space), anyone?

          What I like about this diet stuff is, we can be linked (no matter our other beliefs or lack of them) to a way of eating that WORKS.

          • CarbSane says:

            Ahhh … Little House on the Prarie … that classic TV series based on LIW’s books about a young paleo girl who spends her days foraging for non-starchy veggies and eating insects. I recall Laura’s Mom used to sell the eggs from her chickens to Olsen’s Merchantile.

            Imagine before roads? Yeah, paleo dude would have to forage through thick grasses with who knows what else lurking to score a few eggs?

            Here’s how this discussion went:
            NancyDD: Eggs would have been around the easist thing to find
            Me: Nope
            Alan: You’re a know it all who knows nothing
            Me: Nope, info is from Loren Cordain
            You: There were lots of birds in Laura Ingalls day …. can’t we all just get along

            C’mon folks! Eggs are fine. But let’s not spin romanticized tales or make claims that humans evolved on a diet of several eggs a day or more.

          • Paula says:

            “A neurotic refuses to LIVE his own suffering…” But first, memories of eggs…

            My Daddy and Granddaddy came home one summer day (Jewett Lake outside of Fergus Falls, MN) — yes, I will admit this was seasonal — and they were as excited as two boys. They’d found a huge cache of turtle eggs which they proudly displayed. 30? 60? I looked at them with my wide-eyed kid’s eyes – I couldn’t believe so many could come from one creature’s body. Not bad for a day’s hunt! Not that they were looking… Around our house we also feasted on frogs legs…During berry season we’d drive along the dirt roads and pick tons of elderberries; when visting the cattle with Daddy we’d be sure to find blackberries here and there in the pasture…

            CarbSane, you seem like such a bitter person. What brought about such pain, that you try to pass it to others in every post?

            “…romanticized tales…” The bitter-eyed realist.

            I’m not saying this to put you on the spot — no one knows who you are and no one knows who I am — and I’ve had my share of issues both mental and emotional — I suppose we all do as we grow. But I’ve never liked bullies. Or people who can only hate other people and who want to destroy the joy they find around them (“Every eye is an evil eye which looks in unto a mood apart” – Robert Frost). Who when they encounter joy and relief (which LCHF brings to people who finally feel GOOD, lose weight easily, won’t get cancer, Alzheimers, yadda yadda yadda)… try to break the spirit of the group, despise it and do their best to cast a pall on it.

            You kind of remind me of the Wicked Witch of the West. “Nyeh heh hey, my Pretties, you’ll dead sooooooooooooon!” May Toto bite you.

            My Daddy was a psychiatrist, but ONE THING he could not explain to me, to my satisfaction, was what a NEUROSIS was. I was in my early 20s, and very curious. I had a burning desire to know what a neurosis was. Being a major reader (a readaholic – I have prayed to be released from this quasi-vice since there are also many OTHER things in my life I need to be doing…), I came upon an answer that satisfied me (in fact, totally delighted me! I feel lucky to have come across it) in Jung. He said a “neurotic refuses to LIVE his own suffering.” (I expect you to mock my capitalizing, by the way; I’ve told my relaxed innards to gird up for this.)

            We all have acted the neurotic at times. Misery loves company, that sort of thing. Moods are fungible. We can pass them on to others and the instant we do, we feel free of them. But passing them on to others doesn’t deal with them. The unhappiness, the mood, has hit us because it is OUR problem. Some consider a problem an important thing. In a sense, a gift.

            More on a “neurotic refuses to LIVE his own suffering” and the notion that moods are fungible — if we are neurotic, we unfairly (habitually and constantly) unload our bad moods on others. We make innocent, unwilling (and unwitting) people carry our burdens while we feel relief. And further hatred for the sucker who took our burden. It’s a nasty affair.

            I looked the word up just now to be sure it means what I think it means. FUNGIBLE: “Being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind…” In other words, if I am in a bad mood, and can get someone else to be confused and unhappy, I actually feel BETTER. They’ve taken my problem away. For a time. But this isn’t fair for them, and it isn’t good for me. Like there isn’t a God above us, as if there isn’t a price to pay.

            I’d rather in life there was a price to pay. It makes life more dangerous (mightn’t I end up in Hell? or Purgatory with no one praying to get me the Hell out of there? ;-) , but it makes life deeper; it makes it more important that we get it right.

            And all this to say, “Your bad mood is YOUR problem. Don’t make it everybody’s.”

          • CarbSane says:

            I think neurotic is a good term to apply to someone who is so offended by anyone that they need to write such a post that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Have a nice day Paula.

          • Paula says:

            Glad you read it, Carby. Your posts seem to slide curiously off topic too. “Romantic notions…” – how scientific a comment is that? Typical of the sarcastic, imperious tone of your posts. You are scary.

  120. Anonymous says:

    The buzz about the Oz show was all over the sites I visit. The wheels of change turn slowly, but the fattening of the so-called advanced nations is beginning to alarm even diehard skeptics. Ultimately, as I see it, there are to critical groups who will really promote the acceptance of what causes obesity: parents and insurance companies. My two granddaughters are always the leanest, fittest kids in any group their in from soccer to choir. My daughter is very concerned that they should understand what it takes to be healthy; we have many people in our family who have traversed the long road of diabetes to death consuming untold dollars of medical benefits, drugs, etc., all the while getting sicker. Insurers should be the first, as they did with cigarettes (which doctors used to recommend!), to recognize that we who follow the low carb/primal/paleo natural way to eat are not the ones that they have to pay out for. I am now off meds that cost over $2000 annually, and I was on half what many of my friends are taking. When these two groups see the light, the Taubes message will soon be gospel. At this time, according to a on-site poll of Marksdailyapple.com, most of the approximately 100,000 people who visit the blog are Generation X, or the age of most families with young children. I’d say that is a hint of what’s to come.

  121. Anonymous says:

    Dear Mr. Taubes,

    I wanted to thank you for taking the time to write WWF which I read after reading about you and your book in Reader’s Digest.
    My husband and I would be two dots on either side of a weight bell curve. He and his family (including the females) cannot gain weight and me and my family (including the males) gain weight easily. At 30 years old my husband (6’2”) weighed 137lbs and I (26) weighed 148 lbs (going between a low of 136 lbs to a high of 160lbs) with yo-yo dieting and lots of running! Over the course of 24 years I have seen how my husband’s body regulates his fat tissue (well, what little he has). My husband will turn 54 this Fall and he weighs 160lbs (still 6’2″) , which I think his body has held stable for about 10 years now. I have observed that when he becomes ill (or worried) and eats less and the weight come off of him (which because he is so slim is very noticeable), then when he is well again, there is about a 2 week interval where he is hungry all the time (he forages in the kitchen at night a bit more or he will come home with ice cream) and Voila! the weight is back and then it’s like a switch is thrown and he is no longer searching for more food after dinner, etc. and goes back to his normal fare. My husband’s body had maintained the same weight within a 5lb differential for the 24 years ! This with no conscious effort on his part or formal exercise at all , nor does he restrict what he eats in any way. Ironically, my husband and his family have always been very kind and understanding about my struggles with weight because they have tried themselves to gain weight at different times with no lasting success. So they understand how hard it is for me because they have experienced the opposite but equal reaction in their own bodies!

    Ok, the other side of the bell curve – I am a 50 year old female 5’3 and weigh 225lbs – obese) and have done all manner of things since the age of 14 to keep my weight down (except smoke) including gastric banding (2006). I have been a member of a gym since I could sign a contract (18). I lost 34lbs during the summer of my 14th year when I joined OA (the only child in the room) and back then the thinking was if your addicted to sugar and starch then drop those foods from your diet (including packaged items where sugar is the first 3 ingredients) -sound familiar? I kept that weight off for 17 years and so was part of that elusive 2% of people who have lost significant weight and kept it off for 5 years or more. Then I began to eat the sugary stuff again and gained 60lbs. I lost 70lbs after the gastric bypass (more from not being able to eat breads and pastas I think now) and then in 2007 I lost 1/2 my thyroid to a tumor and have since been dealing with hypothyroidism. Which is not just weight gain – excessive menstruation, brain fog, dry skin, loss of libido, cold even on hot days, aching legs, extreme fatigue, depression. In the initial 2 years after the thyroid surgery, while my doctor and I worked to find the right level of T4, I gained 44lbs,(eating and exercising the same way I had been which had produced a 70lb weight LOSS). In the 3rd year, still not feeling well and having gained all that weight I begged my doctor to add T3 to the mix (which he did after I threatened to go to another doctor!) and have gained an addditional 8lbs – eating the same way that produced the 44lb weight gain after thyroid and the 70lbs pre-thyroid (but interestingly enough I gained only 8 lbs and was not exercising as much as I had hurt my knee). Pretty potent evidence of the impact of thyroid hormones on metabolism.

    Recently a series of events (reading about your book in Reader’s Digest, having my annual physical and my doctor insisting I join Weight Watchers (and ordering a slew of blood tests – don’t have the results yet) led me to reading your book and then reading the New Adkins book. Deciding against Weight Watchers, I am now on the road to losing the weight from the thyroid condition by following the New Adkins plan. I am in the Induction phase (2nd week) and have lost 10 lbs. I feel great and have had no cravings for sweets (my personal undoing). I belong to a gym (still) and love yoga, free weights, swimming and aqua fitness classes. I also spend time walking to and from the train station to work, walking my dogs on the beach and around the neighborhood, heavy duty gardening (tote those trees and heave that mulch) and less enjoyable – walking on a treadmill, so for an old, fat broad I’m pretty active or at least compared to my husband anyway :)

    One of my favorite fantasies is making some of these know-it-all doctors and other people who are so cruel to the obese live with someone like my husband and have them experience life with low thyroid, then I think they would be cured of their wrongheadedness and cruelity – yet doctors and people in general think that people like my husband must be under eating or over active (NOT!) and that people like me are overeating and under exercising (NOT). I was especially moved by your comment in the Reader’s Digest article where you said that when you see an obese person you see someone with a metabolic disorder (I’m paraphrasing).

    Keep up your good work and best of health and happiness to you and yours.

  122. Anonymous says:

    Dear Mr. Taubes,

    I wanted to thank you for taking the time to write WWF which I read after reading about you and your book in Reader’s Digest.
    My husband and I would be two dots on either side of a weight bell curve. He and his family (including the females) cannot gain weight and me and my family (including the males) gain weight easily. At 30 years old my husband (6’2”) weighed 137lbs (28 x 34 pant I think?) and I (26) weighed 148 lbs (size 12) (going between a low of 136 lbs to a high of 160lbs) with yo-yo dieting and lots of running! Over the course of 24 years I have seen how my husband’s body regulates his fat tissue (well, what little he has). My husband will turn 54 this Fall and he weighs 157lbs (still 6’2″) , which I think his body has held stable for about 10 years now. I have observed that when he becomes ill (or worried) and eats less the weight come off of him (which because he is so slim is very noticeable), then when he is well again, there is about a 2 week interval where he is hungry all the time (he forages in the kitchen at night a bit more or he will come home with ice cream) and Voila! the weight is back and then it’s like a switch is thrown and he is no longer searching for more food after dinner, etc. and goes back to his normal fare. My husband’s body had maintained the same weight within a 5lb differential for the 24 years ! This with no conscious effort on his part or formal exercise at all , nor does he restrict what he eats in any way.

    On the other side of the bell curve – I am a 50 year old woman and weigh 225lbs – obese and have done all manner of things since the age of 14 to keep my weight down (except smoke) including gastric banding (2006). I have been a member of a gym since I could sign a contract (18). I lost 34lbs during the summer of my 14th year when I joined OA (the only child in the room) and back then the thinking was if your addicted to sugar and starch then drop those foods from your diet (including packaged items where sugar is the first 3 ingredients) -sound familiar? I kept that weight off for 17 years and so was part of that elusive 2% of people who have lost significant weight and kept it off for 5 years or more. Then I began to eat the sugary stuff again and gained 60lbs. Got pregnant and gained another 17lbs (my son weigh 7lbs), developed C-difficile in the hospital after an emergency C-section (intestines screwed up for a long time), lost 30lbs from the C-diff and then gained it all back after that was finally cured (3 months on antibiotics). In 2006 I lost 70lbs after the gastric bypass (more from not being able to eat breads and pastas I think now) and then in 2007 I lost 1/2 my thyroid to a tumor and have been dealing with hypothyroidism since then. In the initial 2 years after the thyroid surgery I gained 44lbs,(eating and exercising the same way I had been which had produced a 70lb weight LOSS) (Just taking T4) and in the 3rd year ,after begging my doctor to add T3 gained just 8lbs – eating the same way that produced the 44lb weight gain after the thyroid surgey and eating the same way that resulted in the 70lbs LOSS pre-thyroid (but interestingly enough I gained only 8 lbs and was not exercising as much as I had hurt my knee). Pretty potent evidence of the impact of the thyroid hormones with respect to metabolism and weight control.

    Recently a series of events (reading about your book in Reader’s Digest, having my annual physical and my doctor insisting I join Weight Watchers (and ordering a slew of blood tests – don’t have the results yet) led me to reading your book and then reading the New Adkins book. Deciding against Weight Watchers, I am now on the road to losing the weight from the thyroid condition by following the New Adkins plan. I am in the Induction phase (2nd week) and have lost 10 lbs. I feel great and have had no cravings for sweets (my personal undoing). I belong to a gym (still) and love yoga, free weights, swimming and aqua fitness classes. I also spend time walking to and from the train station to work, walking my dogs on the beach and around the neighborhood, heavy duty gardening (tote those trees and heave that mulch) and less enjoyable – walking on a treadmill, so for an old, fat broad I’m pretty active or at least compared to my husband anyway :)

    One of my favorite fantasies is making some of these know-it-all doctors and other people who are so cruel to the obese live with someone like my husband and have them experience life with hypothyroidism, then I think they would be cured of their wrongheadedness and cruelity – yet doctors and people in general think that people like my husband must be under eating or over active (NOT!) and that people like me are overeating and under exercising (NOT). I was especially moved by your comment in the Reader’s Digest article where you said that when you see an obese person you see someone with a metabolic disorder (I’m paraphrasing). We sure could use more kindness towards others in this world!

    Keep up your good work and best of health and happiness to you and yours.

  123. I wish Gary had taken a moment to point out that a person eating a high glycemic diet is dependent on glucose for energy in the short term, and that anyone looking to remove the physically addictive sugar from their diet would experience the immediate withdrawals Dr. Oz experienced. As someone who eats a ketgenic diet, the diet Dr. Oz eats would leave me sick and lethargic all day too. ~Paleo Huntress

    • Anonymous says:

      I especially like your point about GERD. Before I went low-carb back in 1999, I was popping a Pepcid AC five nights out of the week. After one day of low-carb eating, my GERD problem was gone. I was amazed. Keep up the good fight!

    • Annoyed by Paleofrauds says:

      I wish Taubes would have lost a bit more weight before going on the show – hard to believe a fatso diet guru.

  124. Anonymous says:

    Dr Oz said saturated fat makes blood sticky. Lets do an experiment in the kitchen. Pour some apple juice onto the floor. Allow it to dry. A shoulder width away put some melted butter on the floor. Holding on to the back of a chair, put one foot on the juice and the other on the butter. Which foot sticks to the floor?

  125. Anonymous says:

    Dr Oz said saturated fat makes blood sticky. Lets do an experiment in the kitchen. Pour some apple juice onto the floor. Allow it to dry. A shoulder width away put some melted butter on the floor. Holding on to the back of a chair, put one foot on the juice and the other on the butter. Which foot sticks to the floor?

  126. John says:

    I watched Mr. Taubes episode on Dr. Oz last night on the website and I didn’t think it was that bad. It’s obviously not a forum for a serious scientific discussion, and the exposure it garnered for Gary’s message is invaluable.
    I’ve read both GCBC and WWGF recently and have found them quite fascinating and the message compelling. I’ve also just read the Bao et al. paper referenced in this latest blog entry (http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/4/986.long). I might have missed some discussion on this idea of a food insulin index, but it seems like it would be a very useful thing. If the problem with dietary carbs is the insulin response they provoke, then this index would seem to get more directly at the problem, and be a better guide to what we eat. The amount of carbs in the food item is then just a crude proxy, and maybe not even that according to some of the numbers given. Beef steak, for instance, has a higher FII than pasta? And all-bran cereal and whole milk are essentially the same as poached eggs? Now I’m confused….

    • JeffreyB says:

      It looks like some nice natural fat mutes your body’s insulin response to the carbs. Perhaps this explains the French Paradox (how they can eat so much bread and not get fat).

  127. Just wanted to pass this on …

    I’ve been telling my friend about WWGF and yesterday she called me to tell me about her friend. Her friend was just flipping through the channels and came across the Gary Taubes on Dr. Oz show. She watched it and was so intrigued that she got WWGF, read it the next weekend, and is now LCing. I’m sure there were many more who saw through Oz and are on board now!

  128. Anonymous says:

    Thank you Gary for writing “GCBC” and ” why we get fat”. It all makes so much sense to me now! I was wondering if you had ever considered researching or if any has been done on the relationship between alcoholism, diabetes and overconsumption of carbohydrates? I am a recovering alcoholic and after I got sober 4 years ago I put on 40 pounds and have become increasingly lethargic. I realized I was eating almost all carbohydrates…especially refined. I could not get enough sugar! Not only was I having this issue I looked at my friends in recovery and this is something that has happened with nearly all of them. Most have put on tremendous amounts of weight and are diagnosed with diabetes or insulin resistance eventually.

    I just wonder if the “allergy” that Alcoholics anonymous discusses could actually be a metabolic super sensitivity to insulin? I think it could help so many people if a low carb diet could help to prevent alcoholism or help with the recovery process. In the first stages of widrawal it’s known that sugar helps with cravings. Is this because sugar and alcohol have the same impact on the body?

    I have personally been on Atkins since November and the weight is coming off slowly but at least I’m losing now ….low fat/high carb did nothing for me. Thank you for explaining the science behind the low carb approach and making such a big difference in people’s lives!

    • Galia L. says:

      After reading your post, I remembered that I read on the Tom Naughton blog http://www.fathead-movie.com/ about his problem with alcohol in past when he was carbohydrate addicted. He has no such problem now on the low-carb diet. I tried to find it but failed. Probably, it was not the theme of whole post, just in answers on comments.
      Sometimes I think that low-carbing may help to the tremendous amount of people with very wide range of problems not related to a weight loss at all – depression, female hormone-related mood-swings, children and adults with ADD, allergies sufferers, heartburn sufferers, most with GERD and Crone decease, people with migraine, schizophrenia, Parkinson, Alzheimer deceases,cancer, folks who try to stop smoking, getting divorced or going through some sort of personal crises…. It is a very long list. I am sure I missed a lot. I don’t think low-carbing will cure all that 100%, but will help to a great degree. Often, when it is some commercial on TV about a Perfect Cure for whatever, I can’t help but think – LC diet will help without side-effects. I know, it sounds sort of like promoting a snake oil grade medicine, but low-carbing is what it is – cure for the most modern and sometimes not modern health issues and problems.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks Gaila! I left a comment for Tom on his Fathead blog. I loved that movie btw! I agree that eating low carb with fresh whole foods will help with so many of todays afflictions. I have found though that most people just aren’t receptive to it and think it’s unhealthy. I’m still going to keep talking about it though and hopefully in time they can see for themselves that this works!

      • Anonymous says:

        I think it was in a comment.

  129. Paula says:

    Gary is stressed and anxious about how he appeared on Dr. Oz, as I would be, but he doesn’t have to worry. GT is just such a likeable guy that viewers are ALWAYS on his side (read the comments ANYwhere Dr. Oz and he go head-to-head; viewers write hilarious, dead-on things which are not going to improve Dr. O’s liking of GT). Liking Gary comes as a completely natural thing. He doesn’t have to try (a great asset of his is that he has the natural holding-back of a gentleman — which Dr. O doesn’t — which makes Dr. O seem desperate, which he is — a bit more on that below).

    The reason Gary is likeable is because he wants to KNOW. He knows how to know. And he takes us along with his knowing so that ultimately we know too and see thru his eyes. It’s a wonderful trip! I’ve read all his books. And articles. It’s totally changed my life and my hubby’s life (starting with GCBC, of which hubby and I read every word). As of 3/21/11 we will have been eating this new way for one year. I’ve already posted on the incredible health effects for us both. We’ll live an extra 20 years and be able to realize our dreams!

    Dr. Oz does have his virtues. He’s got a great YouTube video (google “Jorge Cruise Dr. Oz”) where they talk about sugar. In general vis a vis Gary, he TRIES to be fair (sort of). But ultimately his jealousy gets the better of him. He SEEMS to have it all. An interesting medical practice with the ability to literally repair people. The adulation of Oprah. His own radio and TV show. The magazine covers. Interviews on Good Morning America whenever he wants. But what he DOESN’T have is (1) TIME (to research); (2) a truly curious mind; (3) he’s totally fettered by what he’s already commited to video & print; (4) he’s in a sort of trashy, media-blitzy world where the subject changes constantly… My God, I don’t envy him. And along comes GT, GT the happy open-eyed innocent telling the world his amazing findings that can heal us all. That ARE healing us all. Dr. Oz comes down with a precancerous colon polyp this past fall. In GCBC one learns that missionaries/doctors in the colonial world (and the eskimo world) NEVER came across cancer. And were amazed by this. Dr. Oz paints it as genetic (“Now I have to alert the family to watch for this in themselves…”). No, Dr. Oz. Tell them to eat as hunter-gatherers, like Gary, like us, and they’ll be fine.

    Jealously doesn’t even describe Dr. O’s reaction to GT. GT’s freedom, the depth with which he gets to research (which is why Dr. O had to try rub it in, and call to his audience’s mind that GT is not a “dawk-tor” – how pathetic and embarrassing to do that, Dr. O – it has the opposite effect than you intend! Had GT been a doctor, he would have had none of the time to do what’s he’s done.)

    Gary Taubes may as well be the Messiah. Or as a Christian I’ll split it: Jesus, Messiah for the Soul. Gary, Messiah for the Body.

    Amen, brothers and sisters! As Mark Sisson (John the Baptist?) would say, “Grok on!”

  130. Anonymous says:

    I dislike going here but the evidence that Dr. Oz’s suggested diet doesn’t work is his own family. His wife and offspring are all overweight as indicated by images found using Google search. I won’t comment further on my other opinions of the “You” doctors scientific relativist approach and issues with his and Oprah’s penchant for woo and pseudoscience.

    • Galia L. says:

      His wife looks like somebody with BMI around 27, size 12. Quite reasonable for a middle-aged not naturally thin female on any diet. BTW, after I googled Dr. Oz’s family, I occasionally came across with her interview in which she said that she seriously limited wheat and dairy because it makes her feel energy deprived. Not clear what constitutes Liza’s diet . It is reassuring to know she listens to her body more then the advice given by the show.
      Hollywood standards are not for health or real people. I don’t think low-carbing will easily make most middle-aged women rail thin. Looks like the Mother nature is against it.

      • Anonymous says:

        My only response is that you should look at historical pictures of women before the 1960s or hunter gatherers of that age. They don’t look like her. His daughters are overweight as well.

        Size 12 and BMI of 27 is not a natural weight at all–it is only an average of the currently overweight society. I had a BMI of 27 and its gone to 15 with little exercise by restricting carbs on a “paleo” style diet. Minimal exercise and I’m probably around her age.

        • Galia L. says:

          Your example doesn’t look typical for me. Those who got IR by middle age do
          not have the metabolism of hunter-gatherers. LC could be a big help, but
          often is not enough to turn things back 100%. Also, for me it is unclear,
          how much the Nature wants us, middle-aged women, to be really thin. Even
          though, It is well known that BMI is not the perfect measure of health
          because it doesn’t take into account things like body type and body
          composition, it is in some cases convenient to use. There are a lot of
          stadies that demonstrate “… a low BMI was associated with increased risk
          of all-cause mortality, even among those with a lower normal BMI range. The
          wide range of BMI between 20.0 and 29.9 in both older men and women showed
          the lowest all-cause mortality risk.”
          http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v18/n2/full/oby2009190a.html . Despite
          that, I wouldn’t want to be more than 27..
          Looking at the pictures of Lisa Oz, I feel hope that from her direction
          Dr.Oz may have a good feedback about limitation of his nutritional advise.(I
          must admit, Oprah’s example didn’t make him think farther than Oprah is fat
          “because she needs love”.) She and her doters don’t look like naturally thin
          people who are able to eat whole grains and many fruits without gaining
          weight. Dr.Oz’s wife is interested in nutrition, listens to her body, and it
          is not impossible for such person to try something else .

  131. Anonymous says:

    I would like to voice my support for Gary Taubes and his message. I was already a believer in the low-carb approach to better control of metabolic problems like Insulin Resistance/Obesity/Diabetes2 thanks to Dr Atkins. When I read Gary’s earlier book “The Diet Delusion”, I was impressed by the sheer volume of research Gary had carried out. It was virtually a complete history of the development and effectiveness
    of diets for metabolic problems.

    Even more impressive was Gary’s attempt to differentiate between the bona-fide studies and the the not so bona-fide. This implanted a level of healthy skepticism in me to make me wary of much of the dogmatic nutritional nonsense that is being served up as “supported by research studies”.

    For example, when I was diagnosed as a diabetic type 2 by a specialist endocrinologist, I was sent off to a dietition to be educated in proper nutrition for diabetics. Well I can tell you that the dietition did not differentiate between type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Diabetes was diabetes to her and she handed me a diet which consisted of approx 60% carbs, 30% protein and 10% fat. When I questioned the wisdom of so many carbs for diabetes she told me that this was the diet the national diabetes board (or similar title) recommended, and that it was based on scientific research.

    Fortunately, in the light of what we now know, I didn’t do this diet for long. Over a number of years I have found that only a significantly low-carb diet works to keep my glucose levels and lipid levels under control. If I waver from the diet, and introduce more “healthy” carbs like complex carbs, the levels go up and so does my weight.

    I find the Atkins or Taubes explanations for these problems to be the only ones that have sufficient scientific logic. The high-carb /excess insulin/insulin resistance/obesity/diabetes2 connection has far more credibility than simply cut down on calories and avoid fats.

    Just one final comment. I haven’t read Gary’s latest book, though I fully intend to buy it.
    I browsed through an index, and noted that there were references to GI (Glycemic Index) but I didn’t see references to GL (Glycemic Load). Did I miss something? I believe GI only goes part of the way in measuring glucose impacts, whereas GL puts many foods into a different light. eg many so-called “good” complex carbs (starches) are demonstrated as having a bigger adverse effect on the glucose response than many so-called “bad” simple carbs (sugars) because of the relative size of the practical servings involved.

    This is a very important extension/enhancement of the GI concept and I would appreciate Gary’s and others’ thoughts on this.

  132. Anonymous says:

    I agree with much of the criticism, but Oz’s deli meat artery and cheese clog was still pretty funny, right?

    • Galia L. says:

      Most people from his audience act and look silly, like they feel to be in kindergarten again. Dr.Oz’s nutritional-clown-like performance with cheese and deli meat matched his audience pretty well. I am glad for you you found it funny, it just annoyed me.

  133. Anonymous says:

    While I agree fully with Mr. Taubes’ statements regarding so many of the obesity issues raging throughout not only the US but most of the world are the result of processed foods, the problem is, too much of Mr. Taubes’ information is based on so much mis-information from “arm chair quarterbacks” and his own bias and inexperience.

    Let me state for the record: I personally do not consume many grains but don’t avoid them at all costs.

    First, if Mr. Taubes were to spend any actual time living in the wilds…hunting, attending survival school…he would know that the diet he advocates in NO WAY represents the same diet found in the wild. With the exception of certain organs in any animal’s body, the largest % of “meat” on a wild animal is lean. I don’t have the specifics, but, from personal experience I would guess 65% of the meat on a deer, for example is lean. Not this fat-laden form of meat found in restaurants or stores.

    Second, it so easy to advocate animal protein when you can drive to the store or walk around the corner and there it is…all neatly wrapped up or served on a plate. In the wild, animal proteins are not within minute’s reach. Therefore, a true Paleo diet would include bugs. Very lean. Lots of edible, non-toxic plant foods, most especially foliage and berries, nuts and some roots. Meat goes bad very quickly…you stuff as much in as possible because you know the next serving may be a day or two away. Not a car ride away. That also points out that the chances a true Paleo type lived on a huge amounts of protein a fat is just nonsense…there is no possible way.

    Third, the SFAs in the wild are far, far healthier than the crap from commercial sources. Mr. Taubes conveniently leaves this out.

    Fourth, there are papers and texts which include those by Dr. Gerald Reavan, MD, that cite too much protein will create an insulin response equivalent to many moderate and high GI carbs. Red meat is the worst. I never saw that mentioned in either Good Carbs or Why We Get Fat.

    Fifth, Mr. Taubes blatantly misrepresents Dr. Ron Rosedale as an advocate of Atkins-style eating. Far from it. Mr. Taubes should carefully re-read Dr. Rosedale’s book and his positions on protein as well as SFAs.

    Sixth, Mr. Taubes’ dismal of exercise in Why We Get Fat is simply wrong. There are multiple changes that take place within our enzyme make up alone that validate why our bodies are meant to move and more efficient optimize fat burning. Our survival and evolution was the result of movement, not sitting in a New York cubical.

    There are sane, safe and realistic low carb/Paleo diets on the market. Unfortunately, Mr. Taubes’ is not one.

    • montmorency says:

      A small point on meat going rotten: “primitive” man could have (and has) developed methods for preserving meat, such as air-drying to make pemmican, jerky or similar. In addition, certain cultures may well have developed a tolerance, or even a taste for rotting or semi-rotting meat, in a similar way to the Inuit (from Stefansson’s description) developed a taste for rotten fish. If it was that or starve, they would have eaten it, and evolution should have taken care that they developed immunity to the bugs that were most likely to develop.

  134. Anonymous says:

    While I agree fully with Mr. Taubes’ statements regarding so many of the obesity issues raging throughout not only the US but most of the world are the result of processed foods, the problem is, too much of Mr. Taubes’ information is based on so much mis-information from “arm chair quarterbacks” and his own bias and inexperience.

    Let me state for the record: I personally do not consume many grains but don’t avoid them at all costs.

    First, if Mr. Taubes were to spend any actual time living in the wilds…hunting, attending survival school…he would know that the diet he advocates in NO WAY represents the same diet found in the wild. With the exception of certain organs in any animal’s body, the largest % of “meat” on a wild animal is lean. I don’t have the specifics, but, from personal experience I would guess 65% of the meat on a deer, for example is lean. Not this fat-laden form of meat found in restaurants or stores.

    Second, it so easy to advocate animal protein when you can drive to the store or walk around the corner and there it is…all neatly wrapped up or served on a plate. In the wild, animal proteins are not within minute’s reach. Therefore, a true Paleo diet would include bugs. Very lean. Lots of edible, non-toxic plant foods, most especially foliage and berries, nuts and some roots. Meat goes bad very quickly…you stuff as much in as possible because you know the next serving may be a day or two away. Not a car ride away. That also points out that the chances a true Paleo type lived on a huge amounts of protein and fat is just nonsense…there is no possible way.

    Third, the SFAs in the wild are far, far healthier than the crap from commercial sources. Mr. Taubes conveniently leaves this out.

    Fourth, there are papers and texts which include those by Dr. Gerald Reavan, MD, that cite too much protein will create an insulin response equivalent to many moderate and high GI carbs. Red meat is the worst. I never saw that mentioned in either Good Carbs or Why We Get Fat.

    Fifth, Mr. Taubes blatantly misrepresents Dr. Ron Rosedale as an advocate of Atkins-style eating. Far from it. Mr. Taubes should carefully re-read Dr. Rosedale’s book and his positions on protein as well as SFAs.

    Sixth, Mr. Taubes’ dismal of exercise in Why We Get Fat is simply wrong. There are multiple changes that take place within our enzyme make up alone that validate why our bodies are meant to move and more efficient optimize fat burning. Our survival and evolution was the result of movement, not sitting in a New York cubical.

    There are sane, safe and realistic low carb/Paleo diets on the market. Unfortunately, Mr. Taubes’ is not one.

    • Paula says:

      Mr. Taubes lives in California now, and his diet is very much low carb / Paleo. I listen to all his interviews and read his articles as well as his books. He is an avid exerciser himself, and KNOWS it has many plusses (used to do Slow Burn with Fred Hahn in NYC), BUT, his quibble with exercise is that it is NOT a good way to lose weight. In fact, exercising is NOT what causes people to lose weight. If they lose weight exercising, they’ve made some other changes as well. I lost 17 lbs (for the first time in my life) in 4 mos. without exercising. Just quit eating sugar and bad carbs. And started eating lots of eggs and bacon and the whole “Atkins” thing.

  135. Man, I loved you GCBC book, and im sure this one is great too. But I don’t understand, protein can raise your insulin as much as carbs. I do acknowledge that sugar is bad for you and the main cause of many of today’s illnesses, but the theory on insulin just doesn’t hold up. Like I said, protein raises insulin A LOT!

    • Anonymous says:

      Another consideration is not only does protein raise insulin, especially red meat, but the SFA in domesticated beef, etc., is loaded with Arachidonic Acid. Arachidonic Acid is an essential fat but too much is very inflammatory and is associated with tumor growth, for example. Inflammation, science has found, is associated with a myriad of potential issues from heart disease to cancer.

      Ferrucci, L; Cherubini, A; Bandinelli, S; Bartali, B; Corsi, A; Lauretani, F; Martin, A; Andres-Lacueva, C et al. (2006). “Relationship of plasma polyunsaturated fatty acids to circulating inflammatory markers”. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism 91 (2): 439–46

      Nelson, GJ; Schmidt, PC; Bartolini, G; Kelley, DS; Kyle, D (1997). “The effect of dietary arachidonic acid on platelet function, platelet fatty acid composition, and blood coagulation in humans”. Lipids 32 (4): 421–5

      Again, a big reason why low carb approaches that advocate leaner meats with healthier levels of fats, or, obtaining your fats from sources like nuts is probably a far smarter approach.

      • Oh no guys. I agree with you that low-carb is the thing to do.
        BUT the insulin theory doesn’t hold true. Low-Carb is good but for other reasons.

        @Galia: If you work out, that amount of protein is NOTHING! I eat way way more. More around 200+ grams. But that’s still not the issue, because Gary says that you can eat as much as you want of the rest if you limit your carbs. And that is just not true. Gary doesn’t say to limit protein or eat 40-60 grams a day.

        @Reedpn: Well, that’s if you eat low quality beef. You can get a great source from chicken, fish, grass-fed beef, eggs, nuts like you said. But nuts are very high in Omega-6, so I don’t think having them as the main source of fat is a great idea.

        • Hockey Guru (aka Poisonguy) says:

          The role of insulin, re: protein ingestion, is to partition–a word you’ll be familiar with if you read the book–the amino acids to the tissues that need them (i.e. muscle). Gary also discusses the various other hormones that are involved here. So, Gary addresses your concerns in the book, albeit briefly. You should read it, Aziz. It’s pretty darn good.

          • Anonymous says:

            Unfortunately, Mr. Taubes’ definition of the role of insulin and partitioning were not quite accurate. Insulin’s role is “energy partitioning”, not just shuttling (to use a term from the biology books) amino acids to the tissues.

          • Anonymous says:

            I read WWGF and heard Gary speak last Sunday and in both cases, as well as in GCBC, he maintains that Insulin’s role is exactly what you say–”energy partitioning.” I never read or heard him say anything about shuttling amino acids to the tissues. I’m not sure where you got the idea that he says it’s about shuttling amino acids to the tissues. What am I missing?

          • Hockey Guru (aka Poisonguy) says:

            As I said, regarding proteins (re: protein ingestion), insulin partitions amino acids into muscle, etc. Gary addresses this in chapter 11 (in “The Basics (Why Anyone Gets Fat)” section. He says, “It (insulin) makes sure, for instance, that your muscle cells get enough protein to do whatever rebuilding and repair is necessary…

            Although people tend to focus on insulin’s relationship with carbs or “energy partitioning”, insulin also has a kinship with fats and proteins.

        • Anonymous says:

          Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as grass fed beef any more. Unless you personally witness your cow being raised from calf to the slaughterhouse, there is no guarantee that animal has not been forced to eat “crap corn” (to borrow the term from the movie “King Corn”) and other garbage.

          Fish is not a good idea as a regular protein source. With the depletion of fish world wide in our oceans, cost and levels of toxins in the fats, except on limited occasions fish isn’t the best option.

          And nuts vary in their amounts of Omega 6.

        • Galia L. says:

          Different sources recommend different amounts of protein. According to Dr.Eades “Protein Power” it is between 60 to 120 gram a day depending on individual lean body mass and lifestyle. I eat the amount I want – around 60 and it suits my ketogenic diet and rather active life-style. It is close to what Dr. J.Kwasniewski recommends (I know he is controversial). After I eliminated all snacks and eat 2 times a day it is difficult to staff more protein into myself. It is sort of weird – no matter how much I love, love ,love my lamb chops, it is impossible to eat more than my regular portion, no difference how cooked.I stopped doing too much cardio at 50, but I do rollerblading, walking, hiking, gardening, not to mention yoga in order not to be sedentary and because I like it.

          There is a difference in insulin response between protein and carbs. Protein is digested more slowly and less efficiently converts into sugar ( it is another source of blood glucose), it also triggers a compensatory release of glucagon. The amount of protein to achieve satiety is much smaller then the amount of carbs. There are some interesting graphs in the post here http://paleohacks.com/questions/429/insulin-elevation-from-low-carb-foods-whats-the-deal#axzz1HFibJQM8.

        • Anonymous says:

          On what scientific research do you base your claim that the insulin theory doesn’t hold true? My degree (Masters) is in biochemistry and from everything I know about metabolic pathways, the insulin theory does indeed hold true. Why else would someone like my son, who is type 1 diabetic, need regular insulin shots to manage his blood glucose? It is not his amino acids or fatty acids that require him to take insulin! And he is very careful about moving around where he injects himself so as not to develop a localized accumulation of fat as shown in an illustration in WWGF. And it seems to me you are eating way too much protein for your kidneys–unless you are a body builder. Then you probably need that much. Gary doesn’t say eat as much protein as you want. He says eat as much as you want of food that is not carbohydrate in composition. That means protein and fat combined–emphasis on “combined”. Most people can’t eat that much protein and it’s probably a good thing–it stresses the kidneys to eat more protein than is necessary for normal building and repair of body parts. Relying on protein for energy needs is not a good thing. And I don’t believe all nuts are high in omega-6. Some are high in omega-3, most are probably balanced. Most people’s diets are too high in omega-6, true, but not from eating nuts–from eating vegetable and seed oils that have been extracted from the whole food. I’m not saying nuts should be the primary source of fat in the diet, just that there is no need to fear omega-6 overload unless one is consuming vegetable and seed oils, which I don’t.

          • CarbSane says:

            Margaret, nobody disputes that Taubes got his biochemistry right. All the paths etc. It’s taking them out of context and the causal way insulin somehow makes you accumulate fat that is wrong headed.

            Incidentally, recent studies have shown leptin therapy very helpful for glycemic control in T1′s. Something to look into.

          • Anonymous says:

            CarbSane, How can one take a metabolic pathway “out of context”? The hormones activate or inhibit the enzymes, and the enzymes speed up the pathway or slow it down. There is no “context.” Insulin activates lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and inhibits hormone sensitive lipase (HSL). Both of those effects act to drive fat accumulation. There is no “wrong headedness” in Gary’s hypothesis. I was glad to see you admit that he got his biochemistry correct, however.

            Margaret, Carbsane did admit that she was “not an expert” at the end of her Jimmy Moore interview. If you get a chance, listen to the interview.

          • CarbSane says:

            Simple gman, the existence of a metabolic pathway doesn’t make it significant. This is the case with de novo lipogenesis or the conversion of carbs to fat. Taubes stated in GCBC that up to 30% of carbs in a meal is converted to fat. He gives no citation. This is simply not true in humans. In massive carb overfeeding we see the excessive production of a few grams of fat from a hundred grams of excess carb. A biochem text discusses the pathways/reactions, but often doesn’t discuss the relative significance of them. Secondly, he takes processes “out of context” by only considering actions over the short term ignoring the longer term. Insulin is a case in point. Yes, it’s action is generally to put, and moreso to keep fat in fat cells. But it doesn’t stay elevated in the postprandial sense for 24 hours.

            No, I’m not an expert, but my educational background is far more suited to this topic than Taubes’ is.

          • Anonymous says:

            CarbSane,
            As my graduate school professor said years ago, “That is a good guess, however that is incorrect.”  And I agree with Dana over on Jimmy Moore’s forum – you don’t listen very well.  As I stated previously, in the Biochemistry text (and in Hellerstein’s journal articles), it clearly states that DNL is not a significant pathway in humans….. in non-overfed individuals.  Logically then, if you are overfed, then DNL is significant.  This smacks of conventional wisdom.  If you are overweight or obese, then you must have overfed yourself, and thus it is your own fault.  One of the reasons Gary wrote GCBC was to challenge the conventional wisdom, and he did a terrific job of researching the literature to do it.  I don’t know where he got the 30% figure.  But I found a reference that stated it was 20 % (Stawford et. al, American journal of Physiology, 2003).  Strawford is part of Hellerstein’s group out at Berkeley.  It took me about five minutes to find it on my computer.  Gary probably spent more time than me doing his research.  And I’m sure he spent more time on it than you have.  And I am glad to see you admit that insulin acts to keep fat in adipose tissue.  And I’m sure it doesn’t act to do it 24 hours per day, but it doesn’t need to – as any obese individual can attest.  When I observe most carb-addicted people, they are eating a lot of starch and sugar throughout the day.  They don’t stop until they go to bed, so they are in the postprandial state for a good part of the day.  One of the reasons for this is that starchy foods are cleared from the stomach very quickly, making the person hungry within an hour or so after eating.        Apr 1, 2011 03:26:51 PM, wrote:

            CarbSane wrote, in response to gman3164:Simple gman, the existence of a metabolic pathway doesn’t make it significant. This is the case with de novo lipogenesis or the conversion of carbs to fat. Taubes stated in GCBC that up to 30% of carbs in a meal is converted to fat. He gives no citation. This is simply not true in humans. In massive carb overfeeding we see the excessive production of a few grams of fat from a hundred grams of excess carb. A biochem text discusses the pathways/reactions, but often doesn’t discuss the relative significance of them. Secondly, he takes processes “out of context” by only considering actions over the short term ignoring the longer term. Insulin is a case in point. Yes, it’s action is generally to put, and moreso to keep fat in fat cells. But it doesn’t stay elevated in the postprandial sense for 24 hours. No, I’m not an expert, but my educational background is far more suited to this topic than Taubes’ is.Link to comment: http://disq.us/1kdxlmgman3164 wrote:CarbSane, How can one take a metabolic pathway “out of context”? The hormones activate or inhibit the enzymes, and the enzymes speed up the pathway or slow it down. There is no “context.” Insulin activates lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and inhibits hormone sensitive lipase (HSL). Both of those effects act to drive fat accumulation. There is no “wrong headedness” in Gary’s hypothesis. I was glad to see you admit that he got his biochemistry correct, however. Margaret, Carbsane did admit that she was “not an expert” at the end of her Jimmy Moore interview. If you get a chance, listen to the interview.—–Options: Respond in the body to post a reply comment.To turn off notifications, go to: http://disqus.com/account/

          • Carb Sane says:

            Well gman, you seem to be confusing *massive* overfeeding of carbohydrate with overeating. You don’t read very well. In the context of massive overfeeding we get DNL to the tune of a few grams from a hundred or more. And there’s evidence of such kicking a futile cycle into gear as well, but you would have to read my blog to learn this rather than Dana’s smattered skimmings and comments.

            http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2010/11/fat-futile-cycling-from-carb-excess.html

            Oh the irony anyway, because of course, we know nobody who gets obese by overeating anyway, right? That would be inane to suggest LOLOL

          • Anonymous says:

            Carbsane, I don’t need to read your blog to learn anything. I know and understand the relevant biochemistry involved in lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. If you are not an expert on it, then maybe you should refrain from commenting on it. But for kicks, I clicked on your link. Now here is where you are a walking contradiction: you argued that denovo lipogenesis is not a significant pathway in humans, and yet the study you referred me to has DNL occurring in skeletal muscle, as well as liver and adipose tissue. So I guess it is significant after all – something I already knew. But your communication style is proof of your lack of scientific integrity. If you are actually in the scientific field, the field is not being helped by you.

            Margaret, please don’t listen to Carbsane. I suggest going over to paleonu.com and read Dr. Kurt Harris’ blog – it’s loaded with great information. And read Peter at Hyperlipid – another great resource. Carbsane’s powers of observation apparently are not very acute. She allowed herself to balloon up to 300 pounds not once, but twice! You would think that an observant individual would’ve noticed a problem at say, 230, or 250, or 270?

            But go ahead, Carbsane – eat those starchy carbs that don’t get converted to lipids – and watch your weight creep back to 300 for a third time. God speed.

          • Carb Sane says:

            gman, I see you are as adept at taking biochemical pathways out of context as Gary. From the paper:

            it is clear that de novo lipogenesis, although low in skeletal muscle, can be markedly stimulated in muscle cells, particularly under conditions of high glucose (and/or high insulin) concentrations.

            DNL is not a significant pathway under most conditions. This study showed it to kick in in skeletal muscle with a high glucose load, likely far in excess of SAD content. Frayn states DNL is not a significant pathway in humans for Western diets, but holds out that it could play a larger role in high carb consumers.

            Taubes has no citation for his claim that perhaps 30% of carb in a given meal is converted to fat – and thus stored. You’ll note that the aforementioned DNL results in lipids subsequently being oxidized. Taubes (and Sisson and Gedgaudas to name two) argue that excess carb is turned to fat and STORED. This is not supported by the evidence.

          • Carb Sane says:

            BTW, by “high carb consumers” I’m talking like those cultures who get 80% on up in carbs

          • Anonymous says:

            No worries. I’m not listening to Carbsane. And I did check out Paleonu.com and Hyperlipid. Thank you–they are, indeed fine sources.

          • Razwell says:

            There are few people as ignorant about the scientific method than is Anthony Colpo. Genuine science never proclaims truth. Genuine science tests hypotheses and strives for consensus. Genuine science admits much uncertainty and vast unknowns. There are far less known than what is not about obesity . Colpo has demonstrated a profound ignorance about obesity, and refuses to accept what science has turned up such as common viruses, medications, gut microbiota, massive genetic component, malnutrition) Genuine science never speaks like Colpo does.

            No one , and certainly not Internet charlatan Anthony Colpo, has a complete understanding of the mechanisms behind the etiologies of obesity and coronary artery disease. To do so would require a complete understanding of human cellular metabolism. Science does not understand cellular metabolism that well- we only understand bits and fragments.

            Most of Gary Taubes detractors are just charlatans , with profound ignorance. Colpo et al are not genuine scientists at all. They are Internet marketers. Anyone proclaiming truth and speaking with such absolute certainty is an Internet crackpot. That is exactly what they are.

            Dr. Stephan Guyanet is a genuine scientist and speaks as such.

      • Anonymous says:

        cancer feeds on sugar. and protein can raise insulin, and will even double or triple insulin levels from carbs when eaten in combination.

      • Anonymous says:

        There are many good sources of fat besides the fat in meat: Olive oil, coconut oil, and palm oil, for instance., are way better for you than the fat from industrially raised beef and poultry, which I, personally, avoid to the best of my ability. Nuts are a good source of protein and fat and most are low in carbohydrates. The point is not to over consume any one source of protein and fat, but to get the majority of your calories from fat, some from protein and only a little from carbohydrates, particularly the fattening ones.

      • Anonymous says:

        There are many good sources of fat besides the fat in meat: Olive oil, coconut oil, and palm oil, for instance., are way better for you than the fat from industrially raised beef and poultry, which I, personally, avoid to the best of my ability. Nuts are a good source of protein and fat and most are low in carbohydrates. The point is not to over consume any one source of protein and fat, but to get the majority of your calories from fat, some from protein and only a little from carbohydrates, particularly the fattening ones.

    • Galia L. says:

      Just compare the normal amount of protein you suppose to eat during the day (40 – 60 gram) with the amount of starches and sugars people consume on standard diet. 100 gram of beef contains about 25 of protein, one egg – 7, one chicken leg – 36.
      Dr. Bernstein http://www.diabetes-book.com ,who treats diabetics with diet that requires minimal insulin being injected, doesn’t limits their proteins for insulin control, but limits carbs to 30 gram a day. According to his more than 30 years experience, limiting carbs is the key to the blood sugar control.

      • Anonymous says:

        There are also numerous doctors who’ve reversed diabetes with high carb diets, but, they’re based on low GI sources. A popular vegan doctor, Dr. Neal Barnard, MD, has reversed diabetes utilizing a plant-based diet.

        The key to western diseases, as Mr. Taubes notes, is processed carbs.

        Keep in mind, if “carbs” are so bad, the majority of the world would be diabetics–just read the diets consumed by “the Blue Zones”. Rices, legumes, potatoes. These Blue Zones represent the longest-lived peoples in the world as reported by National Geographic magazine and other publications.

        • Galia L. says:

          Just googled that Dr.your mentioned. Some PETA board member trained as
          psychiatrist who published his book about how to treat diabetes according to
          his ideology in 2007. Thank you very much.
          There is the golden standard for the diabetic diet – in Dr.Bernstein book
          (available to read on-line for free
          http://www.diabetes-book.com/).Unlikethat PETA activist, Dr. Bernstein
          manages his and his patients diabetes I
          and II on a low -carb diet and has no ideological agenda, except helping
          people with Diabetes for more than 30 years.He became an engineer first ,
          figured out how to manage his blood sugar on his own , became an MD after
          age of 40 y.o.He still practices medicine and lectures being more than 70
          y.o..Remarkable for a Diabetic I to reach such age at all.

          All that is out of the range of my post. I said that medical professionals
          who treat diabetics with low-carb diet in order to limit the amount of
          injected insulin don’t limit their meat consumption in order to achieve BS
          control. It is the citation from Dr. Bernstein book :
          “As you know, the body can convert protein to blood sugar, but it does so at
          a very slow rate, and inefficiently. Serum insulin levels derived from the
          phase II insulin response or even from insulin injected before a meal may
          thus be sufficient to prevent a blood sugar rise from protein consumption by
          itself. Dietary fat cannot be converted to blood sugar, and therefore it
          doesn’t cause serum insulin levels or requirements for injected insulin to
          increase. Say you eat an 8-ounce steak with no carbohydrate side dish—this
          won’t require much insulin to keep your blood sugar steady, and the lower
          insulin level will cause only a small amount of the fat to be stored.”

          • Anonymous says:

            Please note my statement was simply noting there have been different (and successful) methods to halt and/or reverse Type 2 diabetes.

        • Anonymous says:

          thing about pushing complex/unprocessed carbs is diets composed of these work on the same principles taubes proposes, only is not to the same degree. its like diluting poison, and then trying to sell ingestion of diluted poison over not ingesting poison at all. its silly.

        • Anonymous says:

          I need to stress this point to counter this type of argument – “if carbs are so bad, the majority of the world would be diabetics”

          The majority of the world do not suffer from metabolic syndrome X, and the majority of the world are not genetically predisposed to diabetes. In other words the majority of the world have genetic immunity to the negative effects of carbs. However the numbers are rising at unprecedented rates, suggesting the prevailing diets are augmenting the incidence and progression of these diseases. Your Blue Zones, or any other colour zone, or natives of Mystery Island for that matter simply belong to the lucky group. They are born with the ability to process carbs properly and therefore they can eat carbs with relative immunity, certainly from the above conditions.

          This is the point that’s always overlooked by your type of argument. What Atkins and Taubes are pointing out is that the unfortunate group are genetically predisposed to these carbohydrate intolerence diseases, and when they succumb, the only proven effective treatment is minimising the trigger ie excess carbs, or in more sophisticated terms – minimising high GL foods.

          I’m sorry, but it’s almost impossible to produce a practical “high-carb diet based on low GI sources” the two are generally incompatible. Have a good look at the GI tables, and at the same time look at the more advanced, more meaningful GL tables. The only truly low GI/GL carbs are a number of low -starch vegetables and some fruit. The revered complex carbs (starches) which such a diet would need to contain, have average GI’s of 55+. This might be high medium but definitely not low – (0 to 30 is low). I know they are often labelled Low, but that’s just another example of the nonsense dished out about carbs. In terms of GL. 1 cup of “good” brown rice has GL=222 relative to 1 slice of white bread rated at GL=100. ie the brown rice has more than double the glucose effect of the bread. This is not what diabetics need.

          I would go a bit beyond Gary Taubes and suggest [The key to western diseases= High GL carbs]. not just processed carbs.

          Accordingly from my arguments above I don’t accept “There are also numerous doctors who’ve reversed diabetes with high carb diets, but, they’re based on low GI sources”. What you will find is they INTRODUCED INSULIN INJECTIONS and/or drugs into the “treatment” This would then FORCE the diets to appear to “work???”. Most people with Diabetes type 2 already produce excessive amounts of their own insulin in response to high GL foods (the reason they readily get fat). But their concurrent Insulin Resistance means their excessive insulin can’t work properly. So where is the sense in adding even more insulin?
          Especially since insulin is the “fattening” hormone and excessive insulin is inflammatory.

          The beauty of the Taubes/Atkins diets is that they achieve diabetes control without the need for insulin injections (and often even drugs) in at least 2 ways: (1) They remove the trigger ie excessive glucose via high GL foods, (2) They result in weight loss (unlikely if you are using insulin) which in turn reduces insulin resistance.

          So you see, not everything is as it is reported or seems. You need to look beyond the hype and the rhetoric and the propaganda. Gary Taubes should be praised for doing just that.

  136. Anonymous says:

    BTW, where Dr. Oz went wrong? He should have challenged Mr. Taubes to a PET scan. The problem is, too many of the Atkins-style advocates from Dr. Atkins to bodybuilder Vince Gironda have died of heart disease despite adhering to a so-called healthy low carb approach.

    Low carb can work if done without all the foods that stimulate insulin and inflammatory factors in the body.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dr Atkins did not die of heart disease. He fell into a coma after a bad fall and eventually died. He did not did of heart disease, that is a total fabrication.

      • Anonymous says:

        I would suggest doing some additional research regarding Dr. Atkins’ heart disease. It was reported he fell. There also were numerous reports regarding his heart disease and clogged arteries.

        • Anonymous says:

          Please read this so as to stop spreading misinformation. http://usat.ly/f8AWHw
          He did not die of heart disease.

          • Anonymous says:

            This was written by Dr. Atkins’ wife, not the attending MD (coroner). There were reports based on information from the ME’s office that contradict the statement from Dr. Atkins’ wife, therefore, it is no more misinformation than what you’re referencing. For example, Dr. Atkins (per BMI standards) weighed 258lbs

            http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rival-diet-doc-leaks-atkins-death-report

            So, please quit referring to my posts as spreading misinformation when your source did not objectively quantify her statement or claims.

          • Anonymous says:

            Yeah he weighed 258 pounds, AFTER his injury and head trauma. He was 195 lbs up until he had his severe head injury. So yeah if your point in that a low carb diet doesn’t work while in a coma, then you are correct.

            As to her objectivity; did you want to polygraph her? Sheesh.

          • Anonymous says:

            Atkins’ wife has her own reasons for not providing objective information, whether they are financial or personal.

            And NO, he did not weight 258lbs AFTER his injury…there are *claims* that Atkins was 195lbs. On one of Dr. Atkins’ TV appearances a year or two before his death he certainly was not that lean.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUfVTJ5VMxc

            Just look at 5:41 of the clip. That is not a 195lb man.

            Your bias is in favor of Dr. Atkins. I think the guy misinformed and mislead because it hyped and sold books…this behavior was continued after his unfortunate death. There are healthier low carb approaches that are better for your health, more eco-friendly than what Atkins advocated.

            Instead, look at Art Devany…low carb, lean and healthy. Dr. Devany is probably the same age as Dr. Atkins in that video and looks considerably better. I certainly hope Dr. Atkins is no longer the poster boy for graceful and healthy aging and eating as he clearly does not make the case for his approach: it is too expensive for people on a tight budget and loaded with unhealthy inflammatory foods.

          • Anonymous says:

            if the atkins diet makes you fatter, i think that would be an easy observation for anyone following the diet…

          • Galia L. says:

            I don’t know what else destroys environment better than agricultural crops.Modern practice of raising animals is not perfect, but bringing crop as a healthy environment alternative is unreasonable. People in the amount there are now are bad for the environment. Probably, we should start eating and breading incects – the perfect paloelitic food.
            About tight budget – it depends. Eggs and chicken are not expensive. I like to buy animal body parts like beef tong, liver, heart. Very reasonably priced even when from grass-fed animals.. If you don’t know how to cook a heart, for example, or jowl meat, slow cook it in a salted water until soft , then remove from the broth, stir-fry or saute with any sauce or just garlic and sour cream. Broth is the base for a soup. I believe I spent less money now because I don’t buy food for snacks and that stupid breakfast cereals.

          • Anonymous says:

            A few thoughts:

            - The amount of water required to produce a pound of beef, per statistics I’ve seen, are outrageously high. I first questioned this claim as a vegetarian bias however the statistics from what I have found hold up. To produce a pound of legumes or grains, in comparison, water requirements are significantly lower.
            - Because of the demands in the US for beef, chicken, pork, factory farming (at this time) is the only way to keep up with the consumption. (Which is another reason why the gluttony advocated by Atkins should be discounted.) We’ve seen the horrible and gut wrenching horrors of factory farming–if you haven’t, just check out the film Earthlings. Many sources in the media have cited the deforestation of the rain forests in the Amazon in favor of ranches to raise cattle for beef that is shipped to the US.
            - The waterways of North Carolina are full of toxic runoff from the pork factories throughout that region and they wreak like hell in the summer heat. I was miles from a river (that is off limits for fishing) yet the stench was overwhelming. There are facilities (believe they’re ranches) near Lodi, CA, where piles of cattle manure that appear to be stacked two stories high. The stench in that area is horrible and I don’t know how the local residents can do it.
            - Of course, people are finally starting to wake up to the fact our oceans are badly over-fished.

            Agriculture does require the destruction of wildlands, but, we don’t encounter the same issues as noted above. (The need for pesticides, etc., IMHO is not something needed.)

            For a large family on a limited budget, eggs and chicken won’t go nearly as far as a meal comprised of bulk, whole carbohydrates, small servings of meat and a few vegetables. Just price out a bag of red beans vs. a pound of chicken.

            Also, if the US began enforcing the same laws as Europe regarding factory farming, the costs of meat, chicken and eggs would shoot through the roof. Anyone who has been to Europe will attest to the high costs of meat and even cheeses–a big reason why you don’t see the French, Spanish or Italians consuming massive amounts of those foods. (In fact, I have learned how to eat more slowly and subside on much less in the way meat, poultry and eggs while traveling in Europe.)

            This is not a treatise on going vegan, btw. It is simply pointing out our over-consumption of animal proteins is horribly destructive. A good first step is practicing a little dietary discipline.

            BTW, why hasn’t Mr. Taubes brought up any of this? I would encourage him to leave the confines of New York and visit the rivers of North Carolina. The ranch lands of California and the Amazon.

          • Galia L. says:

            We, humans, are bad for nature. It is not the reason for me to develop bad
            health by eating legumes and grains. I could eat more starches and sugars
            when I was young, now, at the age of 50, after trying different ways of
            eating, in order to stay in a good health, I limit my carbs to 30 gram a
            day. I wish I came to that diet earlier in life, because most of my health
            issues are based on tendencies to have allergies. Without grains and legumes
            and fruits I don’t need my asthma inhaler and cream for treating eczema any
            longer, no mood problems and many other things. In order to get back to
            grains I need not a discipline but a desire for self detraction. Probably,
            for nature it would be better if people die after 50.

            May be I am too hard on humans and it is possible to manage differently our
            food chain. Recently, on the Primal Wisdom blog I read an interesting story
            about arid land restoration project by Allan Savory through reintroducing
            cattle in the area
            http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/operation-hope-meat-is-medicine-for.html
            .

            “Allan Savory Savory won the
            2010
            Buckminster
            Fuller ChallengePrize
            of $100,000 for the Africa
            Center for Holistic
            Management(ACHM)
            in Zimbabwe by demonstrating that by INCREASING the number of
            livestock on barren land by 400% we can convert it from desert back to
            productive grassland”:

          • Paula says:

            Actually Mr. Taubes now lives in California. And he HAS brought up what you’re talking about, in the very beginning of Why We Get Fat: And What to do About it. He doesn’t deny such issues are issues. He says, tho, that his area of expertise is how to get humans healthy. And yes, carbs are cheap, but have you read his first book GCBC? They also make us VERY sick (including cancer, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimers, diverticulosis and on an on! – which costs LOTS of money not to mention lost joi de vivre and years of life with its accomplishments.

            Former vegan Lierre Keith’s “The Vegetarian Myth” is a truly great book (and I say that even tho some of her recommended solutions are a bit wacko, her observations of the problems are right on the money, re agriculture; no one is more impassioned and crazily (in a good sense!) eloquent than she on the subject.). You won’t believe L.K.’s book tho if you don’t watch King Corn (the documentary) first, and its follow-up “Big River.” Then you WILL believe Lierre. I never really knew my country until I watched King Corn. Light-hearted as it is, it is devastating. Like Food, Inc. in many ways. We unload all this corn on 3rd world countries and it HURTS them.

            Anyone else know of some similar documentaries?

            Joel Salatin knows how to farm. Look him up on YouTube. Michael Pollan showcases him in the Omnivore’s Dilemma. Joel Salatin is a genius farmer – I LOVE his “chicken tractors”!!! and on and on… He’s a very intelligent man. There are days one can visit his farm (“Polyface” in Swope, Virginia). Hubby and I are GOING!!!

            “Seeds of Deception” by Jeffrey Smith is eye opening (Monsanto and GMOs….).

            reedph, what you say is true! But Atkins will make people healthy, bad carbs kill us even if it takes 18-22 years for most to start being seriously affected. My only criticism of Atkins NOW is that it’s caved in to carbs too much.

          • Galia L. says:

            Here is the follow-up to the story from the Primal Wisdom blog (http://www.donmatesz.blogspot.com) about how to heal the Earth with the cattle: http://vimeo.com/8239427

          • Anonymous says:

            Not sure how to devine the weight of a man from a video, but whatever. We disagree.

            BTW, I checked out Mr Devany, and it seems he too is in the process of earning revenue from his diet.

            Can we just attempt to look at what the research and their diets reveal instead of tossing up claims of exaggeration and profiteering? Anyone who believes in their vision (or is associated with that vision) and makes a living from it can be tarred with that brush – including Mrs Atkins, and Mr Devany.

          • Anonymous says:

            My point regarding Mr Devany was/is his appearance vs. Dr. Atkins. Devany is around the same age as Atkins and the difference in physical appearance and activity levels is night & day. I’ve seen Mr Devany in person and on TV…he looks, acts and sounds like a man 20 years younger. During his TV appearances on CNN, for example, Dr. Atkins looked/sounded his age and did not look healthy.

            Another point is Devany’s approach to a low carb/Paleo diet is much more reflective of what one would encounter in the wild vs. Atkins’ treatise on gluttony. Unlimited amounts of fat-laden meats, eggs, cheese and pork rinds is a fictional depiction of what one would find if he or she would actually encounter in the wild and it is *not* a healthy approach to low carb. Besides, has ever found any fried pork rinds in the wild? (Maybe the non-degradable plastic bag they came in.) Massive consumption of milk products such as cheese (eg loading up you salad with blue cheese dressing) came along with the transition to agri-societies.

            Atkins exaggerated and misrepresented what a healthy and representative Paleo low carb diet should be, and, his appearance and quite probably his health reflected that.

            Again, as there are many, many low carb diet approaches that are far superior in terms of health, Atkins should no longer be part of the dietary discussion. From researchers Robb Wolf or Loren Cordain to laypeople such as Mark Sisson or Art Devany, sanity exists within the world of low carb. Perhaps pointing to approaches such as these vs. the gluttony of Atkins, low carb might receive more acceptance and respect within the medical community.

        • Paula says:

          I believe he died of heart disease that was a viral origin.

  137. Your work is getting out there Mr. Taubes, and it is my belief that the science will finally ‘go viral’ and the world will begin transforming sooner than you think. Thank you for your work!

  138. Aimee says:

    I can not understand how the mainstream medical and nutritional community refuses to look at the facts. Clearly they follow what our “trustworthy” friends at the FDA, USDA tell us to do and preach the food pyramid that changes seeminly every year based on what major commodity that is being pushed; Corn, Soy, Wheat, and some times Dairy. Remember when there was millions of dollars in Advertising about “women that drank milk daily lost weight….” LOOK at the FACTS, and not where the gov’t is telling us to look, because they have an Agenda and it is not our over all weight loss.

  139. Nicely put. When I read the last four lines of the letter, something else occurred to me:

    Since a restricted-carbohydrate diet corrects unhealthiness, it may be inappropriate for people who are already healthy. For example, if we assume that Dr. Oz himself is healthy and he’s not on a restricted-carbohydrate diet, he doesn’t need to go on one to improve his health.

    As much as I disagree with some of the specific arguments you (Gary) make in your books, I’m with you as far as the general principle is concerned. Above all else, there are people who get fat on a low-fat diet. To those, obviously, low-fat is not the answer. :-)

    • Galia L. says:

      After I went on the low-carb diet, it amazed me how much was corrected besides the extensiveness of weight – energy fluctuations, frequent infections, asthma and eczema, migraine, mood swings, too long to mention it all. GT is right, what makes us fat, makes us unhealthy. If we can’t eat the X amount of carbs (different for different people) without gaining weight than you should not have it in order to not to get sick. The weight loss and gain are on the tip of an iceberg.
      You point about possible unhealthiness of the diet too low in carbs is very interesting. On one hand, carbohydrates are not essential for sustaining life (unlike fats and protein),and people who stayed with Innuits for years (and came from not-Innuit ethnicity) eating only meat and fish, had very good state of health. on another hand, why to change the diet that works already? What if it would be too stressful because of the adjustment period?

    • Galia L. says:

      After I went on the low-carb diet, it amazed me how much was corrected besides the extensiveness of weight – energy fluctuations, frequent infections, asthma and eczema, migraine, mood swings, too long to mention it all. GT is right, what makes us fat, makes us unhealthy. If we can’t eat the X amount of carbs (different for different people) without gaining weight than you should not have it in order to not to get sick. The weight loss and gain are on the tip of an iceberg.
      You point about possible unhealthiness of the diet too low in carbs is very interesting. On one hand, carbohydrates are not essential for sustaining life (unlike fats and protein),and people who stayed with Innuits for years (and came from not-Innuit ethnicity) eating only meat and fish, had very good state of health. on another hand, why to change the diet that works already? What if it would be too stressful because of the adjustment period?

      • Paula says:

        Galia, you are so right about how many OTHER things low-carb high-fat cures (high GOOD fat of course – avoid the sainted Canola oil and in fact ANY vegetable oil). It is TRULY amazing. Hubby and I did not get sick for a YEAR. Usually I have terrible bronchitis (often lasting up to 3 mos. I kid you not, and I would get it every year, sometimes going on an steroid inhaler to stop the cycle of irritation causing coughing causing irritation…) – NONE — zero bronchitis since we began eating the Taubes way on 3/21/10. I FINALLY got a cold a couple weeks ago, but strangely mild and short. Hubby’s allergies are GONE, his gastric reflux (which used to be BAD) is GONE, ditto his high blood pressure.

        And that’s not talking about the 25 lbs he lost in 4 mos. without exercising at all. I’ve mentioned on this forum before that I lost 17 lbs in that timeframe, also not exercising: TGs went from 105 to 54, HDL from 52 to 65. We’re in our mid-50s.

        Dang, I’m only 9 lbs heavier than my marriage weight 30 years ago! Still have a tumm tumm due to 2 kids and being a middle-aged lady, but Hubski and I are going to try the Eades’ 6-Week Belly Fat Cure soon.

        On low carb high fat, food tastes better.

        Hubby asked me last night what I missed eating. Hmmm…No matter how you look at it, LCHF turns off the cornucopia of crunchy sweet choices. I wouldn’t mind sinking my teeth into a big old thick slice of homemade bread, and some orange juice…Or a big ol’ bowl of Cheerios. But that’s it.

        It’s odd when I think about it. I can’t say I miss anything else. And those things I just thought about ’cause Hubby asked me point blank.

        I never get sick of eggs and “simply microwaved” fully-cooked sausage (the more expensive types are really good!). Getting eggs from a local farmer and I see the fluffy sweet critters running around, and what they eat (bugs and such)…WHAT EGGS! Starting to get pastured meat…

        We ain’t going back to the old way of eating. We’re TRULY not in the least tempted. I feel so blessed that I’m in this WITH MY HUSBAND 100 percent. He read GCBC too. And WWGF.

        Thank you Gary!!!!

  140. DeborahS says:

    I have been working on changing my diet to higher protein/more veggies for more than a year. I recently hit a plateau and started gaining weight again. Some points you made in this blog have given me some valuable clues as to why. I believe I am probably eating too many nuts and fruits. Thank you so much for this data. I’m going to do what you suggest and eliminate these from my diet and see how it goes. I posted this to my Facebook page and emailed it to some friends.

    • Anonymous says:

      Too much protein = not good. Don’t eliminate all nuts–some are very low in carbohydrates and not a problem–do reduce the amount of fruit, and stick to very moderate amounts of low starch veggies (leafy greens come to mind. You don’t say how much fat you were eating, but include plenty of natural fats in your diet. Fats are satisfying and provide calories you shouldn’t be getting from carbohydrates or too much protein. Good luck!

      • montmorency says:

        A possible problem with nuts is that for some people at least they can be addictive. I think Dr Atkins said this, but anyway, I personally have found it to be the case. The same can go for cheese. However, we are all different, and you have to do what works for you as an individual.

        From an evolutionary point of view, our primitive ancestors might have had access to nuts at certain times of the year, but not for the whole year, so it is unlikely that they played a major part in the diet.

        I know that some people use them as snack food, but I think it is better for new low-carbers to try to get out of the habit of snacking. This to me is akin to “grazing” which a lot of “healthy eating” enthusiasts used to promote.  Primitive man might have had to “graze” on occasions, but in our modern environment when the supply of those type of foods is potentially unlimited, the temptation to “overgraze” may be too much.

  141. Anonymous says:

    This was written by Dr. Atkins’ wife, not the attending MD (coroner). There were reports based on information from the ME’s office that contradict the statement from Dr. Atkins’ wife, therefore, it is no more misinformation than what you’re referencing. For example, Dr. Atkins (per BMI standards) weighed 258lbs

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/rival-diet-doc-leaks-atkins-death-report

    • Paula says:

      Dr. Atkins had a heart condition caused by a virus (not diet). When your heart doesn’t work right, and in fact is failing, one progressively gains weight. Water weight or what, I don’t know.

      • Anonymous says:

        There is some evidence that heart attacks may be precipitated by a viral or bacterial infection. Uffe Ravnskov, “Ignoring the Awkward.” Much research still needs to be done, but it’s a valid hypothesis.

        • Anonymous says:

          If you have dental work done, releasing bacteria, and you have a known heart defect, you need to take antibiotics.

          • One of the many benefits of low carb is improved oral health. With in a couple of months of doing low carb my gum disease disappeared. and since my last dental checkup I am now cavity free, and actually have new dentine and new enamel form on my teeth. I also no longer have toothaches or hot or cold sensitivity.

          • Anonymous says:

            “If you have dental work done, releasing bacteria, and you have a known heart defect, you need to take antibiotics.” Absolutely. Both my children have this issue–very minor defects, but necessitate antibiotics every time they go to the dentist. Just another thing that validates the hypothesis that infection may have more to do with CAD than we think.

  142. nkosi says:

    Here’s my experience: 2.5 years ago I was a pack a day smoker and I regulated blood sugar by eating a donut a day along with my grande lattes, at peak smoking weight I weighed about 235 lbs on a 6’1 frame (a gain of 45 pounds over a 5 year period) and had good cholesterol in the 50′s… After I quit cigatettes, I was worried about weight loss so I cut down on eggs and fats and ate boiled oats every morning… I ballooned in weight to 245 lbs while my bad cholesterol increased and my good cholesterol dropped into the 40s… I went to see a nutrition ‘expert’ in December 2010 who swore that more fiber’ is the answer and that I should eat least 5 fruits a day plus all the vegetables I can stand as that was ‘sure’ to boost my good cholesterol… I also started training to run a marathon so that I could get exercise with more regularity.

    After 3 months of intensive running (between 12 and 25 miles per week. 3 to 4 times a week) and intensive fruit and veg eating (5 a day! apples, oranges, bananas, pears, grapes, berries, you name it) my weight has dropped 15 pounds to 230 but my good cholesterol has plumetted into the low 30s, and my blood pressure has increased too… What’s frustrating as hell is that I don’t eat out, don’t buy donuts (not since I quit smoking), don’t drink soft drinks, don’t drink lattes, don’t buy processed foods, eat food made from organic ingredients made at home from scratch.

    So, more fruit?

    • Galia L. says:

      Go low-carbs. No fruits. If your are interested (unreasonably) if fiber – there are veggies.If your doctor made you being afraid of saturated fat and red meat, try at least the South Beach diet, Its author Dr. Agatson is a cardiologist and (unnecessary) recommends lean white meats. Even he advises his patients to seriously limit fruits and other complex carbs for a weight loss, even eliminating it during the strict phase of his diet. From my experience I could say – nothing better rises HDL then couple of eggs in the morning with butter minus bread. I follow Atkins for more than 3 years. My doctor stopped measuring my blood lipids because blood test results are getting better and better every year and he decided not to waste time and money any more.

    • Anonymous says:

      Dr. Dean Ornish’s work on the reversal of heart disease was done with another doctor–K. Lance Gould. As part of his research, Dr. Gould found that a vegan or vegetarian approach to reversing heart disease did not work for many patients and in fact made their illness worse. Basing your diet on bulk carbs like grains along with fruits caused triglyceride levels and LDL levels to worsen which increased the risk of coronary disease.

      Dr. Gould instead advocates a low carb/low fat/high protein diet to halt and reverse heart disease.

      My suggestion (and I’m not a doctor nor do I pretend to play one): cut back on the fruits. No more than two fruits per day, and, stick with the lowest GI variety available. Berries are your best choice. Peaches are also low GI and I’ve read grapes aren’t so bad. I’ll note Gould bans bananas, oranges and pears from his diet.

      Second, have a few egg whites and one whole egg for breakfast or Canadian bacon. Don’t go crazy. 4 – 6oz of the bacon, or 3 – 4 egg whites and the whole egg. Enjoy a handful of almonds or other nuts. I’ll have an omelet with veggies and a ton of salsa on a bed of spinach with some almonds and a small serving of fruit for breakfast.

      Fill up on water. Enjoy your coffee with a tablespoon of cream.

      Apply the same rule of thumb to your other meals.

      And my $.02? Cut back on the chronic card…a few relaxing runs per week instead, walk as much as you can and add 15 min of strength training 3x per week.

  143. Jim Larsen says:
  144. Paula says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQKH3sqjcDU is where you can watch (listen actually) to the 3-part interview Jimmy Moore conducts – the video is called “Gary Taubes Responds To His March 7, 2011 Appearance On ‘The Dr. Oz Show’ “

  145. thezak says:

    What about Vitamin D ?… for example in the Stonyfield yogurt there’s Vitamin D. There’s an epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency in the New England population. What’s the place of this yogurt in the recommendations from Gary Taubes?

    • Galia L. says:

      I just googled the Stonefield yogurt and found out that 6 oz of it contains 20 % of daily recommended value of vit. D. Do you eat 30 oz of yogurt every day? There are fat fish, eggs, fat meat, cheese, liver as natural sources as well. May be, for people in Northern climates taking supplements is a reasonable option.

    • Anonymous says:

      There is a better way to get vitamin D, though I admit it is a little more difficult for New Englanders than people who live in sunnier climes year ’round: the way our forebears got it–from the sun. What? I can hear you now–you are worried about skin cancer and don’t want to expose yourself to the sun without slathering on sunscreen? First of all, it doesn’t take much sun exposure (20-30 minutes?) to generate one’s daily requirement of vitamin D. Second of all, if you don’t consume PUFAs–Polyunsaturated fatty acids such as are found in soybean and corn oil, and trans fats, all of which wreak free radical havok inside the body and make the skin cells more susceptible to the changes that can lead to cancer, (thank Mary Enig for writing “Know Your Fats”)–you don’t need to worry so much about sun exposure–not to mention vitamin D is thought to protect from cancer! But if you live in a climate where exposing parts of the body to the sun is out of the question for most of the year, but don’t want to eat yogurt because it is high in carbs (especially low fat yogurt–stay away from it!) you can get vitamin D from supplements, eat cold water fatty fish, which are naturally high in vitamin D–preferably wild caught and not farm raised–or take small amounts of fish oil during the months when sun exposure is not possible.

  146. thezak says:
  147. Insulin slows the release of all carbs into the bloodstream to avoid sudden ups and downs in our blood sugar levels…ANY macro-nutrients that are not used as fuel are stored as body fat…
    Let me say it again, ANY micro-nutrients that are not used as fuel are stored as body fat.

    Byproducts of carbohydrates breakdown serve as a “primer” to facilitate the body’s use of fat for energy, perticularly in the liver. INSUFFICIENT carbohydrates metabolism increases dependence on fat utilization for energy ( which is what Gary Taubes wants you to do! and you’ll lose weight! woohoo! )

    but what he doesnt mention is…when this happens, the body cannot generate a sustained high level or aerobic energy transfer from fat-only metabolism. This consequence reduces an individual’s maximum exercise intensity.

    and not only to exercise but your everyday life!!!

    Your body needs fats! it needs carbs! and it needs protein!

    Its a balance!

    • Anonymous says:

      “the body cannot generate a sustained high level or (of?) aerobic energy transfer from fat only metabolism.” That is not my experience at all. I eat a moderate amount of carbs, keeping the GL low as much as possible, at dinner, but eat very few carbs the rest of the day. Breakfast is small and only fat and protein, no carbs. Yet I have more (not less) energy and endurance and can play tennis for 2 to three hours with no trouble at all. And when finished, I am not particularly hungry, as I used to be after a carb heavy breakfast, and in no hurry to get home for lunch.

    • nkosi says:

      Funny, 5 days after going ultra-low carb I ran 20 miles in marathon training at a reasonable pace for a 225 pound man. Energy feels fine day to day too.

      Let’s get one thing straight: nobody is saying “no carb” (unless the person is trying to cure full-blown diabetes). If you read Atkins, Primal Blueprint and every variation of low carb diet out there, they all seek to limit carbs, not eliminate them entirely. The ones to keep are mostly fiber-rich veggies, and low sugar, low starch fruits, the ones to dump are sugar, starch, flour, i.e. cakes, potatoes, rice, pasta. Where these plans differ is on the question of how many carbs are safe and when. Atkins recommends limiting to 20g net carbs (i.e. carbs minus fiber) for a while to stimulate weight loss and then increase 5g a week until you figure out where your balance lies, which may be north of 100g a day, depending on the individual. Primal recommends no more than 50g to start, increading to no more than 150g but with the huge assumption that you’re already a physically active person, which most overweight people aren’t.

      Now, compare this to your FDA food-pyramid inspired “nutritional” labels on any food product you buy. The “recommended” amount of daily carb intake is 300g with a 25g sub-amount of dietary fiber, i.e. 275g net carbs! Then look at the fine print… this is the RDA for a 2000 calorie diet. Are you a 200 pound male? If not, then 275g of net carbs is too much even by food pyramid standards. What the “low-carb” crowd are saying is that there is no evidence that 275g of carb is safe, even if you eat a calorie-restricted diet. Instead of being 1/2 your diet (or whatever the “food pyramid” conventional wisdom is, it really ought to be roughly 1/6 of your diet for most people.

      Think of it another way: if exceeding 150g of carbs a day is enough to make most people start gaining fat, that’s often less than 6 slices of bread a day. So a slice of toast for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch and 2 slices of bread with dinner and you’re already over the limit. Which means that ANY carbs, whether from fruit or vegetables that you eat on top of your daily sandwich and bagel (never mind desserts) are actually contributing to your weight gain. Wouldn’t you rather use your 150g (if that’s the number) on healthful vegetable and fruits first? The typical daily carb content in the American diet is actually more than enough to sustain a daily marathon.

      That’s what at stake in changing the conventional wisdom: if it is a balance then the balance is clearly out-of-whack and needs to be adjusted to fit the science and actual experience.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’ve done “zero” carb and exercised, lifted weights and had no problems with energy. The body needs exactly no carbs. Gluconeogenesis, ketones, fat can supply all the energy that is needed, the studies show that after athletes go through the fat burning adaption period, that they produce the same results eating low carb as they do consuming carbohydrate.

  148. Insulin slows the release of all carbs into the bloodstream to avoid sudden ups and downs in our blood sugar levels…ANY macro-nutrients that are not used as fuel are stored as body fat…
    Let me say it again, ANY micro-nutrients that are not used as fuel are stored as body fat.

    Byproducts of carbohydrates breakdown serve as a “primer” to facilitate the body’s use of fat for energy, perticularly in the liver. INSUFFICIENT carbohydrates metabolism increases dependence on fat utilization for energy ( which is what Gary Taubes wants you to do! and you’ll lose weight! woohoo! )

    but what he doesnt mention is…when this happens, the body cannot generate a sustained high level or aerobic energy transfer from fat-only metabolism. This consequence reduces an individual’s maximum exercise intensity.

    and not only to exercise but your everyday life!!!

    Your body needs fats! it needs carbs! and it needs protein!

    Its a balance!

  149. Anonymous says:

    Hi Gary, I really hope that you get a chance to read this. I want to keep it short out of respect for your time. I’ve read Diet Delusion with great care three times. I have two “post-argument” issues (in other words I’m convinced, but I need to know where to go from here):

    1) I seem to be unable to lose, in fact the weight creeps up in spite of attempting to cut out carbs except for small amounts of low carb veg and fibre in the form of flax seed and psyllium husks. As I understand, protein may be turned into glucose. Perhaps that’s the problem. And I understand I may have messed up my ability to manage insulin from years of eating ‘normally’. Can that be helped? Atkins mentions supplements like chromium, carnitine, etc. Also I understand that the one weight loss benefit of exercise may be an increase in insulin sensitivity so I do exercise but with minimal results.In other words this question is, for some people, as close to zero carbs as possible is the only way to go and even then they battle, is there anything they can do? Should someone like me aim for as close to 100% fat as is practical? I’m about 10kgs from the weight I’d like to be.

    2) I did lose over 20kgs with hcg and have kept it off with great difficulty. This is supposedly very controversial largely owing to the controversiality of the main promoter, Kevin Trudeau. But he just popularized the work of Simeons, who wrote an ebook called Pounds and Inches, easily downloaded at no cost from various sites. His theory is that hcg mobilizes fat when your own body won’t. I have found it extremely effective. The main problem is lack of knowledge about it beyond Simeon’s book which leaves many questions unanswered. Plus I don’t think he knew the truth about carbs as you’ll see from his diet (which I modified very slightly – cutting out the breadsticks to add in some fish & cod liver oil mainly to protect my gall bladder – and next time I’ll skip the apples too). Do you know anything about it? Having had great results I think this has a lot of potential, if we could build on it – and keep the weight off.

    At the moment my best bet is to do further courses of hcg and then watch the weight creep up about 0.5kg a month in between, no matter what I do. From your blog I see that you are aware of the fact that there may be a significant number of people like me. From all your reading, perhaps you have some suggestions.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.

    Sue W

  150. Paula says:

    Lucy Hendricks writes: …the body cannot generate a sustained high level or aerobic energy transfer from fat-only metabolism. This consequence reduces an individual’s maximum exercise intensity. And not only to exercise but your everyday life!!! Your body needs fats! it needs carbs! and it needs protein! It’s a balance!

    Our personal experience is that we feel much more energy now than when we were on SAD. After reading GT, hubby and I immediately got off sugar/HFCS. Raised fat and protein intake way up (esp. fat). Our carb intake is low; used to use wraps, eat some Pepperidge Farm “Carb Style” bread (5 carbs a slice) until seeing the soy and hydrogenized oil it has in it… At 9 mos we found we had no interest in bread or flour products, to our surprise and relief. We haven’t gotten back into exercise ourselves so I can’t comment on that. We are planning to do so. So I’m interested in Lucy’s comment.

    I think Lucy’s concern about exercise on ketogenic diets is worthy of very serious consideration.

    Here’s a scholarly paper (with diet trials) on the subject.

    http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/1/1/2

    KETOGENIC DIETS AND PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE
    Stephen D Phinney
    Pub. 17 August 2004

    Abstract

    Impaired physical performance is a common but not obligate result of a low carbohydrate diet. Lessons from traditional Inuit culture indicate that time for adaptation, optimized sodium and potassium nutriture, and constraint of protein to 15–25 % of daily energy expenditure allow unimpaired endurance performance despite nutritional ketosis.

    • nkosi says:

      I like the last line of this study: (to paraphrase) if you’re doing competitive weightlifting or athletics then you probably shouldn’t be on a restricted carb diet. For 99.9% of the population that would be a nice problem to have. Your average obese teenager however is not going to be dragging a fully loaded sled through 25 miles of arctic snow (which was the benchmark for performance in one of the quoted studies).

      If this research still stands it would be a valid proposition for the following:

      “On a very low-carb diet your body can adjust to most forms of exercise with no loss of performance within 2-3 weeks. If you’re going to do very low carbs be consistent – jumping up and down on carb intake will keep you in the adjustment period indefinitely and hinder performance. Take in the right amount of proteins (about 1.5 g per kg of ideal BMI body weight – too little will decrease athletic performance, too much will cause headaches and listlessnes). Be sure to drink the juices from the meats you cook, thats where the potassium and other nutrients go during cooking. If you’re a competitive weightlifter or athlete, different rules may apply (but then you’re probably not fat to begin with).”

      Seems a very minor trade-off for the average joe looking to jog a bit, maybe lift a few weights, maybe play a bit of pickup in the park.

      • Paula says:

        I wonder what the CrossFit guys (Rob Wolf etc) think of this whole thing. Or Mark Sisson. Definitely low carb guys who are in ultra shape. Sisson talks about cortisol (which comes into play due to stressing one’s body, for instance with extreme exercise, often competitive) and how cortisol’s immediate effects are WOW but its ultimate effects are pretty terrible for the body.

        Using carbs for competitive weightlifting and competitive athletics. How good is it ultimately for the bodies of these athletes. Do they burn it off and it doesn’t do the long-term harm? And are there any low-carb high-fat athletes that are proving themselves against these “old-style” carb loaders?

  151. Anonymous says:

    Media:
    It was hilarious to see Dr. Oz’s interview with Dr. Mercola. “We must have a dialogue,” then gave him 5 minutes and cut him off when he said he had a choice of selling supplements or selling advertising he could not control the content of (like guess who?) ….

    Good Morning America today declared gastric bypass surgery cures diabetes — and the surgery is now recommended for the U.S.’s 15 million obese diabetics.

    1976 Broda Barnes, M.D. Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness
    “Proof that a diet high in fat will depress appetite was obtained several years ago in studies with hogs. No animal has a greater appetite than the hog whose ability to convert feed to edible meat exceeds that of all other animals. The hog’s diet ordinarily is very low in fat and high in carbohydrate. … When the amount of either beef tallow or lard was gradually increased until some of the fat was available to the hogs at all times, the quantity of food eaten was reduced to the point that the animals stopped gaining weight. A diet that will depress a hog’s appetite will control almost anyone’s craving for food.”

    Low thyroid lowers your metabolism. Replacement thyroid hormone decreases weight.

  152. Dave Nelson says:

    Taubes 1 – Oz 0

  153. Dave Nelson says:

    Taubes 1 – Oz 0

  154. Anonymous says:

    Gary Taubes’ great article from Slate

    http://hive.slate.com/hive/time-to-trim/article/its-not-about-the-calories

    Real good stuff.

  155. Anonymous says:

    Finally got around watching Gary Taubes’s interview on Dr. Oz. I thought overall GT acquitted himself very well in the limited time he was given.

    The only “argument” Dr. Oz came up with was about the “sacredness” of food. That’s very well if you’re debating religion but not when you are recommending with a straight face that millions should follow a low-fat high-carb diet that demonstably has led to an astonishing rise in obesity in just a few decades.

    The “low-carb” menu was rigged to look as unattractive as possible and the headache/tiredness Oz was complaining of at the end of the 24 hours were likely due to carb withdrawal.

    It was great to see someone finally stand up to the low-fat high-carb proponents and say they are plain wrong. Perhaps some people who saw the show might take a look at low-carb and GT’s books.

  156. Anonymous says:

    Finally got around watching Gary Taubes’s interview on Dr. Oz. I thought overall GT acquitted himself very well in the limited time he was given and despite the frequent interruptions.

    The only “argument” Dr. Oz came up with was about the “sacredness” of food. That’s very well if you’re debating religion but not when you are recommending with a straight face that millions should follow a low-fat high-carb diet that demonstably has led to an astonishing rise in obesity in just a few decades.

    The “low-carb” menu was rigged to look as unattractive as possible and the headache/tiredness Oz was complaining of at the end of the 24 hours were likely due to carb withdrawal.

    It was great to see someone stand up to the low-fat high-carb proponents and say they are plain wrong.

  157. Razwell says:

    Gary Taubes’ new article from Slate.

    Real good stuff and quality work.

    http://hive.slate.com/hive/time-to-trim/article/its-not-about-the-calories

    “Fat cells are regulated by hormones. Disregulation of fat cells is a disease state”. – Urgelt of YouTube and his excellent obesity video.

    The caloric hypothesis is dead. It has no predictive value.

    I

  158. Paula says:

    Christopher D. Gardner, Ph.D. Did the A-Z study GT discusses in WWGF. Here’s Gardner’s C.V:

    http://med.stanford.edu/profiles/viewBiosketch?facultyId=4085&name=Christopher_Gardner

    You’ll see from his C.V. above that he studies JUST the kind of thing we LCHF proponents are curious about. What’s weird is, he’s a vegetarian (says so in the YouTube video below), studies a lot about soy. Hope he doesn’t like it, but since he’s a vegetarian, I don’t know. I’ve heard soy is BAD. That’s from the WAPF people.

    BUT Here he is on YouTube talking in depth about his A-Z study that GT mentioned in WWGF. So here’s Christopher Gardner, a vegetarian researcher, finding the Atkins diet is best in all categories!!!!

    The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

    At 23:01 he says, “Losing weight isn’t what it’s all about. It’s your health getting better. So we looked at some other things — everyone said, ‘Oh, on that Atkins diet you might lose weight but your health is going to go to hell! Oh, your cholesterol is going to go thru the roof!’ — So we compared all the diets, for different things. So (shows slide) here’s all the things that were statistically significant — and everyone of these things favored Atkins.” (slide shows WEIGHT, SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE, DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE, TRIGLYCERIDES, HDL, LDL, INSULIN, GLUCOSE.) “There was no group that did better than Atkins in ANYthing.”

    At 38:44 he talks about SSPG test – “Steady State Plasma Glucose” …discussing Tracy McLaughlin’s data… calls SSPG “a really fancy test to see, among overweight people, who’s close to being diabetic, who’s insulin resistant and who isn’t? (among people w 30-40 lbs to lose) …for SSPG they have to hook you up to a bunch of IVs for 8 hours and do some incredible things to you, but they figure out whose insulin works really well and whose doesn’t at roughly the same level of fat, and then they split them into tertiles (3 groups): Who’s the most insulin sensitive, who’s the most insulin resistant (this is close to diabetes), and who’s in the middle?” Then he shows that if you’re insulin sensitive (a good thing – Dr. Oz obviously IS lucky in this respect) you can do well on a HIGH carb diet as well as on a LOW carb diet. But if you’re INSULIN RESISTENT you need the LOW carb diet.

    At 40:00 “I’m not pushing it yet [Atkins/Paleolithic diet], I’m just thinking about it. You have to realize what a bitter pill this was for a 25-year vegetarian (talking about himself) to write in a paper that ATKINS did better than all the other diets…” (audience laughs) “I should get a little extra credibility for that, because I was going WAY the other way when I started this study.”

    At 1:01:00 he shows various studies he’s doing. Antioxidants, Omega 3s, etc.

    In spite of all this pro-Atkins stuf, he still shows at various points in the video (to be fair, it IS from 2008 so he probably hasn’t read or absorbed GCBC yet…) that he still doesn’t GET it consistently: That diseases of civilization are primarily HIGH CARB related. At 1:08:34 he’s talking about McDonalds, time on the internet as contributors to our problems (NOT!)…AND he talks about a study where aborigines with diabetes are taken back into the bush where they have to hunt for their food and (going low carb, high fat again) they lose their diabetes… HELLO!

    BIO INFO: Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, is the Director of Nutrition Studies at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and an Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He received his PhD in Nutritional Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley in 1993. His postgraduate training included a postdoctoral fellowship in cardiovascular disease epidemiology at Stanford.

    Dr. Gardner is actively involved in research and teaching. His research focus is on dietary intervention trials designed to test the effects of food components or food patterns on chronic disease risk factors, including body weight, blood lipids, and inflammatory markers. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals, including a recent publication in JAMA presenting his findings from a study contrasting the weight loss effects of four diets ranging from very low to very high carbohydrate.

  159. Anonymous says:

    Gary, thought you’d find these two articles interesting. The first is about ancient mummies and arteriosclerosis. I think the Eades said in Protein Power or PPLP that the first diabetes epidemic was in ancient Egypt, so grains by themselves could do it.

    http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-mummies-heart-disease,0,5014594.story

    The second story is about James Randi giving Oz an “award” for bad science.

    http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-dr-oz-andrew-wakefield-james-randi-awards-20110401,0,3573991.story

  160. georgiefear says:

    Wonderful post, I thoroughly enjoyed reading!

    I don’t see any problems with restricting carbohydrates for my weight loss clients. You can’t argue with success. Or research. For my clients who aren’t trying to lose weight, we focus on low-glycemic diet choices (essentially improving the WHAT of the diet.) But for weight loss– specifically fat loss, I should say — you have to put a cap on the HOW MUCH to get real results.

    That is why I limit carbohydrates to a level which may raise an eyebrow or two among other dietitians. But no one can argue with it.

  161. Paula says:

    HERE’S A NEW TALK BY MARY C. VERNON, M.D. Came out since the Japanese earthquake since she makes an analogy with it.

    GT is allied with her at Innovative Metabolic Solutions, LLC which teaches low-carb to doctors and allied professionals (for a price; wish I could afford the tapes). Anyone can sign up for their newsletter via email which is how I heard about this talk of hers.

    The slides are a little blurry so I’ve done some transcribing below. She is NOT boring! Something of a musical voice too.

    https://www.myimsonline.com/news/Presentation-by-Dr-Mary-Vernon-at-KU-Medical-Center

    “Board Certified in bariatic medicine. I also am a partner in a company named Innovative Metabolic Solutions, LLC which teaches physicians and allied professionals how to use THIS method of treatment SAFELY with patients. Because I will tell you, it is AS effective as the most potent drugs that we have in our armamentarium today. Because of that you can’t mess around with it. So just as you would learn to use insulin or korey, you need to learn to use this treatment to treat patients safely.”

    “Insulin’s primary action is to stop fat burning and enhance fat deposition (storage).” Insulin your own body makes.

    “The primary secretagogue of insulin is dietary carbohydrate. Get starches and sugar out and that will fix it.

    “Insulin and other inflammatory mediators…

    “WHAT YOU CAN MAKE BETTER BY LOW-CARB HIGH-FAT:

    (1) Any condition related to hyperinsulinemia

    (2) CAD (coronary artery disease); prediabetes; metabolic syndrome; type 2 diabetes mellitus; hypertension (i.e. high blood pressure); hyperlipidemia; dyslipidemia (including high Triglycerides and low HDL); proteinuria due to metabolic syndrome; obesity; acanthosis nigricans

    (3) Central nervous system irritability such as seizures and migraines

    (4) Ovarian dysfunction due to hyperinsulinemia manifested as polycystic ovary syndrome, irregular menses, anovulation, irregular ovulation, facial hirsutism

    (5) GERD

    (6) Sleep apnea, Pickwickian syndrome

    (7) Gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia

    (8) Osteoarthritis

    (9) Inflammation; and

    (10) Some psychiatric conditions

    “MITOCHONDRIAL ENERGY PRODUCTION

    (1) This is the key to life

    (2) No mitochondrial energy production = death

    (3) On-site repair and oxidation must occur at all times

    (4) Nutrition is the key – if you put the right fuel through your mitochondria, the mitochondria will have the power to repair itself for long periods of time. And you can be functional and healthy. Not the American way. The American way is “Let’s lose an eye here, a kidney there, let’s take this leg off here…” I’m not after that. I’m after high level of function for my patients.

    “MITOCHONDRIAL FUEL SOURCE

    (1) Mitochondrial fuel source is linked to oxidative stress

    (2) Oxidative stress is linked to tissue damage

    (3) Mitochondrial enzymes adjust to fuel source

    (4) Constant mitochondrial energy production without oxidative damage is the goal

    “Oxidative stress is a polite way of saying ‘the stuff that tears up your body…the stuff that trashes your membranes’ — these high-energy particles that get flung out of the ripping apart of food molecules to extract energy…some of those get stuck in membranes. You’re watching it happen in Japan — there’s a macro-sized model for what happens. But all those high-energy particles have to get stopped somewhere, and the mitochondrial membrane takes a considerable amount of heat, so to speak, when those high-energy particles are smashing into it, and if the mitochondrial membrane starts to get lots of holes in it, it doesn’t work right, you can’t rip apart the food molecules for energy, the energy molecules leak back and forth, and whoops, things aren’t working well.

    “So oxidative stress is linked to tissue damage. Mitochondrial enzymes adjust to fuel source. You knew that! You knew that the alcoholic in the E.R. who’s drunk a liter of vodka a day didn’t START drinking a litre of vodka a day. And it’s the same for the mitochondrial enzymes for digestion and food management. Your body makes what it needs to deal with what’s coming in. And it takes that awhile to get that organized.

    “Constant mitochondrial energy production without oxidative damage — that’s the goal (brings her arm straight in front of her and makes a motorboat sound — zzzzzzzzzzzzzz) — that’s what you want: just steady steady steady energy production.

    “What you put in your mouth is what determines metabolic hormone production, controls whether or not you’re storing or spending.”

    END OF MY TRANSCRIPTION – and this is just a bit from Sections 1 and 2 — there are 5. I’m going back now to watch the rest of it!

  162. Paula says:

    WEIGHT WATCHERS – MARY C. VERNON’S OPINION OF IT (from same url as below):

    (I think this is from section 2 of 5 (not sure, doesn’t let you know what section you’re in), but it starts at 9:56 during the slide labeled “Fat Metabolism and Insulin.”)

    She says, “How can you lower insulin levels? Well, you can increase energy expenditure but that only works if you reduce dietary carbohydrate intake at the same time.

    “We actually have some data of people who have been in metabolically-controlled situations — metabolic rooms — and fed high carbohydrate diets that were calorie restricted. So we have people who did not have enough calories to maintain their body weight in a controlled environment who still put on fat mass, and burned their own muscle, because the hormonal signal said ‘Store fat.’ Even in a hypo (low)-caloric situation.

    “Now that’s really important for the following reason: Weight Watchers, calorie-restricted diets…That’s what they do to you. You burn your own muscle. You get fatter while you’re losing weight. Your percent of body fat goes up because the hormonal signal is about fat storage.

    “Now THAT is a real recipe for unhealthiness.”

    • Carb Sane says:

      I would love to see her references for those claims. There is scant evidence that lean body mass is preserved any differently regardless of macro composition (protein constant) on reducing diets. Jeniffer Hudson sure looks like she got a whole lot fatter laying down all that fat mass.

      Vernon had a poor showing in the BBC series and actually argues counter to what Richard Feinman believes about metabolism. I think she appears in the first part of the series. Links to all 5 parts HERE.

      • Paula says:

        I tried it, Carbie, I really gave it a shot, but when I got to them intoning in their impeccable English accent, “again Bob Atkins ran into trouble: ‘The First Law of Thermodynamics’ … I knew it just wasn’t for me.

        By watching Mary Vernon’s talk at the link I posted, you could look up her references for her claims, except her slides are fuzzy. I am going to email her to see if they can reshoot them/repost them. That shouldn’t be too much trouble. References are at the bottom of the slides and she mentions them aloud, but as for exact details, they are hard to read.

        (1) How do you mean a poor showing? Tell me, because I can’t watch it myself: that intoning of “First Law of Thermodynamics” was a complete curiosity killer: GT laid that canard to rest in WWGF in exquisite detail, and it ain’t gettin up again.

        (2) Do you agree? (Not that this is any big threat you’d quail at, but if you don’t agree that the First Law of Thermodynamics is inapplicable to physiology and GT is 100% right about this, I don’t know that I can bestir myself to respond to you again.)

  163. matlow says:

    Thank you for doing the reading and analysis of obesity research and making it understandable. I encourage you to visit Dr. Richard Bernstein, who advocates a restricted carbohydrate diet to his diabetes patients and as a 70+ year-old type 1 diabetic himself is living proof that restricting carbs can help reverse/postpone some of the problems often associated with the disease. I have lost 50 pounds and am on the way to losing the rest by just reading his books and following the “Law of Small Numbers” by changing my eating, medicine, and lifestyle to keep my insulin level as low as possible and HbA1c as close to normal at the same time. Your book came out at a time when I almost gave up on it because of a several year plateau. Now that I have a better understanding of what is likely going on, I can make the adjustments I need with more confidence. I want you to know that doctors really are beginning to listen and don’t get too frustrated by celebrity surgeons who haven’t the time to read your books. The General practitioner and endocrinologist I work with to help me manage my diabetes are quite open to the low carbohydrate direction I am pursuing because they know the prognosis is poor if I stay overweight.

  164. nkosi says:

    This is what they’re pushing at my workplace:

    Our nutrition advice is based on the DASH eating plan – a diet with more scientific proof behind it than any other eating plan. The DASH Diet is a well-balanced way of eating that provides lots of choice and is easy to learn. It centers on real foods, not chemicals, food labels, or supplements. It is rich in fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy foods and reduced in red meat, fats, and sweets. This healthy way of eating has been thoroughly tested in several large studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and has been scientifically proven to help people lose weight, lower their blood pressure and cholesterol, and even improve how they feel!

    This is what the DASH program recommends that you eat each day. You will see that DASH includes a balance of foods from all of the food groups.

    Fruits: 5 servings
    Veg: 5 servings
    Dairy: 3 servings
    Grain: 9 servings
    Meat/Fish/Poultry: 2 servings
    Nuts/Beans: 0.5 servings
    Fats: 3 servings
    Swets: 1 serving

    When you sign up for the DASH for HealthTM program, you will learn about DASH servings and how to begin eating the healthy DASH way.

  165. THANK YOU SO MUCH for having the graciousness to admit that high-meat high-fat LowCarb diets DONT improve health.

    Dr. Gary Taubes – “A restricted-carbohydrate diet doesn’t improve health; it corrects unhealthiness.” Dr Gary Taubes – Lowcarb Diet Doctor admitting Low Carb diets don’t improve health.

    Good of you to confirm it.

    Yes, highmeat highfat lowcarb diets like paleo have now more and more been shown to cause human harm. Remember, Robert Atkins, the origin of the entire lowcab “diet” that started it all, cheered and touted that high meat high saturated fat diets were “good for the heart” and strokes, and cardio vascular disease and claimed his “diet” helped people not be obese. — Well, ATKINS DIED! Robert Atkins, the inventor of the high meat (often mis-named protein) high fat diet who purported it was good for the heart and strokes and helped people lose weight, died of his own lowcarb diet, he fell and hit his head, an autopsy revealed evidence in Atkins of a STROKE, and the autopsy death report showed Atkins had evidence of heart disease, and his Death Certificate lists his weight as 258 POUNDS, which is classified as Morbidly Obese.

    Atkins’ wife tried to downplay it since she would inherit the money from his diet books and lose money if people learned his own lowcarb diet lead to his own death, so she tried to say he ‘only’ weighed 195 walking around, but that’s STILL officially medically categorized as Obese. It’s simply the difference between 195 Obese, and 258 MORBIDLY Obese. Irony that the man who published the ‘diet’ died ‘fat’. Sadly, Atkins debunked his own diet. Let it be a wakeup call for every LowCarber that the Atkins Lowcarb diet lead to a factor in his death.

    So the inventor of the LowCarb Diet that said LowCarb high protein from meat diets and eating lots of fat and few carbohydrates were great for your health and heart, died, and the Medical Examiner Report showed evidence Atkins became Obese on his own Lowcarb diet, and he showed evidence of heart disease and stroke.

    Since Lowcarb diets like Atkins have now been rejected officially by the American Heart Association as being harmful to humans, and now that archaeologists found that Paleolithic man DID EAT GRAINS it’s been the decline of lowcarb and paleo diet fads for some time now. Although some people didn’t get the memo that they’ve been scientifically debunked and medically dangerous, yet. But now that Atkins and Paleo are shown as false, the Atkins corporation has gone Bankrupt.

    Put “ATKINS LOWCARB DIET FILES BANKRUPTCY” into Google to see it for yourself.

    The Atkins Low Carb high-meat high-protein high-fat diet division filed for Bankruptcy.

  166. Anonymous says:

    as a follow up to WWGF i would love to see an expose documentary on how the “science” of nutrition was shaped by politics and corporate interests.

    thank you for all your great work.
    lisa

  167. Anonymous says:

    I am a chronically overweight 53 year old woman who has experimented with every diet known (a typical yo-yoer) and I can attest that a low carbohydrate diet is not only effective for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight, but also has important, underlying health benefits from lower blood pressure to lower LDL. After a particularly stressful five years, and the attending mood enhancing dance with carbohydrate rich foods, I put on nearly 30 pounds and developed metabolic syndrome. Needless to say, I first tried the “newest” in dietary research – quality carbohydrates, smaller meat portions, even became a vegetarian, with predictable results. I returned to an Atkins-like regimen, with also predictable results – lost pounds and inches, gained more energy, and even got my natural peaches and cream complexion back. I worried that being an older woman with a thyroid condition on top of it all, would condemn me to a life of obesity and deteriorating health – not so. Is this for everyone? Can’t say, but for those with my body type, it is absolutely essential. Clearly, Dr. Oz is not doing his homework and I’m sorry about that, particularly for those that depend on him for accurate health information. With that said, there are environmental concerns regarding meat production that I feel is well worth some discussion and examining. But I would rather discuss that within the context of humane and sustainable food production, not trying to justify the diet itself.

  168. Butch says:

    I’d rather have the discussion focus less on weight loss and more on disease states associated with diet. Obesity may not be pretty (to some anyway), but it’s really only pathology that matters from a health standpoint. Cancer will make you lose weight, but it’s not a recommended diet strategy. Many thin people get heart disease – I just had a double bypass (age 58, 5′ 9″, 151 pounds which I’ve been all my adult life, never smoked, no abuse of drugs, not diabetic, no family history of heart disease, exercise a lot, although I am living with 12 years now of undetectable HIV). I think Taubes should have agreed to take a more sophisticated lipid test like the VAP which would have shown much more than a regular lipid profile. Tests like the VAP may provide clues as to why “total cholesterol” doesn’t correlate well with heart disease risk. Taubes talks a bit about this in his GCBC book. My regular Total C/ HDL/ LDL/ TGL lipid tests done twice a year for the last decade looked great – but whammo… A VAP would show, among several other things, whether he has an atherogenic Pattern B LDL. My total LDL was rather low (81), but what LDL I had was almost entirely small and dense – apparently not good. Pattern B can be partially determined by genes, but also (as Taubes himself notes in Good Calories, Bad Calories) can be influenced by diet – made worse or even induced by low fat diets. Using a moderate daily dose of immediate release niacin, I’ve converted to a large fluffy LDL pattern (Pattern A).

    What should I eat -or not eat? I’m frankly still not sure. For example, I’d like Taubes to confront what seems to be the main Exhibit A of low fat doctors like Dean Ornish and Claud Esselstyne – that low fat diets strikingly improve circulation to the heart as measured by PET scans – within days, not months or years. When Taubes was part of a Dr. Oz panel with Dean Ornish, Taubes rather ignored Ornish’s striking PET scans showing rapid improvement in circulation to the heart muscle after a short time on an ultra low fat diet. I was less convinced by Ornish’s angiography, which my own cardiologist told me can be selectively manipulated and subjectively interpreted. But the PET scans? I posted a similar question to Dr. Michael Eades, but I don’t believe he’s ever provided an answer.

    In any case, I think the issue of pathogenesis of various diseases with respect to diet, especially heart disease and diabetes, needs to be central, not the issue of “weight loss”. I saw a lot of other thin people in cardiac rehab. Maybe many of them smoked – I didn’t ask, but of course we were all told to eat less fat, especially less saturated fat. Since my own fat/meat/trans fat consumption has not been nearly as high as the average American, I am somewhat skeptical that fat in my diet is the issue. I’m now tending to believe that Pattern B LDL probably is the main issue for me, perhaps coupled with inflammation from the latent HIV. On the other hand, I’m kind of impressed by Ornish and his PET scans. At any rate, Taubes recognizes the atherogenic Pattern B profile and the lipid research of guys like Ron Kraus MD, so why not have a VAP test and openly discuss this and the validity or nonvalidity of Ornish’s PET scans?

    • Paula says:

      What they say about Ornish’s PET scans is that the diameter will INCREASE prior to decrease. His “proof” proves squat.

      You might want to take a look at Christopher D. Gardner, PhD’s 2008 video regarding his A-Z low-carb diet study (compares Atkins to other diets). He said the fact that Atkins bested in all categories was “a bitter pill to swallow” (Gardner is a life-long committed vegetarian). At 1:16:43 he talks about heart disease (and in other places as well). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

  169. I think one major mistake you made was: GOING ON DR. OZ’s SHOW.

    The man is a huckster who supports homeopaths and faith healers, for goodness sake. Putting yourself among that kind of company doesn’t exactly bolster your reputation.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hi Damon,
      My reputation’s fine. I wanted to reach a larger audience and did. Could have lived without the stacked deck, but all in all it was worth it.
      gt

  170. Anonymous says:

    We all need to go on to the Dr. Oz blog now and try to pressure him to have a blood test and post his results. Gary met his part of the “challenge” ,,,, it is now Dr. Oz’ turn!!!

  171. Anonymous says:

    Just wanted to take the opportunity Gary to THANK YOU so much for doing the blood test.
    It really is a little “unnerving” to change a diet completely after feeling for years that you were doing everything the right way ,,,,,,,,,,low fat, no red meat, plenty of whole grains!
    Thank you for the education!!!

  172. Anonymous says:

    Dear Gary Taubes, Your books, NYT articles, and your BLOG show your ability to think outside the box. Since Sick Care (the American medical establishment) is all about business (Big Pharma is not all that’s wrong with the system), your message will be resisted. However, you are not alone. Three of the best books I have ever read are by people who had done at least as much work to get to the truth as you have and they connect and link all manner of other physical and mental health issues with some very well thought out food and eating advice, very consistentent with your own conclusions. You will LOVE these three books:

    Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food by Catherine and Luke Shanahan (she’s an MD) is now in my own personal Top Ten books of all time. I could never say enough good things about this book; it’s off the charts.

    Primal Body–Primal Mind: Empower Your Total Health The Way Evolution Intended by Nora Gedgaudas. I have never met Nora Gedgaudas, but I plan to send her a “Thank You” note every year for the rest of my life. When I got to page 93 I set the book down and went to my computer and found a way to order a whole a case of books, one for each family member and various best friends and neighbors.

    The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice and Sustainability by Lierre Keith. Lierre is a woman who writes straight from her heart; one of the most committed people to the betterment of our planet in print. Awesomely eloquent, as a former vegan she delivers a message about how important animals are to sustainable food production and our health.

    I’m pretty sure your work is cited in all three books!

    Thanks for helping to reframe health!!

    claudia

  173. Paula says:
  174. Anonymous says:

    Hey dgpmjp,

    Take a look at these 3 links and see if they change your mind about Dr. Oz. Of course he’s in it for financial gain or else Oprah wouldn’t have set him up with his own show after doing nothing to help her with her weight problems. Can’t be that she believes in him? Oh! And Dr. Phil is no better! There’s a guy with his picture on the cover of a weight loss book he promotes. Do you think he actually gives a damn about peoples weight? Obviously he doesn’t give a damn about his own so how could he?

    Ok….getting back to Dr. Oz. Let the links below speak for themselves:

    http://www.naturalnews.com/027451_Dr_Mehmet_Oz_vaccines.html
    http://webofdeception.com/oprah.html#oz
    http://www.naturalnews.com/030910_Dr_Oz_vaccines.html

    Dr. Oz is obviously promoting a vaccine he knows is toxic and admits this. So why would he push this on people and encourage them that this vaccine is neccessary as well as safe? Obviously it is for financial gain as you now can see in the evidence. You can’t dispute that!

    I do not watch the Dr. Oz show because I don’t believe his show to be in favour of proven unbiased scientific evidence for the good of the people. If it did, Dr. Oz and the so called medical community wouldn’t have any sponsors to keep the show on the air. The show would then cease to exist.

    I have been a national competitive bodybuilder for several years and have had great success. I have trained many athletes as well with great success. However, because of the role genetics can play, not everyone’s hormonal system, enzymatic activity and metabolic processes are equal. There are no 2 people, given the same exercise program and diet program, that will respond exactly the same. What may be great for one, may be detrimental for another. Having trained many people over the years, I have seen this more and more all the time. However, the best success I have had with all these athletes, were the ones I put on very low or no carb diets with high fat and moderate protein. Most of these people, if not all, responded extremely well with this diet regime. For these people and specifically for myself, by endorsing low or no carb (depending on the individual) and a high “saturated” fat diet, these people had tons of energy and lost fat drastically over short periods of time while mantaining there physical strength and muscle mass. Not to mention how great they felt.

    I persoanlly have taken in over 5,000 calories a day on a very high “saturated” fat diet while laying on the couch with my remote and burning fat while doing so. I engaged in absolutely to type of cardio or aerobic activites during this time. I only did 45 minute sessions of weight training (anaerobic) 5 days a week and brought my body fat down to 3-4%. Also, my triglycerides were in the normal range as well as my HDL levels. My LDL was slightly elevated which isn’t a concern anyway which you would understand if you have read Gary’s books.

    So thank you Gary! Not only have I lived the science over the past 22 years and have seen the results time and time again, but now I understand it and I can explain to my clients why this happens thanks to your amazing thesis. Why we loose fat by eating more fat and eating less or no refined carbs, fruit and starchy carbs.

    I would also like to add that I practiced a plant based diet on myself over a 5 months period. Results: I lost muscle, I gained fat, I felt too emotional, I was weak, I slept too much as well. My triglycerides were up, my HDL down and even my cholestrol was just slightly below the range it was when I was eating the low carb/high saturated fat diet. Carbs make fat….fat makes me lean! Who would have thought…I lived it and still live by the science Gary has shown us to be true. I will never change my philosphy on diet and nutrition now that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by the excellent research of Mr. Gary Taubes.

  175. Anonymous says:

    http://www.forksoverknives.com/ – This is a new movie/video out proclaiming the wisdom (cough) of Collin Campbell’s The China Diet. Based on wrong science, and a simply stubborn, illogical opinion (little NEW research is offered) it features vegetarianism, and heavy-on-carb ‘balanced’ diet that will help prevent or reverse heart disease, diabetes, obesity…needless to say it is amazing to see, with all the new research and your books, which i give away as gifts, that people are still so solidly sold on this way of eating! thank you, e

  176. Anonymous says:

    Gary,

    As someone who watches a lot of TV I think you got a pretty good airing of your views on Dr. Oz. Even though it was intellectually dishonest on Dr. Oz’s part, I think viewers were able to see that he plainly respects your research. Don’t be afraid to do his show again. You made your point well, and where you were cut off it was clearly edited.

    You may want to get some media coaching on how to deal with gotcha questions like “take a cholesterol test”

  177. Pru Borland says:

    As a non TV-watcher, I wasn’t really familiar with Dr Oz.  So I checked out his website and watched a few video clips. Also listened to the radio interview with GT on YouTube, where I thought he was quite open-minded (if his mostly silent presence can be thus construed).   Oz himself has a diet book, and the basics are there on the website.  His “first step” is to go through your pantry and fridge and “ban forever” the following 5 items: hydrogenated oil,  sugar, HFCS,  enriched flour, and “all white foods, including bleached flour”.  The only white foods to consume are egg whites, fish, and cauliflower.  This suggests to me that Dr Oz is not all that unfamiliar with a low-carb diet.  Further – in the process of discovering all this I signed up for his newsletter, which informs me that the program on Wed May 18 will be devoted to “Carbs: the New Cocoaine:  How to Kick the Habit in 28 Days!”   Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope here? 

  178. Adam Young says:

    what an idiot. Seriously. sure insulin stores fat but it can only store the enrgy that is in the food. For example if you eat 500 calories of carbs, whether it gets stored fast or slow doesnt matter, it can still only store 500 calories, no more. If it stores it fast by releasing a lot of insulin, then it gets back to burning fat sooner when the insulin has acted and shuttled it away in fat stores. The slower acting carbs would get stored slower but would release insulin for longer but would also not allow fat to be burned for longer. The end result is the same. 

    Anyway, none of this makes sense because carbs are not the only thing that spike insulin, Beef spikes it more than beans, rice, spaghetti and a whole load of other carbs. And if you eat anything (protein carbs or fat) in excess some of it is used for metabolism and the rest is stored. It is total energy intake not one macronutrient that is to blame. What a plonker

  179. Anonymous says:

    @ Adam Young
     
    Ah, Adam – you ARE young. Don’t even know, I’ll bet, the original meaning of “plonker.” Let’s just say it’s not nice (or necessary) nor is it very thoughtful) to call people names, especially when, as is evident from your screed, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Besides, calling Gary an idiot and a plonker isn’t exactly arguing from any sensible point of view. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories, and then get back to us.

  180. Anonymous says:

    @nkosi
    More scientific evidence to support it than any other diet? I doubt it. Just a few questions: what happens if you can’t eat grains (never mind nine servings)? And I assume “Swets” are sweets? Why do you need any? Total nonsense Might work fine for you, and really, I’m happy if it does, but why post it to a group whose issues you (presumably) have read about and understand? One more curiousity: they’re “pushing it” at your workplace? Where do you work???? Good grief!

  181. Anonymous says:

    Lovely. What happens if you can’t eat grains (never mind nine servings)? And I assume “Swets” are sweets? Why do you need any? Total nonsense Might work fine for you, and really, I’m happy if it does, but why post it to a group whose issues you (presumably) have read about and understand? One more curiousity: they’re “pushing it” at your workplace? Where do you work???? Good grief!

  182. Anonymous says:

    I really appreciate your book and the explanation of the science and the research. I’ve always felt that it wasn’t that the person was bad and wanted to see something to help the severely obese person.

  183. Patricia Fair says:

    I was excited to learn that you were making a guest appearance on Dr. Oz. After watching him with Dr. Weil and actually talking about the benefits of coconut oil, I thought that finally here was a show that introduced new concepts and ideas without the influence of big agriculture and pharma money.  I was appalled at how Dr. Oz said he was open to new ideas and science and then stood there and literaly shook his head “no” at everything you said. So much for open conversation and the introduction of new ideas to the public. 

  184. Pamela says:

    I have worked as a medical transcriptionist now for well over 20 years.  One of the hospitals for which I trancribe is a major teaching hospital here in So. Cal.  All the physicians whose work I’ve transcribed, from interns to full-fledged, have been taught the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease.  They all state that they send their patients home on a “heart-healthy,” low-fat, low-cholesterol diet, on statin drugs (smetimes more than one), and antihypertensive medications (often several). 

    After reading stuff like Eades, Taubes, Ravnskov, etc., I am flabbergasted at the lockstep mindset of these people who are telling sick people what to do after they get home.  I am not eager to spend any time around doctors at all.  I don’t like their arrogance (which sometimes comes through loud and clear when they dictate).

    I applaud those doctors who are thinking outside the box (hell, don’t even get me started on the topic of cancer), but I am appalled at what most of them seem to be doing to their patients.
    Wasn’t it one of the heart surgery pioneers (I forget which one… perhaps Christiaan Barnard?) who said that his patients’ cholesterol was all over the map, and that there was no correlation between their cholesterol levels and the amount of heart disease they had.

  185. Paula says:

    The good thing about trolls is they allow one to refute their claims.  Taubes goes into detail in GCBC about how carbs inhibit vit C intake (Taubes likens it to 2 people — CARB v. FAT&PROTEIN — hailing the same cab; if CARB gets picked up…major problemos w vit C intake will result (hence Paulings’ urging that we seriously raise our vit C intake — he was operating within the high carb paradigm); if FAT&PROTEIN get picked up and CARB is left behind, problemos with vit C intake — or should I say uptake — disappear).

  186. I just finished reading BCGC last night.  The last 100 pages were very hard to slog through.  The expose of the religious so called obesity “scientists” was quite the eye opener.  I knew it was bad like politics, but my GOD, I had no idea it WAS THAT TAINTED.  How these people sleep at night I’ll never be able to figure out.

    I wish you could write more about how to avoid these aholes who ruin it for everybody i.e. “health sientists”.  Also, was there any gender bias going on, for instance, did men ignore women or was it equal?  Or does it all boil down to some company donating research money?  Does it just always come down to the money?  Aholes, I hate them so much.

    AND, I have been googling Gary craxy for the last week, I never heard of him before last week, I live in Canada, on the internet all the time, so I have no idea how I missed this big event, but anyhoo, catching up now.  And so far, I haven’t heard Gary discuss the day-care effect.  Many mothers went to work in the early 80′s meaning stranger care took off just at obesity levels took off.  I think there defo. is a connection.

    It’s hard to do anything properly when you are working mother, you are just doing five jobs badly instead.  Anyway, I’m sure the day care affects are poor eating and mother’s TOTAL lack of time to research anything… as if husbands are going to do it…, pffft, except for Gary of course.  If I was Gary’s wife, I would throw sugar gummy vitamines out the window like yesterday.  GOD.

    I’m really looking forward to getting the WWGF book.  I stopped putting sugar in my coffee last Thursday.  I feel like I’m sleeping better??!!?!??!!?.  I’ve been gorging on meat and have set aside my lifelong addiction of pasta and potatoes and rice for now.  Have always been pretty lean but would love to not get cancer, so good by white sugar death.  I’m going to focus most on eliminating sugar and see what happens.

    Thank you for your OCD brain.

  187. Caresse Gillingham says:

    I just watched a repeat of the Dr. Oz show and it annoyed me as much this time as it did the first time.   Dr. Oz seems to have blinders on when it comes to grains.  He had his agenda and was not prepared to listen to the very valid points Gary was making.  The only times I have ever been able to lose weight successfully have been when I have followed a low carb diet and gotten rid of the grains and starches.  That said, I have ulcerative colitis and the diet Dr. Oz prefers sends me straight into a painful flare.  The only thing that puts me into remission is a diet like Gary’s.  Having this disease has made me aware of the fact that grains contribute directly to leaky gut and, thus, bowl disorders. 

    The medical profession seems to have lost sight of the fact that, historically, successful weight loss diets significantly restricted or even eliminate starches.  The original Weight Watchers diet I followed in 1980 allowed a woman 6 to 8 oz.of protein and only 1 to 2 slices of bread or starchy vegetable equivalent.  A person who mentions the old diet in a meeting is shut up very quickly.

    I make no pretense of being educated in the field of nutrition, but I believe that 60 years of life experience is a great educator.  Keep the fight going, Gary.  You are right!

  188. Anonymous says:

    On Tuesday, June 21st, the rerun of Gary Taubes appearance on “Dr.Oz” show was on, and I just happened to catch it as I’m not a regular viewer….so glad I did!   Very interesting!  Hard as he tried, I don’t think Dr. Oz could pass off Gary as a quack.  Certainly not to me and I noticed a few in the audience who looked intrigued with it, and didn’t quite applaud at Dr. Oz’s comments.   Went to the library today and got both of Gary’s books!    And this blog will be a regular ‘go to’ in future.
    jaybee in Illinois

  189. Anonymous says:

    Dr. Oz was trying to make Gary look like a fool but only succeeded in making himself look like one.  I was already beginning to be turned off by his silly demonstrations on the show and this capped it.  Personal experience with restricting carbs works for me.  I am somewhat insulin resistant and with this type of diet lost weight, lowered glucose levels and increased HDL.  Also had lots of energy and my skin and muscle tone was good.  I am in my 60′s.

  190. Anonymous says:

    HI Saw you on you tube a week 8 days ago, and went out and bought your book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. Still reading, but started eating the 1950′s diet shown in the chart. The first few days I had a slight headache, and did not lose much. The fruit & vege cleans I did a few years ago caused an extreme headache, which prevented me from doing anything.  Energy was down a little the first few days, but by the 4th day it skyrocketed.  One week latter and I am down 3 pounds and feeling great. I am a 54 year old female, with no overies.  I have lost weight, I am not hungry, and I am happy.  Thankyou

  191. For what it’s worth the indifference towards low carbohydrate diets by the medical and scientific community has little or nothing to do with profit motives other than the common “profit motives” in all industries regarding “self preservation and economy for ones wellbeing. — There is no big conspiracy or anything similar going on in the world of health or diet or marketing or anything else that effects either professional or lay views regarding our health and this form of dieting and eating.

    It’s simply where we evolved too.

    If I was born “south of the border” I would have black hair and dark eyes and probably be catholic.

    That’s where I ended up in the world by no pretext of my own.

    This whole thing is so big and out of the “norm” that it simply isn’t understandable or comprehensible by the masses, that’s all.

    We spent hundreds of years and before that thousands of years getting this way.

    We think it’s right. 

  192. They are all good people. They simply can’t understand and are unable to grasp such a contrast.

  193. They are all good people. They simply can’t understand and are unable to grasp such a contrast.

  194. Anonymous says:

    Your book has been a complete rethink for me.  I never trusted diets much for the same reason I dont trust infomercials about a new exercise fad or piece of equipment.  Thank you for a better framework to understand the problem.

    I watched Chris Gardner’s lecture referenced in your book comparing Atkins to lowfat diets.  The most interesting concept for me was the wide distribution in outcomes for every diet type, including low carb and low fat.  Then the chart relating insulin resistance to effectiveness of a low carb diet.  VOILA… we have it.  While Gardner isnt saying there is enough clinical evidence to conclusively argue this, isnt he basically saying insulin sensitivity is the key measure of why some people can process glucose and others cant?  Its kind of like saying I cant process gluten… but in this case… i cant process carbs as fuel.  For me, they turn to fat.

    I think you should explore the concept of insulin sensitivity in a bit more detail.

    In any event, I wish I had your book in 2007.  Back then, my doc prescribed the south beach diet.  I tried my best (although without any meaningful belief on my part, my compliance was probably much poorer than my current attempt, which is backed with much more knowledge).  It turns out I abandonned this diet 3 years ago, because 1) my total cholesterol and LDL rose (as should be expected).  I and my doctor overlooked the fact that my HDL improved slightly but my triglycerides dropped like a stone (and also my fasting glucose levels).  Although I have not yet retested, I have lost nearly 20lbs and am confident that my panels will improve dramatically now that I better understand the science behind it.

    Thank you!!!!

  195. Richard Arppe says:

    “It’s a trade-off. If I eat fruit, other than maybe a handful of blueberries a day, I start to gain weight, so I don’t eat it”.

    Please, Gary….the above happens only in a high-fat context. Fruit and Grains make you fat when your diet is high in fat. When you cut the fatty animal products, the carbs no longer make you fat.

    The Hawaii Diet: ad libitum high carbohydrate, low fat multi-cultural diet for the reduction of chronic disease risk factors: obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia.

    “Twenty-two adults recruited from various cultural backgrounds in Hawaii were fed, without calorie or portion size restriction, the Hawaii Diet for 21 days. The Hawaii Diet, based on familiar traditional foods from different cultures, is high in complex carbohydrate (77% of calories), low in fat (12% of calories), and moderate in protein (11% of calories). Participants were encouraged to eat to satiety.”

    “The Hawaii Diet consisting of high carbohydrate, low fat ethnic meals appears to have a beneficial influence on weight loss and in decreasing systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, LDL, and blood glucose values. Marginal improvement occurred for triglyceride levels. There was also a significant drop in HDL levels, however, the Chol:HDL was ratio did not increase. Further studies of longer duration with a control group should be conducted to test the effectiveness of The Hawaii Diet in maintaining these health benefits over a longer period of time.”

    “An extremely high carbohydrate-fat ratio improves insulin sensitivity whereas more moderate changes (40-60% carbohydrate) produce less convincing results”

    Smith U. Carbohydrates, fat, and insulin action. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Mar;59(3 Suppl):686S-689S.”

    Check, also these ones.

    Abstract 3610: Comparative Effects of 3 Popular Diets on Lipids, Endothelial Function and Biomarkers of Atherothrombosis in the Absence of Weight Loss
    http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/116/16_Meeti

    “..a recent study by Foo and colleagues shows that HPLC diets may accelerate atherosclerosis through mechanisms that are unrelated to the classic cardiovascular risk factors”.

    Clinical Implications of Basic Research. A Look at the Low-Carbohydrate Diet (2009)

  196. I’m a Dr Oz fan and I just saw your appearance and was struck by several things.
     It was obvious to me that the crew had compiled a very unappetizing example of what one would eat following WWGF and Dr Oz’s 24 hour attempt to follow your guidance was also very bias – do you ever recommend pork rinds as a snack? That was just gross. I think it may even be possible to be low carb and eat some yogurt and berries — especially blackberries or some berry suitably low sugar, and maybe it should be soyogurt – these seem to be reasonable substitutions to make. Dr Oz also talked about missing his green shake – well I’m not sure what it is comprised of but if it contains mainly dark leafy greens it sounds like something you are recommending. 

    Because they tried so hard to discredit the points you were making though these methods made me even more curious and I’ve done some follow up on the web which is how I found your page. I plan to get a copy of WWGF and read it cover to cover – just as I did YOU, an owners manual. I needed to lose about 60 pounds and lost about 30 and plateau’d for about a year. Now the scale inching back up again. I realized that I’ve been eating a lot of healthy fruits, not that many vegetables. And after you talked about carbs, fructose, insulin and fat storage a light bulb went on over my head. 
    My message to you is don’t lose heart, you may have thought your appearance wasn’t that well received but I suspect I’m about to become a convert. 

  197. mary l. says:

    Hi Gary,

    I have been on a high protein diet, and it has certainly dropped a bit of fat and put on muscle. I’m watching the Forks over Knives documentary, and they’re citing the China Studay and using other so called “experts” about the cancerous causes of animal protein. With so many diffferent views on nutrition by professionals, do nutritionists really know what they’re talking about?

  198. linda hillman says:

    I so believe in what you are saying and I experienced it first hand however, it is so difficult to maintain this way of eating.  Especially if you dislike meat!  It would be great to have a book with very creative ideas on how to successfully change your taste for foods, specifically meats and eggs.  For those of us who have lived the carb way for years (50+), it is really a challenge to change.  It’s complicated further when mainstream is not accepting of this philosophy making it even more difficult to incorporate healthly low carb foods into your diet.  I’m new to yourbooks and your blog so if you have already discussed this please let me know how to locate that information.  thanks for staying with it….against the mainstream!

    • Paula says:

      Linda, regarding “how to do this” if one dislikes meat:  Here’s an exchange I saved, between a vegetarian (who is a family practice doctor in NC I believe, from googling him) and GT:

      FROM frankjspencejr

      Gary, this is spooky. As you know I have also been on the 3 eggs a day, high fat, very low carb diet about 2 years. Just yesterday I had my lipids checked, with almost identical results as yours:T Chol 192, TG 65, LDL-C 114, HDL-C 65.3, VLDL 13, Chol/HDL 2.9Weight staying mid 180s. Thanks again for your good work.

      FROM garytaubes

      Hi Frank,Spooky it is, since you don’t eat any meat at all and I live on it. Nice numbers and nice to hear from you,
      as ever
      gt

  199. Paula says:

     
    ON HOW HARD IT IS TO CONVINCE OTHERS THAT GT IS RIGHT:“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
     
    from “What Is Art and Essays on Art” by Leo Tolstoy – As quoted by physicist Joseph Ford in Chaotic Dynamics and Fractals (1985) edited by Michael Fielding Barnsley and Stephen G. Demko
     
    I happened to run into the quote on Prof. Richard D. Feinman’s blog, in the comments to his blogpost on the movie Money Ball’s similarity to the current diet controversies.
    http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/the-nutrition-mess-lessons-from-moneyball/#comments

  200. Paula says:

    LATEST INTERVIEW:

    “Host Angelo Coppola talks with best-selling author Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories & Why We Get Fat). They discuss Gary’s early work, science, carbs, exercise, the Ancestral Health Symposium, and much more.”

  201. Gerry Cormons says:

    Hi Gary
    Just finished ready “Why We Get Fat”. I found this book very interesting. The more I’ve
    given thought to your idea on diet the more I believe it’s the right way to eat.
    I have one question. You made no mention about eating raw unsalted nuts. What
    is you opinion on this food source.
    Thanks for your time
    Gerry
    Courtenay, BC
    Canada

  202. Razwell says:

    It would be great if Dr. Oz could read these comments and look into the cholesterol scam in more detail.

    This is a fantastic video from Jimmy Moore’s awesome forum which features a neuroscientist exposing the fact that 8 out of 9 members of the National Cholesterol Education Program are on the payrolls of numerous drug companies. Some even hold stock in statin drug companies. They set the guidelines lower and lower and lower every 5 years or so. This makes 20 more million Americans eligible for statin use. The doctors go by these fraudulent guidelines to make decisions treating us.

    In 2004, numerous independent scientists from Johns Hopkins , Harvard, UCLA collectively wrote the NCEP and requested a new analysis of the data because THEIRS found the NCEP’s guidelines to have no scientific backing to them.

    The Lipid research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, touted as the ultimate proof of cholesterol reduction was a failure, but proponents declared victory. Here is the data:

    Out of 3,806 people

    *TOTAL mortality in the treatment vs control subjects was 68 vs 71

    *CAD mortaliy in the treatment vs control subjects was 30 vs 38

    After 30 years of trying to demonstrate cholesterol lowering saves lives and failing The Lipid research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial was another failure . Despite this ,cholesterol hypothesis proponents claimed victory by manipulating numbers which appears in the ABSTRACT of the study to be supportive.

    Gary probably did not have the time to explain all of this to the audience on Dr. Oz’s show, so THAT is probably why he declined a total cholesterol test. It’s virtually meaningless. The public unfortunately does not know this.

    Here is the video and I hope it benefits all here. It sums up many of the same points that Gary had in “Good Calories ,Bad Calories “about cholesterol and saturated fats.
    I hope this video benefits all here.

    Here is the video :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3vr-c8GeT34

  203. Krista Collins says:

    There is no doubt in my personal experience that Gary Taubes findings/premise, putting the true data together, whatever way you want to say it, is true for me.
    I am so gratified to hear the exact same statements spoken that have been my personal observation also
    “But there’s no website or diet book that will tell you what your body can tolerate.” in context with the whole issue of carb intake, etc.
    My body/life changed when I was diagnosed type 2 diabetes, given metformin and sent to a dietician. I had been a vegetarian for 17 years, was 80 lbs overweight, depressed and it just felt like it was all falling apart and I kept hearing the word “age” a lot when I would inquiry as to “isn’t there something that can be done”? I was horrified into jumping head first, or maybe fat first, into the “latest research” and came across the carb conversation. I quit all the grains, legumes, and dairy and started eating animal protein, with small carb amounts. Lost 60 lbs without trying, more energy, got off the metphormin. At one point I lived for several weeks on no carbs at all and felt great, have gotten a lot of flack for it though.
    Got a new doctor, she introduced me to the Paleo diet.
    I also have direct experience with seeing my elderly clients, mentally improve from dramatically reducing their carb intake, eliminating grains, etc, increasing protein.
    I KNOW the dramatic change in my body/my life from adapting this “paradigm shift”, I don’t have to qualify it any other way. I personally can not eat fruit, just berries in a very small amount, nor can I eat even the better starchy veggies, squash, pumpkin, carrots, etc.
    I am so grateful, Gary, that you are willing to take the stand you have, because there is a powerful opposition to something I had to journey alone on to remain true to the wisdom inherently demonstrating as I listened to my body telling me what works. When everyone around me at that time was telling me I was crazy, what I was doing was crazy, etc. They by the way are still fat, taking meds and complaining about how sick they are.
    At 54, I am just getting started and the best is yet to come! BTW, I make a kick-ass Bacon wrapped Chicken stuffed with cream cheese that horrifies the calorie counters! I love it when they say: “How do you eat like this and stay so thin”? My answer: “I read”

    • David says:

      Vegetarian diets can be low-carb. if you want. I eat a wide variety of plant-based foods plus some-grass-fed cheese, butter and eggs, giving a carb. intake of probably 80-100 g/day. I found this easy. I am not convinced at the moment that a naturally thin person needs to eat less than this, but I could reduce the intake if I believed it to be necessary.

  204. Staceyann Dolenti says:

    Dr. Taub talks about what not to eat, I wish he would talk more about what we should eat. staceyann dolenti

  205. friend I was surfing on-line and I came throughout your post… I loved reading it . I realized a lot about this topic that you simply wrote here. Thanks a lot for posting an article like this one.

  206. Jake says:

    the author GREATLY misunderstands the american diet! people RARELY eat how dr oz does (fruits and veggies) but rather eat garbage such as candy/granola bars, sweets (i.e. donuts, cookies, etc), and fruit juice… those that actually stay true to a fruits/veggies diet with whole grains (though in moderation) will lose weight!!! this is really not deniable, i don’t see how this supposed “expert” can be so confused about this fact

  207. margaret collins says:

    What ever happened to moderation in all things. proclaimed good or bad.

    I have been looking for a straight forward answer on the” net “as to how diabetic insulin affects our organs, and brain in a negitave way. which is better shots or pills. I have not yet started on medication.

  208. Anthony says:

    Gary. How could Dr Oz make an about face now on something he has preached his whole life? It would only be his credability and TV show on the line. In saying that, he is an intellegent educated man, so how hard can it be to see people who do not subscribe to his way of nutrition – losing body fat, and those who do subscribe – weighing more, can’t curb their hunger etc.? Perhaps people like Dr Oz do not want to see it or beleive it?
    Keep fighting the good fight.
    Anthony – Brisbane, Australia

  209. Good day! My mother and I extremely enjoy the diligent work you’ve spent on this page. In fact, my daughter and I have also been producing a website covering exotic fruit. Your blog’s info has been a great help for our own site. Keep up the great content! Looking forward to seeing more info from you! I just added this blog to my own favorites. =)

  210. Sue says:

    If I am a person that is ultra sensative to insulin, am obese, etc., is cutting most/all the carbs all that is needed or is calorie restriction also a fact of life should I desire to become lean? Do I have to cut the carbs and then on top of that also cut the calories? Will this then cause me to overeat and put the weight back on?

  211. Mike Magula says:

    Reading Why We Get Fat. I am very surprised when I see you opine that there are no studies showing grass fed beef is any more nutritious than corn fed! I find a number of supporting and complex studies mostly regarding the fat content, omega 3 and other health benefits. I am bewildered.

  212. Robert says:

    Gary,
    I don’t get it.

    Dr. Oz villifies you everytime you meet, he does everything but call you a quack to your face, but when he had George Stella on his show, (a family who has low carbed successfully for many years now) he’s fawning all over them???

    What gives?

    http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/family-lost-500-pounds-pt-1

  213. Angela says:

    Hi all,
    I saw this episode here in Australia around two weeks ago, and I spent the section cheering on Gary and screaming at the TV. I just wanted to add food for thought and my $0.02…
    * My understanding is the Healthy Eating Pyramid (pie chart or other incarnations) was heavily influenced by the Agricultural Industry (using US and Australia as examples), and therefore profit, industry and economy are the basis for it – not health.
    * The more “healthy” eating info our populations are following, the more obese and unwell we seem to get… It seems counterintuitive to keep doin the same thing an expect different results in my personal (and totally laymans) opinion.
    * People like Weston-Price were and still laughed at for their ‘real-world’ investigations and conclusions about healthful foods and their effects… However more and more people are rejecting the info they are fed, looking at things for themselves and changing what they eat for the better – and are reaping the benefits.
    * Books like “Deep Nu