I would dearly love to take time to develop this tonight, but I'm fixing dinner for friends (2nd night in a row, with Thursday for family coming up).
Here's the refresher course. Gary Taubes' "alternate hypothesis of fat accumulation," (in my crude way of explaining it). Simply stated: people overeat because they are (have accumulated excess) fat, and it's not that they are fat because they overeat (cause & effect reversal; 180 degree error; the easiest kind).
Here's a quote, and I'm quite certain the author will be fine with non-attribution for now, 'cause if Ilinked it, too many of you smart ones would figure it out (those who haven't already).
Applying the 1st Law [of thermodynamics] to living organisms is Proof by Tautology. Yes, 1 + 1 = 2, but this tells us absolutely nothing about the underlying mechanics. The 1st Law does not (I repeat N-O-T) tell us whether you store excess energy in the form of fat, or bleed it off into the atmosphere by dilating blood vessels next to the skin, sweating, etc. To do so would require an accounting of entropy.
I read that twice the other day, as part of a long piece (which I have linked, BTW). But only today did it jump out, off the page, and bite me like a snake. Finally, I thoroughly understand Taubes' alternate hypothesis for fat accumulation.
Here's a chance for you to think about it, in the context of the "energy is neither crated or destroyed, calories in, calories out" failure.
Let me emphasize. There are still thousands upon thousands out there vigorously trying to shore up their bankrupt hypothesis. See if you can understand more than they do by tomorrow. Clue: trying to apply 1LT to a human organism exposes supreme ignorance. It is in their ignorance that they fail.
Observe America over the last 20 years. It is the 1LT-based hypothesis fully applied to practice.
You might also like
- Extensive Notes on Good Calories, Bad Calories
- Links and Quick Hits
- Mother Earth News…
- Good Calories, Bad Calories
-
A Big Breakfast and an I Told You So
Please spread the word
http://www.cellsignal.com/reference/pathway/images/Insulin_Receptor.jpg
Ha! Yea, account for that, in terms of kcal in/out.
Richard, first of all I just want to say that I found am article on vegetarianism vs. meat eaters…..I'll get it to you sometime in the next day.
Secondly, here is why this calorie in, calorie out model is stupid. You may lose more mass by eating less….but what if the mass you lost was muscle. then you are FATTER. What if you ate more but also trained much harder. Then you gained 10 lbs. but improved body comp. It is so stupid that some people pay attention to weight, and not body comp. Its not bad to look at the scale if your body comp is improving, but eating less calories day in day out goes against our bodies natural metabolism. It's random…chatoic. Sometimes we are in a great surplus other times we are fasting and negative. The best thing is to keep the insulin down.
Hi Richard,
I'd like to takeyou up on your offer of interpreting my NMR LipoProfile. I have sent the results to your gmail address listed here on the blog.
If you don't see it, it may have gone into your junk mail folder as it has two PNG attachments.
Many thanks in advance.
Got it. While not qualified to interpret, I'll be happy to offer an opinion based upon what I've learned from Drs. Davis and BG.
Richard Nikoley
Recent posts have made me want to try to re-read Good Calories, Bad Calories again. I have had it since June last year but only managed to dip in as it is fascinating but quite intense reading and you have to follow his scientifc trail. The chapters that deal with faulty fat metabolism being the cause of weight gain and the driving force behind continued weight gain, hunger and lethargy made me sit up and think this makes such sense and yet seems like nonsense from what we have all been taught. We are all brainwashed to think calorie in, calorie out and to think of this as a fat metabolism problem is like saying the fat is driving that person to eat more and want to exercise less. It turns all previous theories of calorie control and restriction upside down. And makes you think of carbohydrates differently. I am still trying to let it all sink in. So when you eat the carbohydrates, and your fat metabolism is faulty, your body is going to say lets store that and doesn't use up what is already in its fat stores. When you cut back the carbohydrates, your body starts to release the fat from its stores, and you have more energy, your metabolism improves and you lose weight. Still got much more to read….and absorb. I always had a feeling that in Gary Taubes book there was an explanation of the obvious which was hidden to all of us because of our preconceived ideas.
I have been a believer for just about a year now…but what is incredibly frustrating is this argument, “But what about eating all that fat? Yeah carbs are bad but so is fat.” I feel pretty defeated when hearing this. I try to explain the cellular inflammation that carbohydrates cause our veins, arteries, etc. and that we were not designed to have fat flowing swollen or even “rough” arteries. But fat flowing through smooth arteries does not cause a problem. Not to mention the insulin response and insulin’s purpose.
As a biologist it is so obvious that hormones drive just about everything, including fat storage or release. I wish I could talk a certain friend into a diet of any “healthy” carbs (grains! They love grains) that she wants for two weeks (lets say 2000 calories) and then a paleo-style diet for the same amount of time and energy consumption. That would open some eyes.
While playing cards with these friends last night they mentioned that they had orange ruffy for dinner and how good it was, etc. I said, “Oh that sounds great!” I was quiet for a bit (contemplating if I really wanted to know the answer to my next question and then went for it). “What did you guys have with it?” response, “brown rice”. Is it weird to become super pissed off when you hear words like, brown rice, whole wheat or ancient grains in that matter of fact way? Because I sure do. I replied, “Oh thank goodness it was BROWN rice!” no I didn’t really say that, I just said, “huh”. They know I don’t approve/agree and that’s why they did not offer that information at first.
I often ask myself, “Self, do you think they ever wonder why my wife and I are fit (inside and out) and they have a host of medical issues and are “soft”?” Guess which couple worksout 4-6 times a week? Yeah they have a lot of muscle in there somewhere!
Taubes put very well. It isn't that people get fat because thy eat too much, but they eat too much because they get fat. To me that is probably the most insightful thing in the book.
The problem with the 1LT crowd is that they are assuming a closed closed system where one does not exist. We are not automobiles with engines that run on calories. We are animals that eat food. We eat food, not calories and what food we eat has consequences for our bodies.
Most prominently, they miss the effect of hormones on fat accumulation and appetite and what those effects entail. Mainly that fat accumulation due to insulin surges causes energy to be stored not used and also causes greater feelings of hunger. There are also other interesting phenomena like homeostasis, which also point to the lack of a closed system.
Quite simply, they confused causation and correlation. That's the first thing you learn in research methods class. Tisk tisk.
I think De Vany had it figured out early when he answered the someone's question "how do I lose fat?" with "Don't get fat in the first place"
Another point about the simplistic "calorie in / calorie out" approach is that it assumes faeces (and other bodily discharges) have no calories.
Or, such calories would be the same per gram regardless of macronutrient proportions.
Indeed. Barry Groves wrote a useful contribution on this for the Paleodiet list back in 2003. He gave me permission to expose his explanation on my website:
http://www.evfit.com/calories.htm