Good Calories Bad Calories: opinions wanted

[Annie Mac]

So, is this just Atkins repackaged? I just started the book, it seems interesting but I'm not sure I like where I think he's going -- to a world where there is no toast! 

[Juvysen]

well, it's not a diet book.  It's a book ABOUT diets.  So, if you're looking for a plan to follow, this is not it.  BUT he makes an excellent case and then calls for more research.  It really makes you think about things differently, I think.  He goes through the politics and history behind dieting and how the science plays into that. 

[Hedgehog Mtn]

Originally Posted by Juvysen 

well, it's not a diet book.  It's a book ABOUT diets.  So, if you're looking for a plan to follow, this is not it.  BUT he makes an excellent case and then calls for more research.  It really makes you think about things differently, I think.  He goes through the politics and history behind dieting and how the science plays into that. 

This^^

[Annie Mac]

Yes, but there is some implication of how we should eat, no? I'm quite enjoying the history of heart disease at the moment (that's a bizarre statement, isn't it?). I think I'll enjoy the book regardless, but he does seem to be veering towards higher fat, lower carbs. I could be wrong, I'm still in the first chapter. 

[Juvysen]

Yeah, his conclusion was that carbs seem to be the cause of syndrome x (obviously at least for diabetes, but he ties them together nicely, imo), but says in reality there's not enough solid research and calls for more to be done. Really, the fact that he can blow so many holes through the low-cal/high carb diet that seems to be favored by the AHA, etc, shows that we *need* better research to sort all this out. The politics behind it all makes me sad, though. Bleh.

[ambereva]

I think he got an idea that would sell millions of diet books and made the most of it.

His conclusions about calories aren't logical, even given the cherry picked data he provides as evidence for them.

That said, following his dietary recommendations (less processed refined carbs, more vegetables and lean protein) certainly won't hurt anyone, and will likely help many.

[Juvysen]

Huh? But it's not a diet book... and I don't recall him suggesting lean anything. Seems like he said fat and protein are safe, carbs are not...

[Annie Mac]

I am still in the first section! He's still talking about cholesterol and heart disease and the science behind that. Interestingly, he hasn't convinced me that fat isn't linked to heart disease, but I can buy that cholesterol is a tenuous link. 

[ambereva]

Originally Posted by Juvysen 

Huh? But it's not a diet book... and I don't recall him suggesting lean anything. Seems like he said fat and protein are safe, carbs are not...

You're right, I meant to go and edit in 'and healthy fats' but didn't get aorund to it.

It's not a 'diet book' but it's very clearly a 'vilify an entire class of macronutrients' book.

[Juvysen]

Originally Posted by ambereva 

You're right, I meant to go and edit in 'and healthy fats' but didn't get aorund to it.

It's not a 'diet book' but it's very clearly a 'vilify an entire class of macronutrients' book.

yeah, but it's not "healthy fats" as, say, the south beach diet defines it... he believes saturated fats are fine.  Just not trans fat...
 

[ambereva]

Originally Posted by Juvysen 

yeah, but it's not "healthy fats" as, say, the south beach diet defines it... he believes saturated fats are fine.  Just not trans fat...
 

Where did I say saturated fats were unhealthy?
 

[Juvysen]

you didn't.  Just the general "healthy fats" tends to denote olive oil and not, say, lard....

[ambereva]

Let's dumb it down.

Real, whole food (including both carbs and saturated fat) = healthy.

Vilifying entire macronutrient groups = brilliant scheme to sell millions of book$.

[Juvysen]

Or possibly a good way to push for good research. Sorry, I've been part of the scientific community. His stories of the politics behind it ring true in my experience. Creating reasonable doubt may be enough to spur more studies without as many assumptions... potentially proving his thesis for the book completely wrong, but the fact that the argument can be made makes it clear the research is far from definitive, imo. The more high profile the book, the more people will be spurred to ask important questions... and I think that regardless of which side of the spectrum the answers fall, having answers to things that aren't well understood can only be a good thing. *shrug*

[ambereva]

Originally Posted by Juvysen 

Or possibly a good way to push for good research. Sorry, I've been part of the scientific community. His stories of the politics behind it ring true in my experience. Creating reasonable doubt may be enough to spur more studies without as many assumptions... potentially proving his thesis for the book completely wrong, but the fact that the argument can be made makes it clear the research is far from definitive, imo. The more high profile the book, the more people will be spurred to ask important questions... and I think that regardless of which side of the spectrum the answers fall, having answers to things that aren't well understood can only be a good thing. *shrug*

All well and good, but not really the point of this thread. The OP asked if it's Atkins repackaged, and it is. Pretty much.

And the thing is, there are studies being done every day, all over the world. Most of them directly and overwhelmingly contradict Taubes' theory (which is that devil carbs have the magical ability to defy the laws of thermodynamics and create mass in the absence of energy surplus). Taubes based his premise on a handful of outliers, many of which were poorly designed (relying on self reported data, for instance).

Continued research is great! And if that is what Taubes' books spur, then even better. But from my perspective, it looks more like his books are spurring another macronutrient vilification, and look what fat vilification did for us in the 80s and 90s.
 

[Juvysen]

I think he did just come out with an actual diet book... I'm curious how strict it is on carbs, or if it's certain kinds of carbs or what. I mean, I don't think anyone will argue that sugar is good for you, yk? same with white bread, pasta, what have you... whole grain is better. But isn't it because the fiber slows the absorption of the carbohydrate? His biochemistry is sound, but it depends how far you take it, imo. it didn't cause me to switch over to eating meat and fat, exclusively... but it did remind me to question the effects of the glucose and fructose in the honey I put in my tea... but then, I lean toward TF, anyway.

ETA... his blog is interesting... might be worth a look to see where his motives are...
Edited by Juvysen - 3/11/11 at 6:47am

[Annie Mac]

I remember in Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan talked about how North Americans are peculiarly vulnerable to diet fashion and fad because we don't really have a long-standing food culture to fall back on. This resonates with me. Here I am, an educated woman, a master's degree behind me and higher than average critical thinking skills, and I still have to read every single new food idea that comes out. It doesn't mean I change my life because of it, but I consider each new thing rather than just saying, eh, whatever. I'm healthy. I'm doing good. Atkins never sounded like a good idea to me, but that might have been because its primary goal was weight loss and its primary adherents (in my life anyway) seemed to just want an excuse to eat bacon and steak every day. Which has never appealed to me. Plus, I love bread. Love it. I'm having trouble getting through GCBC. The writing, for some reason, I find a bit clunky and it doesn't push me along easily. 

[ursusarctos]

I found the book fascinating but wasn't convinced that carbs are all bad for you, which I think is what he is leaning towards. Certainly I agree that refined carbs are evil - particularly when you look at the accounts from all over the world, including the West, that go something like "people used to eat whole local seasonal foods and were mostly free of degenerative disease, and then they started eating refined flour and sugar in place of their traditional foods and they got fat and sick." The variety of traditional diets is huge, ranging from extremes of almost all carbs and low fat (Andes) to almost no carbs and high fat (Arctic), and they all produced healthy people.

I do find it interesting that many people with metabolic problems get so much improvement on a high fat/protein, low carb diet. But I think you have to damage your metabolism with refined food first before you need to go to those lengths to be healthy. Of course, I bet that the great majority of people in the US do have damaged metabolisms to some extent from eating the refined-carb- and bad-fat-heavy SAD. Even so just cutting out refined food seems to do the trick for many people, without having to go low-carb/primal on top of it.