Why We Get Fat (and what to do about it)
I never had to worry. I ate what I wanted. I exercised because I liked it, or to improve sports performance. Then my endocrine system got trashed in a bizarre accident in my kitchen.
And I started to gain weight. Not a lot, but a lot for me. I went from 6’ and 175 lbs, pretty much my lifetime weight since Army basic training, to 200. It carried well, but I knew it was there.
So, for the first time in my life, I entered the arena of limiting what I ate. And it sucked. Bad. And, I didn’t cheat. And yet, I gained weight. It wasn’t supposed to work that way.
Ah…. and there is the rub. As it turns out it DOESN’T work that way. All those “expert” nutrionists, all those personal trainers, all those Surgeon Generals… they were wrong. Fat isn’t really about physics, but biology. In fact, they were way wrong, global warming proportions wrong.
Gary Taubes explains this in his new book, Why We Get Fat (and what to do about it). He explains that insulin makes fat, and carbohydrates determine how much insulin we make. Known science for, well, forever. But ignored. Lost in decades of fad (and war), while a “balanced” diet loaded with carbohydrates was recommended for decades. But fortunately, rediscovered.
Taubes divides the book into two parts. The first part examines the history of “calories in/calories burned” and shows the science proving everybody was wrong. The second part explains how the body really works, how and why fat is made, and what general approach to eating you can take to avoid making fat.
It all made for interesting, if frustrating reading. It is yet another story of how fallible, corruptible, scientists and those that “interpret” science for us make a killing while having disastrous results for citizens and the world.
I recommend the book highly, especially the 2nd part about how it all works and what to do about it.
January 4th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
You’ll probably get more commentary on your throw-away line about global warming than you will about the contents of the book!
January 4th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
(-: I debated whether to throw that line in or not. I certainly think they are both huge scientific errors with worldwide ramifications. A difference is I don’t, yet at least, think the nutrition people were trying to get to a specific answer. In other words, observation bias, not political bias affected the science.
January 5th, 2011 at 8:02 am
As long as you introduce motives as a bias for scientifically based views, remember that the chief motivation for a Taubes is selling books. In that business, startling views sell well, especially when the message is you’re OK, they are wrong. What does Taubes say about the prevailing scientific view of the nutrition science he cites since I presume he is not qualified to make an independent judgment?
The science of the human body is continuously discovering a lot of new things, and you might notice that recommended diets and treatments are in constant flux. Even from professionals who are not selling books. Today’s new insulin view might not last long or might be under question by some noticeable scientists, facts that Taubes might have suppressed.
January 5th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Okay… so an author, I shouldn’t believe. A “scientist” I should. Even though both are paid. And both are rewarded for things not related to the quality of the science involved.
I think I’m healthily skeptical of any science reporting, and even base studies. We’ve seen a few disciplines ruined since I’ve been alive, theoretical physics and climatic studies. So yes, I’m aware that science isn’t particularly trustworthy.
January 5th, 2011 at 9:09 am
Taubes wants to sell books, so his message may be biased.
Nutritional scientists want to receive grants, so their message may be biased.
Yep, I agree.
How do scientists gain (or lose) confidence in their theories? Peer review is one such mechanism. If the science is so well grounded, it should be easy to duplicate the results *particularly* in an area like nutrition. We all have access to the same foods as are used in these studies (for the most part), so we can each become our own little scientist and peer review the work.
This is precisely what Ken Nelson is doing. Plus, he’s publishing his results in near real time.
If the science is unfounded, Ken will be one more person helping disprove it. If it is good science, he will help bolster confidence in it.
Carl, what’s your beef with this?
January 5th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Pesky Darwin… always wanting to sell books… (-:
Newton too… calculus textbook schill.
cremes makes a good point. Thousands of folks all over the country are trying this slow carb diet thing now and reporting back on it. We’ll know shortly how it fares.
And, btw, the science Taubes presents isn’t controversial. The interpretation might be.
January 5th, 2011 at 10:14 am
Happy New Year to all and I hope you are enjoying convincing yourselves that what is going on in slow carb diets qualifies as science that you can believe in. It sounds to me like rationalization.
January 5th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Hah… Mr. Global Warming speaks of rationalization. Nice try. (-:
January 5th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Carl, that isn’t an argument. I guess your definition of science and peer review has a litmus test. That is, only someone with a PhD after their name can do it.
However, the scientists that Tim Ferriss contacted while writing his book (scientists who fit the definition above) don’t count. They support a conclusion that you do not so what they do isn’t really science either.
I wondered at your comments so I read through some of Ken’s non-diet posts. I have a feeling you disagree with him on quite a few matters.
January 5th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Ha! Confirmed by Ken Nelson while I was posting.
January 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Parents are a bone that children use to sharpen their teeth.
January 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
We agree on more than we disagree, but that makes for lame discussion.
January 5th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
As I think I have said in the past, biology only dictates general rules. Every person is basically their own ecosystem with varying requirements. A diet that works for anyone in this conversation might give someone else a heart attack.
I can personally speak to the delicious damage carbohydrates can do when abused. I am 5′ 8” and 265 lb thanks to a minor addiction to all things pasta.
January 5th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
D E … you’ve got a lot of company.
I suspect, though, that the differences are that some can eat pasta and stay slender, others can. What Ferriss is maintaining in this book is that the insulin / sugar thing is what does it, and that anybody who keeps the insulin level below the bodies max consumption can eat a lot, just spread out over time. Pasta spikes it and gets sent to storage.
January 27th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
[...] reviewed the book a couple weeks back. Here is an interview with the author that you might find interesting. [...]