ExRx.net

http://elsbethvaino.com/2011/06/is-it-r ... ohydrates/

Just sharing this. Elsbeth actually posted here, briefly, but was chased away due to some "(Mike) Boyle Bashing" that was going on which was a shame, to be honest (she is one of the experts on Strength Coach). She also just co-wrote a push up article on T-nation with Bret Contreras.

Anyway, I quite liked it, thought I would throw it out there. I liked her balanced approach. I find it difficult to argue with anything she said in it. Would be interested in anything that could be disputed i.e. again Taubes is criticised for his use of research. This is an area i'm trying to make an effort to understand and learn more about.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

KPj,

Boyle Bashing

Yea, I did the Boyle Bashing. However as you may remember, I am not the only one that is unimpressed with Boyle.

The National Strength and Conditioning Association has bared him from their organization.
Ironically, Eslbeth is a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist, as I am.

Mark Rippetoe is NOT a fan of Boyle. Rippetoe basically said, "How can I promote a guy (Boyle) who is opposed with what I advocate.

Chased Away

Eslbeth ran away. It was her choice.



Taubes

I have not read Taubes. So, I am not familiar with his views.

If Taubes is chanting "All carbs are bad" then he is missing the point.

"Is it really carbohydrates?"

Elsbeth article provides some information. However, it's vague.

Elsbeth hits some of the points and misses other parts.

Calories, Calories, Calories

As Elsbeth infers, eating too many calories...no matter the macronutrient mix creates weight gain.

Elsbeth's Pulling Up Short

One majory point that needed to be addressed in the article was the relationship of carbohydrates and insulin.

As we all know, "Insulin is a fat maker..." (Jay Robb).

Picking Your Carbs

Certain types of carbs trigger the release of insulin.

Certain types of carbs produce minuscule insulin release.

More Information

Her article makes a vague point. It only tells part of the story, not the whole story.

That where the article really falls apart.

Kenny Croxdale

_________________
Thanks TimD.

The article doesn't really add anything. Basically, she says anything works if you stick to it. She does hint at some points that are important, such as "Poly-unsaturated fatty acids [up] 56%."

I think the main problem is the constant bombardment of ads for processed foods, and the worst are those that masquerade as health foods. How do the average person stick with a healthy diet when there is a constant reinforcement of crappy diet information? People think Special K and sweetened low fat yogurt is a healthy breakfast.

_________________
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

For what it's worth, I appreciate the tone you use when criticising certain things, or people. I find it entertaining (i believe you compared him to Hitler LOL). Anyway, i have a weird sense of humour like that. It is possibly Elsbeths problem for taking it personally. However, she probably wouldn't of left if it were just the "methods" and not the "person" that was being bashed.

Trying not to get into it again but, technically, I could use Rips point for myself, too. However, I know a little more about where he's coming from, having taken the time to find out. If Rip had dug a little deeper he would realise the context of his recommendations (i believe Rip trains mostly beginners, Boyle trains mostly athletes....both coaches results speak for themselves) and Boyle actually recommends Starting Strength on his site, and basic barbell training for beginners. Also, on his own forums are a lot of highly respected coaches who disagree with his stance. I think it says a lot about someone who can listen to and accept an opposing view (one of the threads where this was challenged is actually stickied, where said he was "almost convinced to change his mind"), instead of just bashing someone that disagrees with you.

It just comes down to disagreeing vs disliking. In the case of Mike Boyle, though, I believe he's quite misunderstood. With the squatting thing, I honestly think he got so much abuse over that because it was difficult to argue with the points he made, and people got defensive (and direct their anger towards him personally, and not his methods)




I think that lack of point was really the point..... Taubes seems to have it all worked out. I think what she's saying is, based on the data available, how can he? If eating too many carbs was THE problem, then surely our carb intake over the last few decades would have increased? If the low fat kick has made things worse, then surely our fat intake would have decreased at the same time? (too be honest I thought our fat intake HAD decreased.... I find the research very confusing, to be honest).

Worth pointing out that I actually agree with Taubes. I "buy into" to the whole carbs/insulin theory. It just "makes sense" to me. I just don't understand it as much as I should and like to play devils advocate in attempt to learn more, really.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

Disclaimer: I haven't had time to read your replies. This are my first impressions.

Now I don't want to sound as a naysayer or a Taubes zealot, but am I right in thinking this is the main point of the article ?



i.e. the Super size me hypothesis. Which translates to "people are stupid and will eat whatever they are served". Really? I have plenty of examples of people who leave food in their plates. What about people who mainly eat at home?

Tell me that obesity is a problem because people eat 24/7, or tell me that they are eating as a way to cope with stress or because food has become an emotional substitute for something's missing in people's life.

I have seen that, I can believe it. But this..?

And there's another one:



Look at the data:


Fat Delta = 102 - 86 = 24 g
Carb Delta = 320 - 298 = 31 g

So, it only increased more if you look at it as percentage change :| If someone like Taubes tells you that carbs will stimulate fat storage and then you produce data to disprove that argument and the data shows instead that carb intake HAS increased more than fat intake, it follows fat storage will be increased but fat intake has increased too compounding the problem, aren't you really proving that he is right in the first place?

Again I don't know if Taubes' insulin theory is 100% bulletproof and I'm not going to say that, but this is not a carefully constructed argument.

PS: sorry about multiple edits and probably not being very clear, I'm pretty tired this evening.

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

That's a straw man argument. Taubes said no such thing. She is either being deceptive, didn't read it, or she's VERY stupid.



That is a red herring. Bread is just one of many things, AND there are many different kinds of bread. So this bit is laughable. The fact that she added statistics about bead consumption indicates this is propaganda.


Hilarious! This is the conclusion from her faulty premise above. So because we don't eat as much bread, that means we eat less carbs? Wow, that is either dishonesty or mind-boggling stupidity.




So she says 30 years, then gets data for 10, even though 35 years is more about the figure she should be looking at if she wants to rebut Taubes. Very fishy. You also have to wonder why she is using that source. It's an organization for the purpose of combating world hunger. That seems very strange.

Then below that she uses a Canadian study, even though we were talking about the US. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It looks like she started out with a presupposed idea, and then tried to find stuff to support that.
Look here, the food balance sheets from FAO (her source) isn't actually what people ate. It's just a calculation based on available food and the population.
http://faostat.fao.org/site/354/default.aspx

But let's say fat consumption has gone up. She hasn't noted what kind of fat it is. We know that people are eating more processed food containing more sugar and corn oil. Those statistics mean a lot more than total fat consumption.



She never established that his thesis missed the mark. We got nothing but logical fallacies and deception. The outliers is the main point of what comes next, but she never goes into detail about that. I wonder why that is?



More misrepresentation of Taubes arguments..... imagine that.....



Here we have one big baseless assertion. To be fair she did say it was just an idea. However she has nothing to back this up. It's nothing but speculation and her personal beliefs, which are based on nothing as far as I can tell.



How is it simpler? Does it have any merit? How do you know people eat everything they are served?
The biggest problem with this is that there is NO causative link, but she concludes with the arrow of causation based on nothing but presupposition. That is the same problem with the idea that Taubes debunks. So rather than address Taubes main point, she simply creates this smoke and mirrors article, and then commits the SAME fallacy Taubes spent HUNDREDS of pages debunking. He didn't just state that it's the "causation" or "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, but actually provides evidence for why the causative arrow goes the direction he states. She simply creates straw man in order to support her presupposed beliefs.

She then goes on to accurately asses Dr. Andrew Weil and Dr. John Berardi. This leads me to think this article is either deception or personal bias, rather than stupidity.

Ironman - Brilliant, thanks!

_________________
Thanks TimD

So Ironman, I'd like to know your actual stance on carbohydrates and on fat and their more specific sub categories.

Well for fats, most saturated fats seem to be the healthiest from the evidence I've seen. I seem to remember a couple minor exceptions to that. I also remember there being a couple types of saturated fat that are particularly good for you. So for the most part you don't have to worry about that.

Everyone knows how bad transfats are, so no need to go into that. Omega 6 seems to be a big problem. Because of all the corn oil in processed food people get way too much of it. We need a little bit, but nowhere near the amount we get. Omega 3 is one you should have more of. That seems to be mainly for the purpose of countering all the omega 6 though.

For carbs the worst tends to be sugars and white flour. Processed foods stripped of their fiber are associated with obesity and health problems. Grains can be alright in small quantities. They aren't as healthy as people think though. You should mainly stick the high fiber products. The best carbs are of course vegetables. As far as starchy carbs certain root vegetables like yams for example are pretty good for you. Fruit of course is also good for you, especially berries.

So as far as health goes, you mainly want to stay away from processed food. Most of it is stripped of fiber and nutrients, and is just concentrated corn oil and sugars.

Now weight loss is going to be different for different people. Many people will need less carbs, and may even have to watch fruit intake. A lot of significantly overweight people have poor insulin function. People can have a genetic disposition to be that way also. So those people will likely do better with a low carb diet, getting their carbs mainly from veggies. However that's not the case for everyone. Some people don't have a problem with that. Sometimes a person may be fat because of an eating disorder. Some people can just cut down on the junk food, and drop the weight. It varies greatly by person.

For maintaining, activity level is an important consideration. A very active person will require more carbs in their maintenance diet. Couch potatoes should maintain with less carbs. This is because active people may need some faster digesting energy, where as sedentary people do not.

For building muscle you need more carbs. You need enough to make progress, but not so much that you're just getting fat. That amount will be different for everyone. That can vary quite a bit too.

That's the quick, short version of it. It's a complicated topic, so this is by no means complete or comprehensive. The problem is dietary needs will differ based on the person and the goals. So this is a very broad high level thing. Most of the time though, you run into fat people that need lower carbs, or you get skinny hard gainers, who just need to eat more in general.

If you have questions on a more specific thing, I could probably answer that with greater detail.

Nope, that's perfect.

I was just curious what your views on things were, because I wasn't able to really get a solid idea of what you were thinking from your shorter posts.

I just kind of like to know what everyone's opinions are on certain things :P

special K releases similar amount of insulin to fish or fruit.
http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm

That's the same argument, and again, it's not JUST insulin. Just to break this down, as clearly as possible.... Insulin also is responsible for amino acid uptake, NOT just metabolizing sugar. So yes you get insulin from eating protein, but NO it's not doing the same thing. It's also responsible for lipid synthesis and other things as well.

That leaves me confused. My perception of the simplified reasoning behind carb consumption leaving one more prone to the accumulation of adipose tissues was just that - insulin spikes. If eating cereal leads to a lesser insulin response than meat + eggs, then what is it?

The body is a complicated system and any attempt to describe it with a simple model will fail since the model can't possibly take into account all the relevant information.

The insulin model is important but is not complete, just as the nutrient/anti-nutrient and the food reward models are incomplete. If you want a simple rule that works in most cases, eat whole, unprocessed foods and ignore the proportions in the food guides.

_________________
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

Can someone point me in the direction of the appropriate reading material to better understand this complexity? I'm currently taking a nutrition course at university, and the term project is a personal diet analysis. It would be nice to be able to adequately justify my high protein/reduced carb diet to the very traditionalist, Food Guide adhering prof. I can manage countering a whole term's worth of "protein will damage your kidneys, saturated fat will clog your arteries" assertions reasonably well, but really don't have much of a case for why carbohydrates are bad apart from the insulin response argument... and that tends to fall apart when comparing meat to grains, potatoes, and even baked goods. At this point I've got nothing more than: "some guys on exrx told me to eat this way a few years ago, and that's why I do it!" =D