ExRx.net

So, A review was done on Gary Taubes new book. Albeit from someone who hasn't actually read it. It's more a review of snippets of information Taubes has made available on his blog to market the book. There was a really good discussion regarding Taubes work on StrengthCoach which Chi was a part of and made some very interesting points, refuting a lot of things that the likes of Taubes or Eades mention a lot i.e. there's no evidence to suggest elevated blood sugar levels cause type 2 diabetes therefore the it's just an assumption that carbs cause elevated sugar levels which cause diabetes..... Also claims protein can spike insulin just as much if not more than carbs and that a high insulin response isn't a bad thing.... This was on the SC forum though, best to keep it to the blog post. It's worth while to state that Chi IS an advocate of better food choices he just says that there is nothing to show that carbs are any worse or better than any other macro nutrient and most of the Taubes or Eades work is based on mechanisms that are either unproven or have been refuted with research. He claims it's unreasonable to cite one single factor as the "cause" of obesity, mentioning things like social and psychological issues among others (i tend to agree it can't be blamed on just one factor).

So, he's not an advocate of low fat/high carb. He just claims to not buy into the "BS" surrounding Low carb.

http://markyoungtrainingsystems.com/201 ... e-get-fat/

I think it's always good to look at opposing views. However, i'm definitely not a diet expert. I'm also not a science expert. I'm not ashamed to admit that a lot of this stuff leaves me cross eyed. I like that at one point he says (i think in the comments) that just because an argument is convincing, does not make it true. Taubes is convincing. I really "like" him. I agree with him for the most part. So it's a shock to see counter points that I can't argue with, either because I can't understand the science enough or haven't looked into it enough, or both. Or whatever.

Worth a read would be interesting to hear thoughts on it.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

disclaimer: just finished "why we get fat". haven't traced sources. have read some other reputable rigorous sources that say similar things to Taubes (Pollan/Gaesser/Stuward). went off carbs for 10 days and experienced dramatic body composition change.

haven't looked at Chi's work. based on what you say he said, he's criticising on principle not on the specific argument. this is good rhetoric, and potentially multiple types of specious argument Ironman will be able to identify. Saying about Taubes "no, doesn't matter what he says, there are other things, therefore he's not right".

I'm of the understanding, based on my experiences with an alcoholic type 2 diabetic relative, as Taubes says, that sugar/glucose does cause insulin elevation which provokes nutrient storage as opposed to nutrient use. insulin responds to sugar, hence the use of honey or barley sugar to reduce the chances of hypoglycemic (low sugar) episodes. the insulin insensitivity is either congenital, random or potentially caused by a lifetime of excessive beer consumption which has dramatically changed their normal insulin sensitivity.

the "i found a study that contradicts your study" battles will continue to range. that's science, and I support it. Popper is awsome. but the story from practitioners who assist type 2 diabetics doesn't appear to vary. wholegrains, no alcohol, consistent mealtimes, complex carbs. don't mess with your insulin with 'party' sugar.

i'd feel any critic of the role of sugars in reducing insulin sensitivity needs to do better than say "no it doesn't", and "but what about society" to cause me to change my belief that easily digestive, highly refined carbs, which contain sugars, affect insulin responses.

we've been watching recent broadcasts of J a m i e O l i v e r ' s F o o d R e v o l u t i o n season 2, which has the culinary crusader attempting to get into school kitchens in Los Angeles, and so far has dramatically failed to do so. my paranoia has calmed down a lot as i've reached my thirties, but i've no doubt a lot of the criticism of the role of highly refined easily digestible carbohydrate products in the United States is driven by food business not by human nutrition.

Apologies. Rant over. thanks for reading. hope the steam didn't burn you.

From time to time I stumble on some author/blogger which refuses the idea that carbs are a problem per se (two of the most prominent among the ones I've read so far are Martin Berkhan and Lyle McDonald, the last post I've read is this, which has a tail of other posts and comments that furthers the discussion). The two arguments I've seen more often are either that there are populations on a high-carb diet AND an almost perfect health, and the other is that blaming it all on the carbs (or insulin) is just as short-sighted as blaming it all on fat (or cholesterol for CHD). Basically he uses both in that post.

The latter is not really an evidence-based argument (although there might be some truth to it), while the first relies on the idea that carbs are all created equal. Did Taubes ever actually say that?

Martin wrote a post titled Low-carb Talibans where he explains the reasons why he thinks low-carb really works. It's also interesting to read the comments as many people were upset by Martin's stance and tried to pin him on science, but he stood his ground with many well-substantiated replies.

Back to the post you linked, "reviewing" a book you don't have read, based on "marketing material", is specious to say the least. If the guy actually does know what he's talking about, has so much experience, etc... why not buy the book, read it and then discuss its real content, rather than what he thinks is in it?

The only reasonable answer is, because this way he might be the first to put a out a "review" and so attract attention. Only, it's not a review, it's just a late reply to GCBC.

_________________
I don't know where the blind could lead the sightless
but I'd still like to witness

As far as i'm aware (from interviews with Taubes), most of what's covered in the new book is based on the old book. It's just, for the most part, more "reader friendly". You can get loads of material on the net for free, too. I don't think there's any question that the points being refuted by Chi are "not" in the book or what Taubes has been saying.

I can understand a review before reading it. If you're time is limited, you need to pick and choose what you read. You like to make sure you're reading good/credible material. Chi makes the point that Taubes nitpicks research to support his own theory yet ignores other research which refutes a lot of what he says. He does also say that he agrees with a lot of what he says, too.

Chi is definitely a credible source. Remember Taubes is a Journalist. Chi does this for a living i.e. actually works with obese people.

I'm not defending either, really. I'm hoping it stirs up some constructive discussion so just want to point out that Chi is as credible as they come.... Arguably, if we were going down that road, Taubes isn't. I like Taubes work but would rather the discussion was more on the points being debated rather than the people who are debating them....

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

Since Rob-aus lumped me in with Taubes/Pollan and Gaeser, I should defend my position. I've never read Gaeser.

Carbs can cause metabolic disturbances that affect a large number of people. The current health care and nutritional guidance policies exaserbate that condition. In this regard I agree with Taubes. At the same time, there are people who do well on carbs and the Berkhans and McDonalds of the world are the people they should listen to. Personally I think I do best with a paleo diet plus dairy. I think the type of carb matters but it's because of the anti-nutrients in some grains. For example I do fine on potatoes, sweet potatoes, oats and rice but beans and wheat, not so much. I think most people should get the bulk of their calories from animal sources, others can get by with less, like Pollan.

There certainly is a lot more to the obeisity problem than carbs. A couple of recent bloggers talked about the reward of food. The sweet/salty/etc tastes which used to indicate nutritious food back in the paleo days, now are seperated from real food and overwhelm the senses. Therefore people become addicted to these powerful flavours and the empty calories that that come with them. This alone can cause some people to become fat. The carb/fat/protein balance is not important except possibly the lack of protein and nutrients in general. In others, these flavours are not appealing and these people have no trouble staying away from them. In any case, telling people to just avoid carbs is not going to help people with this issue.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Where did I discuss the people? My post was about the arguments used and the way they are presented.

The arguments, we've already heard them before. Just because they're not new it doesn't mean they aren't interesting, but the article itself doesn't give a new spin on any of them, isn't fresh, pleasant or in any other way a remarkable read. Actually, it sounded bitter and sometimes even spiteful to me.

Still I wouldn't have any problems if it didn't pose itself as a review. You can certainly write a "why I won't buy/read/watch something" article and even expect people to read it (I did that too), but what good does it make to pass it as a "review" ?

If you're trying to pinpoint someone else's dishonesty, is being misleading the most effective way to do it?

PS: I'm not going to defend Taubes (I would lack the skills and knowledge, even if I wanted to), and still hope to learn something new and interesting from the other replies.

_________________
I don't know where the blind could lead the sightless
but I'd still like to witness

Stu you wrote an insightful post as usual and I agree with most if not all that you wrote. I just wanted to point out that Berkhan and McDonald actually use a low-carb approach for the most part. AFAICT none of them rely on or recommend indiscriminate consumption of e.g. grains.

_________________
I don't know where the blind could lead the sightless
but I'd still like to witness

Fair enough, and apologies. I guess I was wrongly predicting it could go that way.





From the start of the article,

"This is not your typical review, because at the time of writing it, I do not own the book nor have I read it. It would have been easy for me to simply buy the book, read it, and write you a review, but I chose not to. Instead I’ll let Gary Taubes himself, try to convince me, to buy his book."

And the conclusion,

"The many flaws in his hypothesis make it impossible to answer the question of why we get fat. The subtitle ‘and what to do about it’ offers no real solution and does not take into account the complexity of (treating) obesity. This is the reason why I did not buy this book and will not recommend it to anyone else."

In reply to a comment from someone with the same point (reviewing a book he's not read although he never said he actually read it)

"The facts show me that I cannot trust Gary Taubes to provide me with honest and accurate information."

What he's showing is that, in his view, Taubes provides inaccurate information so, why should we buy his book?

I'm only defending him in the sense that he never claimed to have read the book in the first place. The points he's refuting and the source of the information (Taubes) was made clear.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

I think this is actually a good summary of what Chi was saying about Taubes....

As far as I could tell, he was just covering the research Taubes chooses to use and particularly the research he chooses not to use. I'm not a nutrition or a science guy, though, and there's far more knowledgeable people here than me, hence the reason for posting.

In the comments section, he likens this to buying a car from a sales rep who gets all the car specs wrong in his sales pitch, and ridicules other brands of cars in the process. If the points he makes are correct (it's not really my place to say...), then it's quite a good analogy.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

Stuward: I apologise for lumping you into a group - i'd intended my statement to mean you're one of the people i've read that provides reasoned and rational explainations for their positions on nutrition. i wasn't trying to lump you, or Pollan of Gaessner into a single camp. i'm not a fan of binary reductionism, despite my sometimes convoluted writing style.

Taubes does present some extreme options for certain people. The conclusion of "Why we get fat and what we can do about" (the simpliciation of GCBC) does include a tract acknowledging individual biologicial differences and the need for determining individual tolerances for carbohydrate intake. Then there is a point that risk management would indicate a minimal intake of highly refined, easily digested carbs/sugars would be beneficial. Bulghul is not the same as polished white rice. oats and honey is not the same as twinkie or p o p t a r t.

So, for a moment, just a moment, i'll set aside the issue of a psuedo review of new work based on existing positions.

Mark's characterisation of the interview is fascinating. Weight loss management is a very large industry in the States, given the significant levels of obesity, diabetes (with increasing prevalence in younger type 2 sufferers) and availability of processed convenience foods. Human biology is theoretically consistent and practically infinitely varied. Each case has to be handled individually, but we can't conduct a discussion based on individuals, so the body of knowledge and consensus opinions in any area will be contentious to varying degrees (think of immunisation or the best omlette). There's no question that a range of factors and approaches will be needed to be used in applied settings. One spanner won't guarantee you can fix a car. No wheat won't normalise clinical obesity. Taubes isn't approaching this individually; the journalistic "representation of studies, and" metastudies are epidemiological and selected/cherry picked (depending on your position) from practitioners who have generated successful outcomes.

Everyone's telling the "i've got the goods listen to me" story. As an Aussie who's lived and worked in the US and Canada at various times, the need to this is culturally different to the way Scottish, British or Australians would do it. One of the reasons why gaining popular opinion or belief is important is that very few people are actually able to really understand the science. And, as is discussed here from time to time, for the most part the science is troublesome anyway because of the huge ethical considerations and near infinite environmental variables that can not be controlled that exist whenever human welfare is affected (this is an interesting inversion of the problems we have with validity of pig based, or indeed any other genetically similar animal, experiments - they're not similar enough; people are similar but they shouldn't be experimented on in potentially dangerious ways).

I read with wonder a New York Times life web talkback with Taubes who was lauded and attacked equally for his conclusions. The most memorable quote was a submission along the lines of "this is all too hard. just tell me what i can eat now". by the time an individual has attended their second appointment with Chi, or any nutritional, dietetic or obseity specialist, they've already decided to play a role and try and think about their intake, which appears to be the most difficult part of the battle. for those that don't, and by gosh it appears there's a lot of them in the US, you've got to have something you can say in 15 seconds that makes sense.

note: several posts were made while i was smashing this rot through the keyboard - KPj you put forward some quotes about the veracity and marketing of the book - the saleability of the item - when someone needs help, they'll try anything. i can't read comments like that and think it's anything but denouncing the competition - when was the last time you thought it appropriate to give time to someone willing to start their conversation with "i havent been listening to what you're saying now but here's why you're wrong." ?

edit: added: journalistic "representation of studies, and" changed " haven't been listening".

For what it's worth and in the interest of balance (i'm not "siding" with anyone), one point jumped at me was the health insurance one. Since i'm in the UK and we have National Health Insurance but the same problems as the USA.

I also didn't "like" this,

"Obesity is not a simple problem that can be solved by buying a book, based on some serious flawed theories. If you think you are actually helping your obese clients with a low-carb diet and high intensity interval training, you may in fact have shortened their lives by a couple of years. Working with the obese requires specific knowledge and commitment, so if your program is an overweight XXL version of the program you have for your non-obese clients, please quit and give your clients a refund!"

Of course it can't be solved by buying a book! I thought it was silly to have this in there!!! Going by this logic no one should write any books about obesity. I dislike that kind of writing in general. Regardless of the content of one single book, who in their right mind would think reading it will solve Obesity. This is the exact kind of thing he's criticising Taubes for.

As for the rest of it. I've helped a lot of people lose weight (not a lot in comparison to Chi, though). A lot of those people have returned to the Docs for a health check to glowing reviews. I don't have the "specific" knowledge he's talking about, although i'm trying my best. Regardless of the details, most people who are fat eat a high carb diet. A lot of those carbs are processed/refined carbs. Therefore, by helping people cut these down, i'm "lowering" their carbs. Most people don't eat much protein at all. I encourage them to increase protein. Basically I encourage better food choices which by default normally means increasing protein and reducing carbs. It may not be classed as a "low carb diet" but that's basically what i'm getting at or how it turns out. I've not had anyone ask for a refund yet and, to be honest, i'm proud of what i've done with the majority of clients i've helped so far.

There are parts of it I don't "like" but, I just wanted to put it out there for people who know more than me, first.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

Yeah I know he's acknowledging it, but still googling taubes why we get fat review will bring up that article as well. Something that wouldn't have happened otherwise.



Sheldon Cooper's mother would reply to that: "and that is an opinion"

Anyway, I don't think I will be able to make my point more clear than I've already done, and you've made clear yours, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.



And I'm glad you did, I *am* interested in this discussion as well. There are many things that are either not or poorly understood about these matters, and no I don't think Taubes has ALL of the answers. I just wouldn't criticise too much the choice of title because, as sad as it is, these days editors rule and authors too often have to oblige.

_________________
I don't know where the blind could lead the sightless
but I'd still like to witness

The problem with that is, he has listened to what he's saying. Again, he makes it clear where he gets the points Taubes makes.... I struggle to see how they're competitors, too.

Before I train someone I have a discussion with them. I tell them they'll be lifting heavy things/getting stronger. I tell them for most, I don't have them counting calories and want them to concentrate on food choices/quality over quantity. I tell them I won't be standing beside them whilst they're on a treadmill for 45 minutes whilst they exercise at "talking pace". When they inevitable ask the question, I tell them we won't be doing loads (or any) situps or crunches.

I'm quite certain i've lost out on some clients due to this but, that's fine by me. I want people to have an idea of what they're in for.

I have a reputation in my gym for being a big advocate of free weights. Rightfully so. If someone really doesn't want to lift weights, then they shouldn't waste their time with me.

Going beyond that, I do a free consultation with everyone before they agree or commit to anything. During this i'll do a movement assessment. So, I may end up saying, "we can't do any OH pressing until you clear up those upper body imbalances". Even if they want a bigger OH press. I want people to know this because I like people to have an idea of what they're getting themselves into before they hand over any money.

I'm assuming this is one reason why Taubes provides the information he does on the internet. On a more positive note - I may read what he's released to market the book, and really like it. I'll then be thinking, "wow if this is how good his blog is, imagine how good his book is!".

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

Mark, the point of the post was to see if anyone here agreed with Chi's view that Taubes provides inaccurate information. Personally I find it difficult to refute anything he's specifically said. I would love to see Taubes respond to this. This has actually happened before, between Alan Aragon and Dr Lustig. It's quite an entertaining read if you have a spare few hours (or days!).

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/1 ... sm-debate/

You can't criticise Chi for the post "posing itself as a review" when he clearly states it's not a review.

On marketing - If you market a product on the internet and it gains popularity then, regardless of the quality you will get bad reviews. It's just a part of it. I market for (mostly) travel companies during the day and even companies who are renowned for customer service will have the odd bad review when you google the company name. The more popular you or your product gets, the more likely it is to happen.

Also, if you put out information on your website, particularly about a controversial topic, then it'll get scrutinised. If the information has flaws, then people are going to point it out and talk about it. If an author can't handle this, they shouldn't put it out there in the first place. I'm pretty sure Taubes isn't all that concerned with this anyway, i'm just curious on thoughts from people here but, it's not going to go anywhere if we keep bashing a post for reviewing a book which wasn't read despite this being stated anyway..... No one has chimed in to show that any of the points being refuted were taken out of context or misunderstood...

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

there's lot of things overlapping here, and i'm straying into a range of topics for the improvement or detriment of the situation. i purchased the new book on the basis that i couldn't see myself getting through the 700 pages of GCBC. your training approach is rational and responsible for you and your client; it's also important and illustrates the need for the right approach in the right situation. they're competitors in terms of their ideas and approach. in your training situation you're self filtering candidates. this type of lit review is another. to get to the nub of your post, which was to see if anyone else supported a view that was critical of the evidence selected, i couldn't say. In the actual text, as opposed to the cover, or sales information, Taubes does spend a bit of time pointing out the faults of various studies he cites, and the question of reliability and robustness of sources is endless. Of course there's been selective and intentional selection of items and articles - this is part of constructing a case.

the crux of my extended writings on this is the shallow nature of a case that says "yes you're wrong but I agree with you except the parts i don't agree with - therefore you are unreliable despite many common agreements and your whole case is rot - it's not even worth reading because i read the cover". his argument from authority doesn't fill me with enthusiasm.

given that you're a marketer, you know product differentiation. points of difference. the taubes publicity machine is pretty significant, and entertaining criticism of something can be productive and generate buzz, as this discussion has. Chi's judged the book by it's cover, or marketing. is that an adequate basis for comparision. while Taubes could be hardline, the book does contain nuance.

the twist is of course Taubes himself says it's not a book about diet, it's about the science of nutrition, or it's subversion. the applied diet bits are a bonus.