Interesting refutation of Gary Taubes' obesity ideas

[Justin August]

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

I'm not an expert or have a strong opinion one way or another, I just think it's fantastic that there's a debate searching for actionable ways to control obesity in this country right now.

[Zack]

I am happy to let the scientists battle this one out!  I will say that I have lost 20 pounds now in about 8 weeks, and my wife has lost about 10.  I had way more to lose before starting a diet that is higher in fat, filled with vegetables, and some fruits than she did.  It is working for me.  

I have also increased the amount of greens in my diet significantly - I now have them at all three meals.  And I am drinking a significant amount of water (and managing potassium and sodium levels appropriately).  

I have tried about every combination of approaches to losing weight that involve increasing my activity or decreasing my calorie intake, and I was never able to lose any significant weight, and was miserable when I was trying.  

I am not a scientist, and when people start prying at me about why I am doing it and whether it's truly healthy, I just let them know it's working for me, that my body seems to do a better job of processing this food, and I have never felt better.

And, to add to the riv content of this thread, none of this would have happened if Keven didn't give my wife the Taubes book when we visited HQ.  Kasey needed something to do while we were talking about components for my about-to-be-purchased Sam, and was reading it, and, when we were leaving, Keven gave her a copy.  She read it, suggested I read it, I did, and we started down the road.  Pretty awesome.  

[Mike]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41335973@N00/6029700830/

[PATRICK MOORE]

Thanks for posting that link. I've been skeptical of the "either or"
approach to diets on the basis simply of mankind's millennial
experience: most people during most of recorded - anyway -- history
ate mostly carbs and, in the case of the Chinese their cultural
descendents, mostly refined carbs. Yet you didn't see huge numbers of
obese rice eaters -- or of obese pasta eaters, for that matter, until
perhaps very recently. OTOH, the traditional polar peoples eat almost
nothing except animal products with huge amounts of animal fat (and
they were not fat, either -- rather slim, in fact).

My take: do what Gran'ma told you and don't eat before meals, eat a
balanced diet and finish up those vegetables, and in Rome do as the
Romans, so to speak.

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Justin August <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html
>
> I'm not an expert or have a strong opinion one way or another, I just think it's fantastic that there's a debate searching for actionable ways to control obesity in this country right now.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/nIIdSEZbkgYJ.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW
patric...@resumespecialties.com

A billion stars go spinning through the night
Blazing high above your head;
But in you is the Presence that will be
When all the stars are dead.
(Rilke, Buddha in Glory)

[Tim McNamara]

On Aug 12, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Zack wrote:

> I am happy to let the scientists battle this one out! I will say that I have lost 20 pounds now in about 8 weeks, and my wife has lost about 10. I had way more to lose before starting a diet that is higher in fat, filled with vegetables, and some fruits than she did. It is working for me.
>
> I have also increased the amount of greens in my diet significantly - I now have them at all three meals. And I am drinking a significant amount of water (and managing potassium and sodium levels appropriately).

I haven't read anything by Taube so I can't comment on the scientific basis for his work, except to say that the science of human nutrition is far from exact. And because we are omnivores, widely varying diets can keep us alive and relatively healthy. What surely seems to be bad for us is a diet high in processed foods, hydrogenated fats, salt, etc., and low in fiber, phytonutrients, vitamins, micronutrients, minerals, etc.

Americans (and maybe people in other places too) probably eat a fraction of the vegetables they should. If you've added a lot of vegetable to your diet, this is almost certainly going to be a boost for your health and will make it easier to lose weight. Many vegetables are best eaten raw. Wash them thoroughly in water, though, because pesticide residues are bad for us and in many cases are bioaccumulative (stored in our tissues). If farmers follow the pesticide guidelines carefully, pesticide residues are very low but I know (from farmers) that this is often not the case.

http://nutrition.about.com/od/ahealthykitchen/a/washveggies.htm

There may be a link between pesticide exposure and the risk of Parkinson's disease:

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2011/niehs-11.htm

Generally the risk seems to be observed in people with a lot of exposure- crop sprayers, for example- and I don't know of any specific research linking the levels one might be exposed to in food with increased risk of Parkinson's. However, washing fruits and vegetables is really easy to do, takes just a minute, and why take potential unnecessary risks that are so easily avoided?

[Seattle Smitty]

I'm with Zack on this... I don't claim to know or understand the underlying processes but I made the switch from a carb-heavy diet to a carb-lite diet in May (after seeing the Riv Taubes vid) and lost 25 pounds making no other changes. I've eased up a bit to a carb-medium diet (150grams/day +/-) and seem to be maintaining my weight.  

[PATRICK MOORE]

One huge difference between our mid-20th-century-on and the lives of
even relatively recent forbears is simply the absence of physical
activity. I remember, as a boy in the late '50s and early '60s how
road crews would use picks, shovels and hand-controlled jackhammers,
while road crews today for the most part seem to have a big, yellow
machine to do it all. And with the move to suburbia, people don't even
have to walk to the bus stop or train station any more. You read of
pre-industrial or early industrial workers who spent hours every day,
six days a week, throughout their working lives, digging, plowing,
sawing, nailing, axing, fishing, bricklaying, etc. Even my mother's
family, who were well-to-do provincial squirearchy in southern Luzon,
never owned a car until the Yanks gave my by-then-provincial governor
grandfather a military surplus jeep after WWII: they walked
everywhere. And kids were outside playing who are now very conspicuous
by their outdoor absence in modern neighborhoods. Even my relatively
active way of life, with 3K miles/year on a bike, is positively
sedentary compared to the lives of even non-laboring classes back
before the auto, the suburbs and 24/7 couch entertainment -- Samuel
Pepys did far more walking than I ever do.

Frankly, I expect that almost complete lack of activity is in good
part to blame for so much obesity; it's hard to see how many obese
people could even function if they regularly had simply to walk
further than from couch to garage, or if they had to climb a couple
flights of stairs.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

[Zack]

I would suggest reading the book.  There is lots of information about activity levels having no direct correlation to obesity (other than as we get fatter we are less active, and get more tired when we do an activity, which then leads to us eating more).  Worth a read, it will take an afternoon, and what you read may change your mind.

I would say that Taubes spends half of the book debunking the calories in/calories out myth.  Again, not a scientist, but this is working for me.

I have eaten organic vegetables for about 10 years, i would say that most of the time I eat about 90% OG, we have a farm share/CSA that keeps us knee deep in veggies from spring to fall.  No question that the increase in veggies helps one to feel healthier.  

If we are talking dropping weight though, cutting carbs has been the only way I have been able to do so.  Personal trainers, food plans, food journals, vegetarian, vegan, all have failed me in the past.  I am no more or less committed to this way of eating than I was to those.  I was trying to lose weight and was really frustrated that I wasn't successful.  At my heaviest I was 265 (I am 6'3"), i cut carbs out for a short time about three years ago after being diagnosed with a fatty liver (NASH) and dropped down to 210.  I then added carbs back in and went back up to 240, and am moving my way back down again.  My activity level has remained relatively constant, as has the amount of food that I eat.  

[PATRICK MOORE]

I don't doubt Taube's ideas work for some, even for many; what I doubt
(from other things I have read and from what I simply have seen in NA,
Europe, Asia and Africa) is that it contains the entire truth about
nutrition and related health. Again, there is simply too much variety
across the world and across history.

In particular, I discount the idea that exercising more will making
you gain or at least keep you from losing weight, at least as a
universal proposition; not my experience at all.

I'm certainly glad that Taube's ideas worked for you.

And of course, I admit, that were I to undertake a scholarly
examination of the book, I'd have to read it first. But I did read and
re-read all the Riv published on the subject

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/7xfUrL3evMwJ.

[Brian Hanson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyXa39ICIrk

This is a quick watch and gets to a lot of the points in the book.  Worth a few minutes if you don't have the time or inclination to buy and read the book.  BTW - I know people who exercise way more than me, but they are double my weight. Exercise may be good for your muscles and a way to release stress, but it ain't a diet.  Exercise is a fad, a crutch for those with time/money to kill - like most of us.  

I found the other more important (to me) ideas he is talking about in the book are not weight related, but the ties our carb rich diets have with cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc...

Brian

Seattle

[Michael Hechmer]

Actually, the bulk of the Taubes book is a review of hundreds of obeisity studies from around the world over the last 250 years or so.  Taubes is not making any new or novel scientific claims, but rather summarizing the conclusions of those studies and pointing out that today's dominant nutritional advice is at odds with all of the underlying scientific research.

Arguing that insulin levels are not the key variable in weight gain is much like arguing that volcanoes are the major cause of global warming, after every independent climate scientist has rejected the conclusion.  If someone wants to dispute the veracity of his conclusions they will need to show that insulin does not determine what happens to the calories we consume.

I still eat brownies and ice cream, but I don't delude myself about what happens inside my body when I do.

michael

[George Schick]

Since the subject of Taubes' book finally came up on a thread I might
as well check to say that I've been on it for several months now and
have lost roughly 14 pounds. I'm 5' 9" and weighed around 191; I've
dropped to the mid-170's and am aiming for the low 170's. I'm wearing
clothing now that I never thought I'd be able to wear again in this
life. My wife has been on it, too, and is losing weight also.

I have to thank Riv (Grant) for publishing so much in his readers and
on his web site about Taubes and the book. Had it not been for that
it's unlikely that I would've gotten a copy. My wife and I both read
it and were fascinated by the story Taubes tells about the kind of
diet that was common among many different races and cultures around
the globe and what happened to them when their main food sources were
taken away and they were forced to rely on the Western diet of mainly
carbs. And, although Taubes never really comes right out and says
it in so many words, it makes one wonder if a bit of conspiracy didn't
take place in the late 50's/early 60's when the food processing
industry began to really ramp up production of cereals, ready-to-eat
toaster pastries, etc. Seems like that was when the food pyramid
concept began to be so heavily touted.

Draw backs to and warnings about the diet would be these: 1) Taubes
stresses that you should drink a couple of cups of bullion daily.
DON'T ignore this! A couple of days ago I had to replace the front
"flex pipe" on my pickup and I fought cramps in my legs, neck, and
even hands the entire time I was crawling around under the truck. You
simply have to replace the sodium that would normally be supplied by
carbs with something else. 2) Figure out how you can deal with
cravings by eating something other than carb snacks. I'm fortunate in
that regard because I'll eat almost anything - so a tin of sardines or
kippers, a bag of pork rinds, etc. - they do the trick. If you
absolutely can't stand any of that stuff try Atkins bars from the drug
store. 3) Taubes recommends a certain amount of leafy greens and non-
starchy vegetables every day. This is important unless you want to
suffer from unique bowel problems - I've leave it go at that.

At this point I can't say that I really miss all of the breads and
other carbs I thought I could never live without. I do miss good
beer, though, especially the excellent craft brewed stuff so every
once in a while I just have to have one. Other than that I'd think
the biggest draw back to the diet down the road is going to be
sticking to it. I've heard many stories from people who went on the
Atkins diet a decade or so ago, lost weight, then gained it back again
when the began to stray from it. It sure is easier climbing hills
sans 14 or so pounds, though!

[David Faller]

Your experience is very similar to mine. I bought and read both of
Taubes' books. I do not follow his recommendations to the letter, by
any means, but I did quit most sugar and most carbs. I still have a
sandwich now and then, and I eat some chips here and there. I still
love beer, but I cut back on that, too. Guess what? 14 pounds in the
past two months. Oh, and I'm riding less than I was in the spring, but
my average speed has gone way up and I find hill climbing to be very
noticeably easier.

My point is that Taubes' observations of the hundreds of studies (world
wide) of human metabolism point to the same general conclusion: Humans
are animals, and proteins are far and away the dominant nutrients
required by our bodies. We have, physiologically, almost no use for
carbohydrates, and our bodies' insulin system bears that out. Yes, we
can tolerate them and even use them effectively, but humans have
succumbed to living off of them and are doing more so as time goes by.
The parallel with the global increase in obesity and most major diseases
is stunningly obvious, yet we do everything in our power to deny it.

I'm no zealot, and I'm suspicious of anyone who says there's only one
way to do something like "diet", but when a simple shift in the
percentage of carbs I consume made a (nearly) immediate improvement in
my overall health, I was sold. I know I could never follow a strict
"Primal" diet, but strong adjustments in that direction are still
measurably beneficial.

[David Faller]

I think you should actually read "Why We Get Fat". What you are
asserting is largely refuted in the book.

[PATRICK MOORE]

I don't want to prolong this somewhat OT debate beyond the limits of
reason or good taste, but I have to say that the idea that carbs as
such are bad for you and unnatural to human beings simply doesn't
correspond with millennia of human history. Again, it wasn't the
Chinese, Filipinos, Africans, Indians, Asian and American, Irish
peasants and New Guineans, Peruvian highlanders, residents of coral
atolls and Italian pasta eaters, carbo eaters all, who were fat and
prone to diabetes. And it was Europeans who ate the most meat and
cheese and dairy, leaving out Inuit and Sioux and perhaps Masai (who
lived largely off blood and milk, plus millet traded for with other
tribes) and other small groups who ate mostly meat or dairy or fish.

FWIW, corn -- growing, eating -- is integral to Hopi spiritual life

I don't say that Taube is all wrong or that one might not benefit from
his dietary recommendations, but to make carbs the culprit for the
modern West's ill health is clearly in contradiction with history and
experience. As for examining human experience, he seems to have rather
strangely left out a good part of it in his researches.

Patrick "trim without trying at 170 and a long torso'd (Asian build)
5'10" from loading on beer, bread, pasta -- but no processed foods!"
Moore

[PATRICK MOORE]

Perhaps I should and I will. But some of his positions (carb = bad) as
presented in this thread simply don't correspond to history. The
Chinese are getting fat from Big Macs and other animal fare, not from
their traditional rice. And I don't think you can refute the idea that
minimal exercise is required for normal wellbeing.

--

[Aaron Thomas]

As I understand it, it isn't that carbs are bad. The problem is the quantity and type being consumed. Easily available fructose seems to be particularly problematic, whether it comes in the form of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or juice drinks. Interesting research on this is being done by Dr. Robert Lustig at UCSF, which Taubes reports on in his NYT article on sugar:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all 

[George Schick]

Yeah, I was going to chime in on this, too. It's mainly the highly
processed food that we eat that creates most of the problems. And the
sugars, according to Taubes anyway. BTW, one more item in addition to
my previous post about the diet: I used to have constant heartburn
issues, so much so that I got used to always carrying a package of
Tums around in my pocket. Since starting to eat Taubes-style I have
had only one or two antacids and those were after times when I
violated the restrictions and ate some kind of processed carbs.

> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewan...

[Brewster Fong]

On Saturday, August 13, 2011 11:15:13 AM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:

Perhaps I should and I will. But some of his positions (carb = bad) as
presented in this thread simply don't correspond to history. The
Chinese are getting fat from Big Macs and other animal fare, not from
their traditional rice. And I don't think you can refute the idea that
minimal exercise is required for normal wellbeing.

I too haven't read the book, but I wonder how this carb = bad mentality, affects cyclists. Aren't cyclists suppose to "carbo-load" to ride long distances? I was reading an old Riv Reader awhile back about a guy name Dave or Henry Kingman. He eats massive breakfasts, ramen, 50 cent pies (now probably a dollar), and lots of pasta. He also rides 100s of miles a day. Further, you watch the "pro" riders like Lance and see them eating plates and plates of carbos before and after racing up and down "Cols" for hundreds of miles. Are cyclists suppose to eat carbs to keep on riding? Note, I'm not talking about transportation cyclists or weekend warriors (like myself) who do anywhere from 10 to 50 mile rides. I presume that reducing carbs would be a big help in my losing weight - of course, I just need to  get started. 

Anyways, how does this guy address cyclists and their supposed "need" for carbs? Good Luck!

[Ryan J]

I bought the book and started reading it, following the diet for the most part.  He really doesn't preach anti-carb, but rather anti-processed foods, anti-calorie heavy, nutrient poor foods like white flour and sugar.  The diet has made me feel not only more energetic, but all around healthier.  I have psoriatic arthritis and when I stick to eating meats leafy greens and veggies and lay off the processed foods, sugar and breads I don't have any flare ups.  Seems to work for me.  

[Tim McNamara]

On Aug 13, 2011, at 2:20 PM, George Schick wrote:

> It's mainly the highly processed food that we eat that creates most of the problems. And the sugars, according to Taubes anyway.

It's probably high glycemic foods in general, from his perspective, because these are quickly absorbed into the bloodstream and provoke the insulin response.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

Highly processed food, almost by definition, have had most if not all of the fiber removed and, along with that, most of the nutrients other than carbs, fats and proteins. Whole foods- i.e., pretty much left alone and eaten as nature makes them- tend not to to be highly glycemic. There are some exceptions- dried dates are extremely glycemic, for example. Even honey, the main naturally occurring concentrated sweet in much of the world, is less glycemic than glucose.

We have a sweet tooth as a species because carbohydrates were hard to get and we need them (for example, the brain derives 100% of its energy from glucose). Now we have made carbohydrates- especially simple sugars- abundant and embedded in all kinds of foods.

The problem with moving towards a heavily protein based diet is that meats aren't very good for us either; they tend to be high in saturated fats and various cooking methods increase mutagenicity.

Whomever referenced Grandma's advice was spot on. I'd also add Michael Pollan's advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

[charles vail]

I've been having trouble posting for several days now and hope this makes it through..........We've been using the Taubes/Paleo/ Marks Daily Apple approach to eating and I have lost 24 pounds since last March. I still cheat with wine and chocolate but have for the most part eliminated grains and all sugar,corn syrup, starchy carbs (potatoes, pasta, rice, oats etc.) I've never felt better and I've tried other approaches with limited success. I tried exercising excessively and never lost much since it just made me crave carbs all the more, post exercise. I am not interested in starving myself (a sure way to loose but unhealthy) instead I prefer to keep a good mental attitude by being satiated with foods that give me nutrition and energy while at the same time don't spike my blood sugar and promote insulin responses and conversion of excess glucose to fat storage. I always tell people what many farmers and ranchers now  that if you want to fatten a cow before slaughter you feed it grain for a short period of time but if you want to kill a cow with food (only feed it grain) and it will eventually get sick and die. That is essentially what many of us are doing without realizing it and while some may not show fat storage their arteries may be clogging or they may develop diabetes or other disease as a result of their food choices.

[IPATOM]

I've been a calorie counter for 40 years. At 62, I'm six feet tall
and weigh 140lbs. I drink beer every day and eat pasta and pizza at
least a couple times a week. The problem with Taubes is that his diet
is too restrictive. Taubes states that low carb diets failed because
doctors discounted them. Wrong. These diets failed because most
people won't stay on them long term. The beauty of calorie counting
is that you can eat whatever you want, you just need to control
portion size. Calories in/calories out - it really is that simple.

On Aug 12, 10:08 am, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for posting that link. I've been skeptical of the "either or"
> approach to diets on the basis simply of mankind's millennial
> experience: most people during most of recorded - anyway -- history
> ate mostly carbs and, in the case of the Chinese their cultural
> descendents, mostly refined carbs. Yet you didn't see huge numbers of
> obese rice eaters -- or of obese pasta eaters, for that matter, until
> perhaps very recently. OTOH, the traditional polar peoples eat almost
> nothing except animal products with huge amounts of animal fat (and
> they were not fat, either -- rather slim, in fact).
>
> My take: do what Gran'ma told you and don't eat before meals, eat a
> balanced diet and finish up those vegetables, and in Rome do as the
> Romans, so to speak.
>

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Justin August <justinaug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis...

>
> > I'm not an expert or have a strong opinion one way or another, I just think it's fantastic that there's a debate searching for actionable ways to control obesity in this country right now.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> > To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/nIIdSEZbkgYJ.

> > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

>
> --
> Patrick Moore
> Albuquerque, NM
> For professional resumes, contact
> Patrick Moore, ACRW

> patrickmo...@resumespecialties.com

[Garth]

I agree with Patrick on this .  No one knows..... nor will they ever know the entire truth about food and our relationships to it . . . . because it is ... and always will be .... ever changing. There is no absolute truth .... just what we each choose to believe.

We can thrive on just about anything.... it's more about our mental and emotion attitudes about food than the food itself. .  . . more than is ever talked about ... because people mostly believe the body is like a machine .... and needs to be fed vitamins/minerals carbs , protein and fat.  Our strong faith in science in our western culture is ..... telling.  We've forgotten how to listen to our absolutely uniquely individual wants, needs and desires in favor of what the supposed "authorities" tell us they think they know. No one knows you and me .... better than you and me.  But ... we gotta listen.  

I realize this is a cycling forum .  .. . but hey you know .... we're all humans. We're not machines just riding bikes and talking about them.  We are so much more ... if we really knew how much it would blow our pea sized earthly brains off our bodies .... LoL.  Yes ... that was supposed to be funny:) ... but damm straight honest too.

[Rambouilleting Utahn]

On Aug 13, 3:12 pm, IPATOM <tomdu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Calories in/calories out - it really is that simple.

Please read Taubes before making that statement which modern nutrition
research is proving wrong.

Glen, who loosely follows Taubes mostly follows Sisson (thanks Grant!)
and easily dropped 40 since the first of the year.

[grant]

It is possible that at a paleo diet symposium in Los Angeles last
week, Guyenet suggested that we got fat because food tastes too good,
so we eat too much. And that Taubes publicly asked him how his theory
could explain fat Pima indians or any other impoverished population
without a food industry but high levels of obesity.
It is possible that the Guyenet didn't like being asked that question
publicly, and responded by writing this blog.

Grant---(whose sister lost 40 lbs in 5 months going Taubsey, and
cutting out almost all cardio, as a matter of disturbing fact)

On Aug 12, 6:36 am, Justin August <justinaug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis...
>

[rob markwardt]

Reading all this with interest...here's the exchange Grant mentioned.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hzoFgwFeMQ&feature=player_embedded

At the end of his 'lecture' Taubes states "I recommend in the future
you should pay attention to populations that might refute your
hypothesis rather than present populations that just support it.
That's always key in science".

My reply would be...actually I'd ask Patrick to speak...so what about
the populations that refute your hypothesis? Why have do so many
cultures...citing Patricks examples!... with high carb diets not get
fat?


Rob Markwardt

> > I'm not an expert or have a strong opinion one way or another, I just think it's fantastic that there's a debate searching for actionable ways to control obesity in this country right now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Zack]

I think it is necessary to read the book before commenting on whether or not Taubes addresses these things.  He does.  At length.  With example after example.  At least half of the book is spent refuting the paradigm/mindset that is being espoused in this thread by the people that have not read the book. 

The cliffs notes version is that genetics impact how we carry our weight and how we process carbs.  Some people are able to process carbs differently than other people.  It's not that carbs are "bad," it's that some of us get fat when we eat them, due to the way we are genetically predisposed to carry fat.  

If you are fat, and want to lose weight, read the book, and try what he suggests.  If you are skinny and eat cheetos and pizza and burgers and pasta all the time, congrats, you have the genes that allow you to process that type of food without getting fat.  It's not because you are working out so hard, or are so active, or because you closely monitor your calorie intake and never "overdo" it.  You can think otherwise, and that's good, and I am happy for you that you are skinny and fit, but for those of us that aren't or weren't skinny and fit, it's dangerous to stay stuck in that mindset, because you are going to stay overweight, be frustrated by it, and feel like you are a failure.  You aren't a failure, you have just been going about it all wrong.

Taubes' book isn't a diet book, in fact, there are only a few pages that talk about what to actually eat.  I feel it's important to speak up and say this stuff in case anyone is reading this thread who is overweight and wants to do something about it.  If you are in that boat, get the book, read it, it will help you, as it has helped me.

[PATRICK MOORE]

The discussion has been interesting enough that I, for one, will
indeed do just that. For the record, I was responding to others'
paraphrases of Taube's ideas which did not mention native differences
in metabolism; that idea does make sense at first hearing.

I remain skeptical of "one fits all" pronouncements about dietary
healthiness and I am also skeptical about "new, all explaining
scientific discoveries" -- nil novum sub sole -- but it is certainly
true that different peoples remained healthy eating different things
-- again, contract the Chinese or for that matter pre Industrial
European peasant (bread, cereal gruel, ale, vegetables, very little
meat and dairy) with the traditional Inuit or the Masai.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/ijH1ONSgfgwJ.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW

patric...@resumespecialties.com

[David Faller]

Thanks Zack!  This is precisely what I've been wanting to say, but was on the verge of a tirade.  Arguing on the internet, in any form, is often dangerous and always stupid unless all parties are equally informed and open to having their beliefs toppled.  I've been quietly humbled many times by lurking on a thread and watching my pet theories fizzle and fade; but I was happy to gain the new information without having to put my ignorance out there for all to see.

Taubes' books are full of "well I'll be damned!" passages, and he can back them up with hard research.  He spends a lot of his writing trying to gently pry loose what I call "belief barnacles", such as "calories in/calories out".  He also amply acknowledges that personal genetics steers how we process everything, including carbohydrates.  All I can claim from personal experience is that I adjusted my diet in the direction of what he has explained (I did not go whole-hog, not even close), and I had almost immediate results.

[Tim McNamara]

On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:03 AM, David Faller wrote:

> Arguing on the internet, in any form, is often dangerous and always stupid unless all parties are equally informed and open to having their beliefs toppled.

Arguing period, as any ten minutes spent watching a political debate will demonstrate. Most people argue to win rather than to understand.

> Taubes' books are full of "well I'll be damned!" passages, and he can back them up with hard research. He spends a lot of his writing trying to gently pry loose what I call "belief barnacles", such as "calories in/calories out".

Calories in/out conforms to the laws of thermodynamics and therefore must have at least some validity. If you eat 10,000 carbohydrate calories a day and expend 2,000 you will gain weight. If you eat 10,000 protein calories a day and expend 2,000 you will gain weight. If you eat 10,000 fat calories a day and expend 2,000 you will gain weight. Conversely if you expend 10,000 calories a day and eat 2,000 you will lose weight, no matter the source of those calories. Bike tourists are well aware of this phenomenon.

Most people are not in such extreme situations, of course, and their calorie in/out differences might be 200 a day more or less. The Taubesian theories might be more applicable there.

[Zack]

Patrick -

I am glad you are going to read the book!  I bet you will enjoy.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts after you check it out.

Good stuff.

-Zack

[Aaron Thomas]

It may be time to let this thread peter out. But, briefly, for those of you interested in the thermodynamics question, Taubes addresses it too.

[IPATOM]

I read Taubes most recent book in its entirety. There is no question
that you can lose weight on a low carb diet but the problem is most
people can't stick with it. The yearning for a bagel, pizza, etc..
will return. This is why the low carb industry of 10 years ago
failed. MD's didn't destroy it. Most Americans don't listen to their
doctors which is why we have a healthcare crisis now. Be an
omnivore...eat less and move more...this will work for 98% of the
population.

[Ryan J]

I would like to know some of the meals/foods people who are following the Taubes book and his philosophy are eating.  Anything really special that you have made that made your taste buds go "wow, that was good?"

[PATRICK MOORE]

This is the idea that I was protesting against: it reads to me as a
blanket assertion that carbs are unhealthy. But billions have for
millennia lived principally on carbs and haven't been more unhealthy
than anyone else (not that there were many people left over after you
counted the "mostly carbs" crowd, which is by far most people over all
of at least recorded history; hell, even hunter gatherers eat grains).

Patrick "going on a paleo diet for dinner this evening as an early
breaking of the Dormition fast: lotsa steak and green veg and red
wine" Moore, who usually doesn't eat a lot of meat, who is damn' glad
he ain't a cow, and who is gonna read that book.

[charlie]

I've been trying to post on this subject since it started with no luck......maybe thus time. The Taubes/Paleo/Marks daily apple approach has been working for us we've lost fat weight, feel better and we've tried other approaches over the years. These ideas make sense and are very similar to what we grew up hearing from our parents that basically excessive sugary, starchy foods will fatten you up......some may not be as affected but many appear to be easy weight gainers. There is always the "beanpole" among us who can eat virtually anything and not gain a pound but I like to experience when something works for me and my body type. So far I'm down 24 pounds and I generally feel better than I have in a long time.

[Kris]

Wow..lots of reading...I don't any more now than I did a week ago.
What I do know...if I ride more, eat better, and have fewer beers my
pants fit better and I beat a few more friends to the top of hills.
I'm pretty sure I'm done cutting things out of my life...pizza is
yummy, french fries can't be beat....and beer is straight up
delicious!

eggs for breakfast, salad for lunch, and enjoy your dinner!

[Kris]

Ding ding ding...we have a winner! It's funny we are writing and
reading endless books to end up back at this basic idea.

"ride more, eat less" It's that simple.

[PATRICK MOORE]

Have started Taube's book and find it interesting: clearly more is
involved that "what goes in and what goes out" -- tho' of course, you
can fatten yourself by overeating.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>

--

[Patrick in VT]

On Aug 13, 3:50 am, Brian Hanson <stone...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Exercise may be good for your muscles and a way to release
> stress, but it ain't a diet.  Exercise is a fad, a crutch for those with
> time/money to kill - like most of us.

Of course exercise isn't a diet - rather, it's part of healthy
lifestyle. Our bodies need exercise as much as they need good
nutrition for good health. I'd actually argue that prescribed diets
are a crutch for those needing to heal/repair their relationship with
food and combat the poor nutritional habits which render so many
people sick. And with respect to weight loss diets, many of these are
actually called "fad diets" - and rightly so.

> I found the other more important (to me) ideas he is talking about in the
> book are not weight related, but the ties our carb rich diets have with
> cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc...

when discussing this issue, it may be best define what "carb" rich
means, exactly. certainly whole grains, fruits and such are not
included in the "carb" rich diet you reference. I also note that
there is a lot of evidence showing that diets rich in protein lead to
cancer, heart disease, etc.

[grant]

Taubes stuffs---

There's lots of good stuff in the Red book, as readers are finding
out, but the subtext is even more world-changing than the surface
stuff. It's not super sub...he implies as much...but once you digest
it all and buy into it, your view of the world (at least, of fat
people) flip-flops.

Then: They eat to much and exercise too little. It's their own fault.
Duh.
Now: They try so hard, but are following bad advice. They can't afford
to eat low-carb, and don't know about it, and aren't likely to read
about it, and it's not being told to them by their community, and all
they know is that they and lotsa their friends and fam keep getting
fatter. They come to accept it, and they'll deal with the diabetes
later. Every television commercial for Honey Nut Cheerios reinforces
the wrong message.

The positive for...somebodies...is that it's better (in a way) to look
at a trying overweight person and feel pity because they just don't
know, than to see the same person and feel disgust for that they seem
to have done to themselves.

We don't live in a place world that makes it easy to approach them and
broach the topic---that's weird and can be hurtful and wrong on a few
diff levels. On one hand, it would be a caring thing to do, but on the
other hand, you'd get smacked down in one second, and everybody in
the world would hate you.

I have a cousin who is 30 x 350 and the mother of two daughters, both
of whom seem to be going the same way. She eats low-fat, hardly any
meat, is nearly vegetarian. I've seen her twice, so I don't know her
well enough. She likes me, and I don't want her to not like me. Her
husband is a great guy (and is leanish), and he likes me, too. We all
get along. I feel like, to keep the relationship, I can't say
anything. The risk is too high. Then if I don't say anything, who am I
not saying anything for? If I were to contact her, she'd be thrilled
to hear from cousin Grant, and eventually she'd say "Boy, it's so good
to hear from you. What's up?"

So...I am hoping that somehow the book gets into her hands. She reads
a lot. She's not F and S, she's just F.
Anyway....I don't see her as a lazy pig, that's for sure. I see her as
being born with a degree of insulin resistance (he mother was heavy),
and having lived a life of eating high carb (by means of low-fat/
calorie), and having her insulin resistance escalate to the point
where her blood is constantly "full" of insulin, which makes it
impossible for her to arrest her growth.

It would be great if the local bookstore (the one in Pt. Reyes)
stocked the book, and she happened upon it, but would an overweight
person feel comfortable buying a book of that title (Why We Get Fat)
from a salesperson who isn't? I don't know about that. Anyway...the
whole scenario---is going on out there in the anonymous world all the
time with strangers who haven't yet given up, but eventually will
because nothing works. It's better, or at least kinder, to think of
them as victims of bad diet propaganda, than of "bad food choices."

[Patrick in VT]

On Aug 26, 11:43 am, grant <grant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Every television commercial for Honey Nut Cheerios reinforces
> the wrong message.

just about every television commercial reinforces the wrong message,
regardless of subject matter. Honey Nut Cheerios seem relatively
innocuous when it comes to the food being peddled in TVland. why make
that particular food a target?

> I have a cousin who is 30 x 350 and the mother of two daughters, both
> of whom seem to be going the same way. She eats low-fat, hardly any
> meat, is nearly vegetarian.

with respect, what does low-fat, hardly any meat/nearly vegetarian
(same thing, right?) have to do with her condition? low saturated
fat, nearly vegetarian (as in, eating vegetables, fruits, non-animal
whole foods) is universally accepted as a healthful way to eat.
There's no arguing that. Something else is going on there - processed/
packaged foods? too much sugar? portion control? - that ought to be
called out rather than draw attention to "Low-Fat" and "Vegetarian"
aspect of her diet. those terms are red herrings, and to your point,
can also be considered "propaganda." In fact, an overly critical
reader could argue that your post is biased against diets rich in
whole grains, fiber, foods low in saturated fat and vegetarian whole
foods. Of course, that wasn't your intention, but this is precisely
how and why people get confused about otherwise very simple things,
such as food.

> It's better, or at least kinder, to think of
> them as victims of bad diet propaganda, than of "bad food choices."

True that.

[Philip Williamson]

If you don't eat meat, can you eat as Taubes prescribes?

And... if you want to get the word out in a non-confrontational way,
you could print tee-shirts with a written explanation on the back.
People will read it in the supermarket checkout line. That's where
I've gotten 90% of the comments on the weird tee shirts I used to
make.

Philip

[Eric Daume]

That's the point of the book: this isn't universally accepted. We've been pushed this viewpoint for 30 years, but where's the great downsizing of America? One of Taubes main points is that the science behind low fat/high fiber/calories in/calories out is very, very poor.

Eric Daume
Dublin, OH

[Steve Palincsar]

On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 17:11 -0400, Eric Daume wrote:
> That's the point of the book: this isn't universally accepted. We've
> been pushed this viewpoint for 30 years, but where's the great
> downsizing of America? One of Taubes main points is that the science
> behind low fat/high fiber/calories in/calories out is very, very poor.

Perhaps the problem is really that compliance is very, very poor?

[charlie]

I think not.....and this is coming from an exercise junkie with a
whole foods, half hippie wife and years of trying
everything....weighing my food, portion control, whole grains, calorie
counting, tofu, low fat, largely vegetarian at times, extreme exercise
(do you want me to explain the volume and variety) nothing has been as
effective or as easy for me to stay with as what we have been doing
for the last six months. Compliance is poor because the other methods
don't work as well without extreme and I mean really extreme measures.
Its rather annoying to read comments sometimes from folks that
(presumably) are not battling the problem and I don't mean 20 pounds
of winter fat I'm talking a lifetime of obesity. Think of it in the
reverse......picture a super skinny guy who can't put on muscle no
matter how much he eats and exercises and if he does manage to gain a
few pounds as soon as he stops, he loses the added muscle and becomes
the 98 pound weakling again. I would defy anyone to strap on 100, 200
maybe as much as 400 pounds on their body and just try to walk up a
hill.......the heavy people who exercise put out a whole lot more
effort than any 160 pound man merrily spinning away on his bicycle.
Sorry guys but this topic is striking a raw nerve with me today
because I don't think many people really understand what they are
talking about......from experience.

[S.Cutshall]

That's the rub & crux right there in the World of The Fat Person---

99.8% of all advice, suggestions, How-To's, solutions and False Hope
come from -either- The Thin or Slightly Pudgified.

I prefer my knowledge and/or advice to come from the inhabitants of
the trenches. And there aren't many... so I had to go mostly Solo.

Solo is lonely but it serves to create focus and hard-fought/won
opinions and solutions.

-Scott

[charlie]

I can dig it Scott.....and I have to tell you I have been inspired by
your determination. Your willingness to keep at it day after day,
especially while enduring the negative and sometimes even smug
comments from others. I know what gets me fat and I know when I'm
weak. I've been enduring the comments at work for months now and I
have had to leave the lunch room at times because I'm having a bad day
and I just want to say 'F' it and take that one piece of somebodies
birthday cake or join in at the potluck. That's the psychological part
that gets to me and it is lonely (sometimes) making choices that
others don't get and can't or won't understand. Sometimes I think they
want you to stay fat....here try this, just one little bite, it won't
hurt you "just do it in moderation, everything in moderation" (love
that) but its B.S.......mostly though its been good and I don't crave
things too often when I stick to 'my food '. My wife is a real
creative cook and is doing this with me and makes me eat my veggies,
even the yucky ones. She's definitely not an enabler in a bad way,
thank God. My first 24 pounds was with no exercise amazingly and my
next goal is to incorporate some cycling because I love it and some
weights which I actually did pretty hardcore for nine years in my
twenties.
As an aside, I managed the 23 mile commute to work in 1 hr and 18
minutes. That's some pretty hardcore traffic jamming for me on my 30+
pound touring bike. It burns calories but its not why I ride. I like
getting somewhere under my own power and I like the way it makes me
feel when I ride. What I am eating and what I am not eating is what
has been making the biggest difference.

[PATRICK MOORE]

A man at our church was hugely obese, probably 400 lb at about 6', for
years until he told himself, "eat less and be more active." I think he
just took daily walks on a strict high veg diet. He dropped an amazing
amount of weight, in under 2 years, to about 200.

OTOH, there is the rather well known instance of women in traditional,
well to do Somali circles being sent at marriageable age to special
spas where they are fed large amounts of fattening porridge to make
them fat and more beautiful.

My point in saying this is to say that I expect that Taube is right at
least as far as that some people, and peoples, are genetically more
inclined to be heavy; but on the other hand, that overeating and under
eating do cause weight gain and weight loss for some.

(I am 1/3 of the way through Taube's book.)

I wish I could do 1:18 23 mile urban commute on a 30 lb bike!

[grant]

With the variety of people and eating habits exercise habits success
and failures with fat-gain/loss, it is easy and normal for the
discussion to lapse into "we're all different," because in so many
obvious ways we ARE that. The hope that Taubes offers is based on how
we're all similar...and evolution has seen to it that in many ways, we
are all similar. One way is that excess insulin, in all of us, makes
us gain weight.

What constitutes "excess" for you might not be excess for me, and
that's where some honest-to-goodness differences come in. Different
ethnicities tend to respond differently to sugar and insulin, and a
reasonable explanation is that their ancestors have had more time to
adapt to it. Israelies tend to be insulin-sensitive, TEND to tolerate
carbs better than...most Native Americans (who "got" agriculture late)
do. (You WANT to be insulin-sensitive...it means you produce less
insulin in response to high blood glucose, because a little insulin
does a lot)

Insulin-resistance may not be the only thing that leads to fat gain,
but it is certainly a key factor for many. Insulin resistance can
start in the womb (as Taubes notes...let me make it clear that I am
reiterating, not making this up and not speaking from knowledge gained
in the lab). Obese women (who are insulin-resistant) can pass on their
insulin-resistance to the gestating baby, making it easier for the
baby to become overweight as an adult.

Exercise helps weight loss not because it burns calories, but because
muscle is more insulin-sensitive than fat. Calorie restricted diets
help weight loss because they reduce your carb load....so while the
calories are cut back some, the carbs are cut back hugely. You can
count the pre- and post- calories or carbs, and see the diff. Most
people attribute the loss to the cut in calories, when there's plenty
evidence that it's the carbcut that should get the credit.

One quick story, then I'm outa this (interesting) thread. Robert
Bailey, the Riv-guy who got his legs chopped off by the tractorish
thing, was gaining weight and getting fat and not (as you can imagine)
getting a lot of exercise. In the last 6 months or so, he's lost 50
pounds. He has 25 more to go. His 50 pound loss cannot be the result
of burning off the excess calories through exercise, because (although
he recently completed RAGBRAI), he is not, by any standards, a
vigorous/hard exerciser. He says he cut way back on carbs.

It's not EASY, but restricting carbs offers hope based on science.
Losing weight by overexercising and undereating has a lousy success
record.

Although I have never been (by most standards) overweight, I have the
normal adult male concerns and struggles, and my own standard---which,
I understand---does not win me much sympathy, when I "feel fat" when I
don't look it. But we ALL have a standard, and most of us are keen to
our own bellies. For me, the only way the unsympathy-engendering
amount of fat comes off is by not eating grains. If you can do it by
exercising hard and long, and will power, and calorie restriction---
and you can maintain that without feeling like the fat-wolf is at the
door---that's great. If it doesn't work for you, read the Red book and
get inspired by the science of fat accumulation.

[charlie]

Hey Patrick much of it was downhill and I had a tailwind but yea I was
feeling energetic but I have averaged 20 mph for ten miles on rolling
hills (taken from a calibrated bike speedo thing)...these days I just
use my watch and do the math with a pencil and paper since I know the
distances. Keeps my eyes on the road. Now that I think about it, it
might have been 21 miles since I took a more direct route blasting
down the highway whereas I usually take a less traveled route so
yea....still it was pretty fast for me (not Lance fast) but fun
anyway. I was doing 40+ mph down one super long hill too so you could
do it no doubt. Half rural, half city........but the fog, that sucked.
Kept having to wipe my glasses.

Grant.....you said what I wanted to say on the Taubes subject. I think
when folks actually read the book and think about it they will
probably connect the dots and ' get it '....... hopefully. With a
fairly recently deceased father who had diabetes I want to avoid
it....I've seen what happens and it blows.

[Rex Kerr]

I went from around 230 and completely out of shape to my current 175 (@ 6'4", maintained for 3 years) by switching from a typical American diet, to a vegetarian diet that included a lot of whole grains, and riding a lot more.  Somehow the widely accepted methods worked for me.

[charlie]

Rex, re-read Grants post above.......... ; )

On Aug 29, 2:06 pm, Rex Kerr <rexk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I went from around 230 and completely out of shape to my current 175 (@
> 6'4", maintained for 3 years) by switching from a typical American diet, to
> a vegetarian diet that included a lot of whole grains, and riding a lot
> more.  Somehow the widely accepted methods worked for me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Eric Daume <ericda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That's the point of the book: this isn't universally accepted. We've been
> > pushed this viewpoint for 30 years, but where's the great downsizing of
> > America? One of Taubes main points is that the science behind low fat/high
> > fiber/calories in/calories out is very, very poor.
>
> > Eric Daume
> > Dublin, OH
>

[EricP]

Yes, for some it is easier than others. Been trying to decide whether
to participate in either of these threads for a while. Will admit
that, first off, this whole concept is making me question as an
(severely) overweight person I should even be riding and/or owning a
Rivendell bike. Maybe at 6' and 225 I'm too fat to actually ride one
and need to get over this fantasy of owning a bike like my Sam
Hillborne.

For me, all grains (and fruit, nuts, etc.) contribute to my still
excess weight. And worsened by long distance bike rides. Eat and
drink too much when attempting them. Probably why I won't ride a
century again. My body seems to gain between 3 and 5 pounds during
the ride and post-ride meal. Worse than any supposed healthful
benefits of the ride.

And, admittedly, a part of this is frustration. My doctor has been
critical of lack of current progress. Yes, I have lost 145 pounds
since this whole thing started. At least 30 and preferably 50 more is
necessary.

Okay, said too much.

Eric Platt
St. Paul, MN

> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Patrick in VT]

On Aug 27, 11:24 am, grant <grant...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you can do it by exercising hard and long, and will power, and calorie restriction---
> and you can maintain that without feeling like the fat-wolf is at the
> door---that's great.

insulin: if it's really the key, and Taubes is right, i have wonder
why BigPharma isn't all over this. seems like a great idea for a
pill, no?

exercise: there's no need to exercise "long and hard." it's simply a
matter of being active. as another poster mentioned, folks find all
kinds of ways to "exercise" - gardening, taking the dogs for a walk a
few times a day, and generally not sitting on the couch in front of
the television from 6:00-10:00 at night.

will power: in the same post, you wrote that restricting carbs is not
EASY. this implies that will power is part of the low carb diet
equation too.

calorie restriction: if a person is obese, that person needs to cut
calories. again, you tie the term "undereating" to calorie restriction
which is a complete red herring. eating an appropriate amount of food
and practicing portion control is not undereating.

If Taubes is working for people, great! But the notion that the only
other way to get there is by grueling exercise, buddha-esque will
power and undereating is ridiculous. It's not just a few lucky people
with good genetics who get to live fit healthy lives and eat carbs.

Eating for health and eating for weight loss are two entirely
different things - most folks are interested in the latter and less
concerned with the former for obvious reasons. it's frustrating, but
i don't begrudge that. as long as the two aren't confused.

Patrick

[Roger]

I hear you Eric.

Like you, Scott, and I'm sure others who care a great deal about this
subject have largely done, I've been hesitant to post about it with
people who don't face the same challenges and are only mildly
interested. I choose not to debate my issues here, but I want you to
know that you are not alone. Keep doing what you need to do, and
contact me any time, if you like.

> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.-Hide quoted text -

[grant]

On Aug 30, 8:04 am, Patrick in VT <swing4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 11:24 am, grant <grant...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you can do it by exercising hard and long, and will power, and calorie restriction---
> > and you can maintain that without feeling like the fat-wolf is at the
> > door---that's great.
>
> insulin:  if it's really the key, and Taubes is right, i have wonder
> why BigPharma isn't all over this.  seems like a great idea for a
> pill, no?

There are drugs for diabetes, but if the goal is to reduce the insulin
load, cutting carbs is the most powerful "pill." No side effects, etc.
Imagine, on another hand, that Type 2 diabetics and pre-diabetics were
told, "all you gotta do to control your insulin is to limit your
carbs." The ramifications are huge...and we aren't equipped to deal
with them. General Mills would have a cow, as would Sunkist,
Pepperidge Farms, Orowheat, and Pabst. Poor people would have to buy
one-pound cans of salmon at the dollar store. Farmers would not like
it. Everybody would get sued.

The reality is that --- if all this low-carby stuff is truish -- it
doesn't work for Somalia, Haiti, or poor America. That doesn't mean
that for any person or family who can afford it and doesn't have
religious or moral problems with eating meat, that is isn't healthier.
As the book points out, and as anybody who tries it will see, your
blood scores vastly improve when you eat fat and protein in the near
absence of carbohydrates. The weight comes off almost
incidentally....although...it also comes off inevitably.

>
> exercise:  there's no need to exercise "long and hard."  it's simply a
> matter of being active.  as another poster mentioned, folks find all
> kinds of ways to "exercise" - gardening, taking the dogs for a walk a
> few times a day, and generally not sitting on the couch in front of
> the television from 6:00-10:00 at night.
>
> will power:  in the same post, you wrote that restricting carbs is not
> EASY.  this implies that will power is part of the low carb diet
> equation too.

"Will power" is another topic, but we can all think of lots of
difficult tasks in which WP isn't part of the equation. The hard part
of cutting carbs is seeing the French toast with blueberries and real
maple syrup...and not eating it. If the guy looks and doesn't want to
eat it and knows that if he does, he'll regret it...and then eats it
anyway....it's easy to say he had a failure of will. BUT if the only
argument for "failure of will" is having eaten it...that's what's
known in some circles as an explanatory fiction, and in others as
"circular logic."

[charlie]

Grant, As usual you make sense.....at least to me.
Eric, I'm right there with you but I still have 58 more pounds to
lose....I don't do super long rides now. Actually my limit is around
40-50 miles maximum. I can ride farther but it becomes grueling for me
at my current weight/age. I do ride to work from time to time which
ends up being a 32-36 mile day more or less. My normal ride is between
8.5 and 15 miles and that is it. I do some weight lifting, push my
lawnmower (1.6 acres with about 25% lawn ) and I am presently working
on my house doing some repair work. Actually the weight lifting is
better for fat lost than cardiovascular exercise but I love to bicycle
so I do it but in moderation. For weights you only need to do 30
minutes four times a week. I also find it difficult to control my food
intake when I am 'overtraining' but if I pig out on carbs I (do) go
and ride for an hour or two just to burn them a little. I am under no
delusion that I am going to lose fat buy eating a boatload of carbs
and riding 50-100 miles. I find it easier to control the urge to eat
when I exercise modestly and at lower intensity on the bike and the
same goes for the weights. If you want to burn a bunch of calories you
can exercise like a madman and you will lose weight but you have to
eat less and doing that makes me crazy and mildly depressed so I don't
anymore. Instead, I exercise modestly don't eat carbs except
vegetables and I do eat protein and fats. So far its been working and
I've been maintaining a good attitude most of the time. The 24 pounds
I have lost so far has been done doing virtually no exercise due to
bad weather, work demands and lack of proper rest. My riding this
summer (what little there is of it in Washington state) has been
sporadic so I know the food changes have been working. In previous
years when I have been able to ride more I would just compensate for
the calories I burned riding by eating more and my weight loss would
only go so far. If I didn't eat enough I couldn't do the volume of
exercise I was doing without getting depressed and winter would come
and I would gain it back because I couldn't ride enough. Crashing on
the ice didn't help either. I wouldn't regret owning a Rivendell or
riding it, just change the way you ride and learn how to eat and ride
the 'Paleo way' if fat loss is your goal. There are several trainers
who have written books on the subject.

[Patrick in VT]

On Aug 30, 9:06 pm, grant <grant...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As the book points out, and as anybody who tries it will see, your
> blood scores vastly improve when you eat fat and protein

there's more than 1 book and countless studies that say the opposite.
again, weight loss vs. health. lose weight, eat fatty foods, and keep
exercise to a minimum ... doesn't sound like a recipe for reducing the
risk of heart disease. When roughly two thirds of Americans (to keep
this conservation ethnocentric - because, as others have noted, the
rest of the carb-eating world isn't epidemically fat) are overweight/
obese, I do understand the emphasis on weight loss - and I think it's
great that folks are finding ways of shedding the weight, whether it's
with Taubes or their local weight watchers class. whatever works.

but obesity isn't the only epidemic we're dealing with. heart
disease, cancers, and chronic health issues can all be related to diet
and nutrition (or lack thereof) too. diets that lead to disease have
the following markers:

-High in animal fats and protein
-High in unhealthy fats (saturated/trans)
-Low in fiber
-High in processed/packaged foods
-Low in complex carbs
-Low in plant-based foods

not coincidentally, these are also the markers of a diet (which can
rightly be called an American diet) that lead to obesity.

can one lose weight on this diet? absolutely. does one also lose the
risk of disease that goes hand in hand with these diet markers?
absolutely not.

[Lyle Bogart]

This has been a very interesting thread to follow and I’ve been reluctant to join in as I feel I’ve nothing terribly relevant to add to the many voices which have already spoken here.

However, I think it is too easy to overstate the detrimental qualities of certain foods:

". . . obesity isn't the only epidemic we're dealing with.  heart

disease, cancers, and chronic health issues can all be related to diet
and nutrition (or lack thereof) too.  diets that lead to disease have
the following markers:

-High in animal fats and protein
-High in unhealthy fats (saturated/trans)
-Low in fiber
-High in processed/packaged foods
-Low in complex carbs

-Low in plant-based foods. . . "

Well, not necessarily so.  The Amish have been studied extensively (or as extensively as can be done given difficulties involving technology) for the very reason of the high prevalence of high fat, high protein diets, obesity rates vastly below that of non-Amish America, vastly lower cancer rates (except perhaps breast cancer) than non-Amish America.

Along with their high fat, high protein, moderate carbs diet, the Amish expend a great deal of energy daily.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17473766

http://www.endo-society.org/media/ENDO-07/research/Amish-children-tend-not-to-be-overweight-thanks-to-exercise.cfm

http://www.cancergenetics.med.ohio-state.edu/article.cfm?ID=5307

 

Of course, as some folks here have already mentioned, there’s a big difference between not becoming overweight and trying to reduce body weight.  . .

I’ll return to my seat now J

lyle

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.

--
lyle f bogart dpt

156 bradford rd

wiscasset, me 04578

207.882.6494

206.794.6937

[Patrick in VT]

On Aug 31, 12:54 pm, Lyle Bogart <lylebog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, not necessarily so.  The Amish have been studied extensively (or as
> extensively as can be done given difficulties involving technology) for the
> very reason of the high prevalence of high fat, high protein diets, obesity
> rates vastly below that of non-Amish America, vastly lower cancer rates
> (except perhaps breast cancer) than non-Amish America.

okay. so a select group of people with a genetic make-up that makes
them more resistant lung cancer can smoke and have lower rates of lung
cancer compared to the general population. ergo, smoking does "not
necessarily" lead to increased risk of lung cancer for people who
don't share those genes? same logic, right? If so, I'm not sure I
find the Amish counterpoint persuasive.

FWIW, I recall reading somewhere that heart disease is still the
leading cause of death in Amish communities, despite some genetic
resistance to it. which isn't shocking.

anyway, i don't mean to overstate anything about any foods . .. i
simply called some foods "markers." these diet markers turn up over
in over in cases of disease and obesity. that's an irrefutable fact.
are they the sole cause? no, of course not. and I never stated (or
overstated) that they were. genetics play a role. environment plays
a role. lifestyle plays a role. those are all part of the health
equation.

I'm officially out of this one, but will gladly debate offlist! It's
an important discussion. and I know it's intensely personal for some
(myself included).

Patrick

[charlie]

I too disagree.....since the Taubes idea as I read it is to (not) eat
unhealthy fats (trans fats etc.), processed foods, low fiber starches
etc.....what I get from reading Taubes/Marks Daily Apple/ Paleo etc.
is to eat high protein, good fats, fresh vegetables (the leafy green
kind) berries,certain nuts, and some fruits and avoid all starchy
carbohydrates bread, potatoes, corn, rice, sugar..... basically eat a
healthy diet.
I'm not sure but I get the impression that there might be a little
phobia regarding the eating of animal fats and proteins. The issues
with heart disease can most definitely be related to the ingestion of
excess carbohydrates (grains and/or sugar) along with fats (absolutely
the worst combination) but the eating of saturated fats in the absence
of starchy carbohydrates does not have the same effect........Taubes's
book really needs to be read in its entirety along some other
publications to get the complete picture. As Grant stated, the blood
numbers do improve. I know this because I did this several years ago
when I first tried the Atkins approach and my test results were
amazingly improved. A common misunderstanding among many is the focus
on meat and fats as being the only thing eaten with these diets
however I don't get that when I read the books. I can't see how lower
blood numbers, fat loss and lower insulin reactions could be
unhealthy. But I do see the success of this philosophy helping to put
to rest some of the misinformation we've been 'swallowing' since the
government indoctrinated us with the food pyramid concept this last
generation.

[PATRICK MOORE]

What do all those Chinese, South Indians, Filipinos and Japanese
(among others) have to say about the last part of this sentence?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:45 PM, charlie <cl_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
what I get from reading Taubes/Marks Daily Apple/ Paleo etc.
> is to eat high protein, good fats, fresh vegetables (the leafy green
> kind) berries,certain nuts, and some fruits

**and avoid all starchy carbohydrates bread, potatoes, corn, rice,
sugar..... basically eat a healthy diet.**

[grant]

Taubes says...according to the studies he's read (as a science writer
and a health researcher)...that the studies that suggest high fat
diets increasing cholesterol, triglycerides, and so on...are flawed.
Not because they don't point the way he wants 'em to, but because they
haven't isolated the independent variables. It's the McDonalds
mentality, where you blame the meat and cheese, while ignoring the bun-
fries-Coke.

The only way to increase triglycerides is by eating carbohydrates. A
friend of mine ate nothing but meat and butter for 6 months, and his
triglycerides plummeted to 39, while his HDL shot up to 105 (that's
good). His LDL decreased.

The Asian pops that eat rice and tubers (as Taubes sez, and from what
I've seen in Japan and Taiwan) --- don't eat them in the quantities WE
do. A serving of rice in Japan is a small bowl. And they often don't
even finish it. Japanese people do not eat between meals. Never eat on
the street Eat 3 meals a day, don't snack, and get filled up
quick...in my experience.

Taubes goes into all that in the book.

The first seven people reading this who are sincerely interested in
the red book that's causing all the fuss...PM me at gr...@rivbike.com,
and I'll send you a copy free, as long as you kinda sincerely plan to
read it.

All this diet-bodyfat stuff is so...well, it's important to all of us.
We all want to lose weight and improve our blood scores, reduce the
risks, and so on. I've "known" Patrick M. for --fifteen years,
Patrick? Maybe more. We haven't met in person, but I get the feeling
he's one of the lucky ones. To a lesser extent, I probably am, too---
most would describe me as stocky but not fat. I don't know how I'd be
described, actually. But lean or fat, stocky or blubbery, magical-
phenomenal like Scott C., or still struggling..it's a bonding, common
concern. I've heard from dozens who've lost 10 to 60 pounds eating
burgers and cheese, whole eggs and bacon, salmon and salads with blue
cheese dressing...WHILE improving their blood scores. Most are over 50
and have struggled for 20 years or more, and nothing else worked.

The Taubes regime isn't "the Taubes regime"---it's pretty much the
diet we evolved to eat, and the diet we were eating before anybody
ever had atherosclerosis, high blood pressure, and so on. IF you've
tried counting calories and cutting back on fat and riding your ass
off, and you see no progress, and it's gotten to the point where you
figure if yout cut back on your mileage you'll gain five pounds a
month and sixty a year---please do yourself a favor and read the red
book (and Primal Blueprint, too).

Google "Rivendell Gary Taubes" and spend a couple of hours (in 12-
minute segments) listening to Gary make his case.

The seven free books offer is still good. First seven. I'm not trying
to convert anybody to "my" way. It's not power-tripping. It has
worked for so many, and since I believe it so much, I feel like i
gotta speak up. I don't get hungry anymore. I used to eat most of my
calories after 7 at night. Now I don't even get hungry, ever, and I
eat...good fatty stuff. When you read the book you'll understand
exactly how and why it works. Carbs spike glucose, glucose spikes
insulin, and when the subject is blood scores and weight gain, insulin
is the bad guy. The Satan in it all.

[Chris Halasz]

Curious regarding Taubeser's take on the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=still%20counting%20calories%20your%20weight%20loss%20plan&st=cse

(or the direct article link at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#t=articleTop)

Cheers,

Chris

[charlie]

Hi Patrick.....yea I work with about thirty Vietnamese/Chinese and I
see what they eat everyday. Mostly meat or seafood/shellfish and or
eggs plus some kind of weird vegetabley soup like stuff they dribble
over a tiny ice cream scoop size ball of rice. Most rarely (if ever)
eat sugar in the form of cookies, candy, soda or cake etc. They seem
to shun most American foods including fast food.....at least the ones
who arrived here more recently. They often make a big deal ( some
religious thing) of cooking a whole pig underground and rarely throw
any of it away. At larger gatherings they eat more fresh vegetables
and fruits and the meals are more elaborate with roast duck or shark
fin soup being popular. Sometimes they have the Pho soup with the
rice noodles but most focus on the meat and often leave the broth.
They drink quite a bit of green tea but smoke like freight trains.
During celebrations they drink large amounts of beer and shots of
cognac and never seem to get fat.....when I joined them at the casino
weekly over several months, I gained 20 pounds shooting up to 282 at
my fattest. There is something to be said for genetics.

On Aug 31, 4:51 pm, PATRICK MOORE <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do all those Chinese, South Indians, Filipinos and Japanese
> (among others) have to say about the last part of this sentence?
>

[PATRICK MOORE]

It must be genetics. I don't doubt the efficacy of the Taube method,
but I've seen too many people who eat mostly carbs, sometimes polished
rice. My mother, after being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes over 10
years ago, and who also had one heart attack, switched to a very low
fat, low salt, high vegetable, lot of chicken and lots and lots of
rice (she buys rice in 20 lb bags) and has lost a great deal of weight
and kept it off, as well as helping her heart and blood sugar. (She is
Filipina.) I lived in both north and south India in the '60s, as a
boy, and the poor people ate mostly whole wheat (Delhi) and polished
rice (Bangalore) plus lentils, vegetables and a bit of fish or meat on
special occasions. Ditto in Karachi, Pakistan. In Kenya, where we
moved next, the poor ate mostly posho -- corn meal mush. Often the
women would be hefty, but rarely obese; them men less heavy (but
taller, of course). Add banana or millet beer or, for the townies,
Tusker. My ex parents in law are Taiwanese: noodles, steamed bread and
rice in abundance, tho' they being American now can afford more fish,
eggs and meat. Of course, all this lot -- Indians, Pakis, Kenyans,
Filipinos, Chinese -- are of a class that moves around a lot and often
does manual labor; and many of them can't afford to overeat even cheap
grains and lentils.

I dunno. I believe those who have said they gained weight on carbs,
lost them on no carbs. But there is the above for other people; not to
mention the Irish peasants who, I've read in more than one place, ate
(for the working man) an average of 11 lb of high glycemic (Mom won't
eat them) potatoes a day, with little else beside a bit of skim milk
and salt. I eat indiscriminately except I don't eat huge amount of
meat -- but lots of cheese -- and thank God am 20 lb heavier than I
was in college at the same weight (I could lose 10 or 15 easily but
I'd be pretty thin). One sister is like me on a largely vegetarian and
rice diet; another sister and my brother are heavier, but not obese,
on eclectic diets that include a lot of everything except meat (meat
is not foregone, just rare).

An interesting aside: reading the autobiography of Thomas Merton
(Seven Story Mountain) he describes living in rural France in the
1920s and '30s with his widowed artist father and he describes a
peasant wedding feast where no one ate anything except huge quantities
of a huge variety of meats, because they never ate meat for most of
the rest of the year. (He also describes the Tour coming through his
town, grinding up a dirt hill doubtless in a single gear, "with noses
almost touching their front wheels.")

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
> To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
>
>

--
Patrick Moore
Albuquerque, NM
For professional resumes, contact
Patrick Moore, ACRW
http://resumespecialties.com/index.html

[grant]

A day or two ago I got a PM from a woman ... and I can't find it. Want
to reply. If you are she---well...you were pre-D with 110, now down
around 85, lost ten, energy issue. If it's you, that'll be enough to
trigger the mem...and then, send me again, please....sorry. Thanks. G

[Aaron Thomas]

At the risk of prolonging this thread ad nauseum, let it be noted that Taubes has embarked on a multi-point rejoinder to the purported refutation that began this thread. Part 1 has been published on Taubes' blog:

http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-carbohydrates-kettles-pots-other-odds-ends-part-i/

[Anne Paulson]

I don't doubt what you say about your colleagues. But it is also true that historically the vast majority of Chinese people couldn't afford meat as a daily diet. They didn't get their calories from meat (too expensive) or vegetables (not many calories). Rather, they got the calories either from white rice or, in the north, white flour.

[masmojo]

Whew, wish I had time to dig through all the responses here; it's all very interesting, but I just wanted to throw a couple things out there.
My wife is Asian and while she is snall, I see her weight fluctuates wildly be 10% or more over a matter of days! I although overweight; don't have much fluctuation at all. I notice if she eats too much "American" food she will gain a bunch of weight very quickly, but as soon as she goes back to her traditional vegies, but primarily fish & rice the weight comes off almost overnight. Now when I say she eats rice; it's a prodigious amount! If I was to eat that much rice I would swell up like a balloon! I conversely have cut the amount of starchy carbs I've been consuming and coupled with my riding have seen my weight steadily decline. Point being that the diets that work for both of us a almost polar opposite. I think this is partly cultural; over hundreds if not thousands of years our bodies adapt to the foods at hand.
In my journey the things that seem to have made the biggest difference in order are:
Sleep - lots of it.
Water- ditto
Diet- less starchy carbs, but also just generally, only eating until I am no longer hungry, not until I am FULL. Over time the less I've eaten, the less I can eat; to the point that it doesn't take much these days to fill me up.

Lastly, I feel like doctors sometimes get cause and effect backwards these days. You hear " obesity causes heart disease" for example. Hey, what is more likely is the heart health or the lack of it causes obesity! In fact I am increasingly of the belief that heart health is the root of a large number of today's health problems. From Obesity, to dementia, to many stress related disorders.

[masmojo]

I apologize for all the typos in the above post; comes from typing on a phone.
I was interested in Grant's comment about overweight women and overweight children; hard to think there wouldn't be some correlation, but again it could vary with genetics. My mother was overweight as is my eldest sister, I less than her & my youngest sister less than I. My mother would regularly do the Atkins diet lose 30lbs., gain it all back, then lose 50lbs. the next time only to gain it back! Finally in her 60s her doctor diagnosed her as Diabetic; she went on what we would describe as a ketogenic diet these days and finally dropped to a more or less normal weight. I think the main reason she couldn't maintain her weight loss and now suffers from dementia is she was never active, she didn't ride bikes, she didn't do anything.

To Charlie and others who are discouraged by exercising & gaining weight rather than losing it. I would say stick with it. As someone whose gone from very fit to less so (purely based on my activity levels) a few times in my life, I would say stay away from the scale it can be very misleading! A sudden increase in physical activity will correspond to a burst in muscle growth; initially you will build muscle faster than you burn fat & muscle weighs ~ 2x fat! So, it's only natural to gain weight at first. The good news is bigger muscles need more fuel and thus burn more calories, so while it may be slow sledding at first at some point you will notice the weight loss will start to increase and finally really start to pick up steam. You can accelerate the process with a Palio or Keto diet, but if you stay with it, results will follow.
For me I stay away from the scale, it took 20 years, a wife, 2 kids & a very stressful job to put on this weight, so I don't think it's healthy to think I am going to lose it all over night. My better gauge is my waist line at my heaviest I was a 38" waist, 4 or 5 years ago; without changing too much I am sub 36" and slimming noticeably faster now that I've increased my muscle mass. Most importantly my results are due more to lifestyle changes as opposed to strictly dieting, because of that I am more likely to stay with it and continue increasing my fitness level and losing weight. I would say the best barometer is your belt! Mine has notches every inch or so and I am 3 notches down from my biggest and getting better every day.

[masmojo]

Sorry, last post
I just wanted to mention, the latest, greatest and still in it's infancy is the study of the stomach biome. In the very near future they will be able to sample the bacteria in your stomach and either selectively remove bad bacteria OR introduce bacteria to counteract different conditions like obesity, lactose intolerance, possibly celiac disease, ulcers, etc.
It's debatable if this would be a good thing or not, but it certainly is looking like it is coming.

[Ian A]

The BBC carried a story about this a while back, going as far to report on fecal transplants to help with c difficile infection.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-43815369

Gut fauna/micro biome health is becoming better understood.

IanA

[Patrick Moore]

That gives a new meaning to the vulgar phrase, "Eat shit."

Back to rice. Me age'd mum lived to almost 92, and controlled Type 2 diabetes for almost 20 years by diet and (very modest) exercise -- principally diet. She had had a very minor heart attack close to age 70, and obeying the medical advice of the time, jettisoned almost all fat, salt, and sugar from her diet, as well as most starches. This meant that her diet was largely styrofoam chicken breasts cooked in the dullest way possible, huge quantities of boiled vegetables, the occasional synthetic egg, and huge quantities of white rice -- because she was Filipina, and if you are Filipina/o, you eat huge quantities of white rice.

I agree that what works for one person or one race may not be the same for another.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/64194d65-941f-4251-8339-bd7a45e2d6d0%40googlegroups.com.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique

[Dave Grossman]

I've had C-Diff twice in my life, and almost died the second time.  I would gladly welcome "eating shit" if it cured that horrific infection.

[jack loudon]

Patrick:  "I agree that what works for one person or one race may not be the same for another."

My mother is 99 and still healthy and mentally sharp; she still lives in the house she was born in.  Her diet is poor, heavy on starchy sweets - sometimes when I visit we both have nothing but pie and ice cream for dinner.  She has never done anything to actively cultivate good health.  She scoffs at organic food, drinks quite a bit of wine, is suspicious of doctors, rarely exercises.  She is and always has been thin though, and never overeats.   What's to account for her long healthy life?  I think nothing but good Irish genes, and possibly staying thin?  I don't know.  Certainly not any specific type of diet or exercise.  Just a data point.

Jack

Seattle

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-7, Patrick Moore wrote:

That gives a new meaning to the vulgar phrase, "Eat shit."

Back to rice. Me age'd mum lived to almost 92, and controlled Type 2 diabetes for almost 20 years by diet and (very modest) exercise -- principally diet. She had had a very minor heart attack close to age 70, and obeying the medical advice of the time, jettisoned almost all fat, salt, and sugar from her diet, as well as most starches. This meant that her diet was largely styrofoam chicken breasts cooked in the dullest way possible, huge quantities of boiled vegetables, the occasional synthetic egg, and huge quantities of white rice -- because she was Filipina, and if you are Filipina/o, you eat huge quantities of white rice.

I agree that what works for one person or one race may not be the same for another.

On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:41 PM Ian A <atte...@gmail.com> wrote:

The BBC carried a story about this a while back, going as far to report on fecal transplants to help with c difficile infection.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-43815369

Gut fauna/micro biome health is becoming better understood.

IanA

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/64194d65-941f-4251-8339-bd7a45e2d6d0%40googlegroups.com.

[Ian A]

In case anyone enjoys podcasts, the following three from the BBC have incredible insights into microbiome and related matters.

1) Hunting with the Hazda
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p057w3nm

2) Heath lessons with the Hazda https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p058jh5q

3) Gut Feeling
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02z0cbr

IanA Alberta Canada

[masmojo]

Yes, Patrick my wife is Filipina and she eats heroic amounts of rice! More in one sitting than I do in about a month!

Speaking of pod casts, I know he's awful trendy these days, but I've been watching the Joe Rogan Experience for over a year now. His topics can be all over the place, but he's real into nutritional topics and if you mine the previous episodes you will find a lot of good stuff on gut biome, timed fasting, palio diets, carnivor diets, etc.
I find the good thing about Joe's stuff is he does his homework and his guests are generally experts in their fields and sometimes controversial. He tends to challenge ideas if the guest comes off as sort of sketchy or questionable.
I would avoid anything more then 2 years old because the older stuff can be pretty. . . Ah, well if you are easily offended. . .

[M Talley]

I haven't read the refutation of Taubes (I likely will) but here I write a little bit of introduction (re-introduction) to Grant Petersen's world and my experiences, kind-of in order. If  can be made-sense-of it could add to this discussion.

=====================

I'm an old racer from the 80s and 90s who until this millennia my most distinct memories of Grant were his Bridgestone Catalog 1991 on Frame Stiffness (perhaps validated by Jan Heine) and his mensch-like advice from Bridgestone Catalog 1992 "How To Get Sponsored Even If You Aren't Famous". Too late for me but it left me with a positive feel and a wishing for a world with more of his type of advice. I have worked in shops over 30 years - the 2000s were a low-point if you were exposed to "racers" and non-racers crassly asking for handouts. 

I ran into a neighbor riding a Betty Foy 5 or 6 years ago that lead to a search of Rivendell online. I was surprised to have a video talk given by Gary Taubes as a top result. I watched it and then read both of his books. I absorbed as much as I could and practiced a keto diet for awhile. My health improved.

Somewhere in the same time frame I caught randomly PBS boadcast - a re-packaged BBC show "Michael Mosley presents Horizon: Eat, Fast and Live Longer". Turns out that was one episode from a series but it alone was a huge hit. It lead to books by Mosley on the topic - both expository and cookbook. Covered in that show was Dr. Valter Longo's research on aging and the discovery of the gene related to this puzzle - Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1)

The key point was science's gains in an understanding of the gene that cuts on facilitating  repair of the body when under the duress of a fast. I have (so have others) wondered if the same effect is benefited by a keto-diet and as I have recently learned the training effect of endurance exercise may do the same.

(a topic this could be loaded - take it with a grain of salt if need be - this is about calorie restriction)

"The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" was a documentary I saw around the same period around 2006. Cuba's recovery from "The Special Period" (mid to late 1990s). The take-away is how the health improved and the average life span increased by 6 years if I recall. Results of an enforced diet and lifestyle - less food more exercise. There was enough hardship in this "experiment" that increased indicators of better health came as a surprise.

My take away - we live in a time of politics that are so distorted by economic boom that what conservative vs liberal means won't be accurate or clearly defined until the boom is over.  Essentially easy and abundant oil and the related vices of production from easy calories to easy cars (transportation/mobility) skew reality.

Related to rice (especially cold rice) and gut flora:

"Resistant starch is a carbohydrate that resist digestion in the small intestine and ferments in the large intestine. As the fibers ferment they act as a prebiotic and feed the good bacteria in the gut."

http://hopkinsdiabetesinfo.org/what-is-resistant-starch/

We are all creatures of: adaptation, our heredity and real (developed) world influences.

Our genes (our gut flora's genes), Our hormonal circumstances, and our lifestyle (diet and exercise) all play a part in this puzzle.

Apologies for the length of this post,

Mark (in agreement with: it's a great time - this search/debate on obesity)

On Friday, August 12, 2011 at 9:36:45 AM UTC-4, Justin, Oakland wrote:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

I'm not an expert or have a strong opinion one way or another, I just think it's fantastic that there's a debate searching for actionable ways to control obesity in this country right now.