So, this may be lost already but, doing this at least gets things clearer in my own head.
First of all, for arguments sake, forget Taubes new book. Look at Chi's post as counter points to Taubes first few blog posts.
I'll break it up by headings on blog post made by Chi,The Significant 20 kcal
This is in reference to the following blog post by Taubes,áhttp://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inani ... vereating/
Very brief summary of both,
Taubes: According the the laws of Thermodynamics, all we have to do is eat an extra spoonful or mouthful of calories (20 kCal per day), over 20 years, to gain 40lbs of fat. Basically, there's no way we could possibly be this precise and, if we had to be, then everyone would be fat. Yes, we need to "overeat" to accumulate fat. Thermodynamics is basically a mechanis, It's the "how" we get fat. It is not the cause or the "why". It tells us very little.
Chi: He doesn't argue that there's more to it but, points out the flaws in the thought process. Still going by the laws of Thermodynamics, if you add mass, you add energy expenditure (the mass needs to be maintained and carried around). In fact, this has already been looked at to work out a formula for such. He provides a reference which apparently shows how a woman of BMI 23 would need 370 kcal too much per day for 30 years to get up to a BMI of 29. His point (all along) is that Taubes provides inaccurate information and this is to show that he does.
Personally you also need to consider that Taubes claims himself to have read "more than a century’s worth of literature on obesity and nutrition and chronic disease" so you've got to wonder how he could miss this. They actually both agree here but, Chi's point is on the quality of information provided by Taubes. 370 kcal per vs 20 is pretty significant. Why Diets Work, When They Do
In reference to Taubes second blog post (as stated!), here - http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/calor ... ohydrates/
Taubes: He goes over a lot of studies comparing low fat and low carb, pointing out the various flaws in them and showing why it's possible that even the results of the low fat diets could actually be a result of lowering carbs. Most low fat diets also lower carbs and the carb variable isn't controlled therefore, it could be as much down to the lowering carbs as it is to lowering fat or even just total calories.
Chi: Again points out that this has already been studied with the carb variable controlled and no significant difference was found. Therefore, again, Taubes is providing inaccurate information. He also goes on to talk about the Eskimo points that Taubes mentions quite a lot, pointing out that it's not accurate to say that Eskimos live on a "no carb" diet. He counters this argument, too, by mentioning an Indian tribe who's diet consists of 70% carbs yet they don't have any obesity or related diseases. The Eskimo point is not in the blog post by Taubes it is something he mentions quite a lot in interviews.It’s All Insulin, Bro!
In reference to http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/03/dose- ... -of-dr-oz/
Taubes: He puts his main point across that what makes our fat cells fat is essentially what makes us fat. What makes our fat cells fat is Insulin. Raised insulin will fill up our fat cells, basically. Lower insulin and the fat is released from our fat cells. Raised insulin creates the fat cells, and raised insulin prevents the fat from being released and used as energy. He cites a few biochemistry books to support this. He also gives what I felt was a good explanation on carb tolerance, well, based on what i thought I might of knew about it
Chi: Again, states that the information is inaccurate. Criticises Taubes for claiming the underlying "cause" of obesity (and obesity related diseases) is insulin, or insulin resistance, and therefore, based on his mechanisms of how fat is stored, carbs. Manage your carbs and you manage your insulin. Therefore you manage your body fat and by default, your health. He mentions that over 25% of the Obese are NOT insulin resistance, which flies in the face of what Taubes said, and cites a reference. He also cites a study done on rats where they shut off their insulin receptors and they didn't become obese. His point is that if this is what as at the heart of the book, then the information is flawed. He hints that Taubes understanding of Insulin is also flawed but doesn't go into detail.
They appear to be in agreement on Saturdated Fat, which is the next part.
The rest of it, I didn't find all that relevant, to be honest. The above is what is being "debated". I'm sure Taubes would agree on the other factors out with nutrition alone that contribute to Obesity. This is probably the part that I don't really "like", in the post. It would be more relevant to keep it on diet/nutrition. Sure, there's more to it, but that's where it gets messy in my view. I think it's surprising yet difficult to argue where Chi has pointed out the flawed information that Taubes uses.
I think it would be "nice" if we differentiated "getting fat" and, "obesity". I think Taubes work is more about how we actually get fat i.e. what we actually EAT. If we could figure that out first, then surely it would be much easier to figure WHY we eat the way we do. So you have what you eat (getting fat), and why you eat it (why we continue to get fat).
What got me most was the points about insulin. What Taubes says is, to be honest, what I "believed". I've also seen Chi go into more detail about this via Strength Coach forums and it's made me realise that maybe what I believed isn't actually true. Regardless, I'm confused and have A LOT to learn!