I'm getting too skinny!

[Joshua Naterman]

Carbs definitely help with mass gain. If it were possible to get non-GMO whole grain pasta I'd be more ok with it, but we're in America... all our engineering has practically destroyed the non-GMO wheat strains here. Not that I'm claiming that we had any wheat here originally, I'm almost positive that originated in northern Africa.

I love the sweet potatoes but if I eat TOO many my eyes become very sensitive to light. Nowadays I mix it up with sweet potatoes, peaches, white potatoes(PWO only), golden potatoes (also PWO generally) and tons of coconut oil/milk. It's absolutely ridiculous how good that stuff makes me feel now. It took me about 8 weeks to taper over to a high fat diet based heavily on the coconut products, but it really does feel great and everyone at the seminars has seen how my performance and looks have improved in a fairly short period of time (end of May to beginning of September, basically 3 months, with almost 2 of those months being nothing but rehab). Prepare to be blown away this coming May!!!! *WHOOOOOSH* It will be interesting to see what my bodyweight will be.

I highly suggest taking Ido's advice and allowing for an adaptation period as you switch over to taking in lots of fats, but once your body gets used to it IT IS ON!!! It would probably work exceedingly well to drop down to 7-8%, then start beefing up and keep going until you hit 12% or so, then drop back down by using a higher fat diet with lots of MCT(coconut oil!) to slowly replace many of those carbs. I definitely don't think being carb free is necessary, I see pretty fast results when I'm taking in more coconut oil/milk.

I think it's absolutely nuts to go low carb when you are TRYING to get bigger, and it is absolutely a great idea to have some fruits in the morning. The fructose goes straight to your liver and then your brain, which is why it feels good to eat fruits or drink not from concentrate orange juice. I just make sure I have plenty of the coconut milk or oil and I feel incredible with the two combined!

[Neal Winkler]

Yeah cutting back on the carbs is grrrrreat! to lose fat. Because instead of burning carbs for fuel your body burns your fat.

Whether or not you're body burns stored body fat depends on a calorie deficit. Carb reduction does not lead to utilization of body fat, you will simply use more of the dietary fat.

However, carbs might affect regional body fat storage.

[Joshua Naterman]

That's not the whole story. Dietary intake of fats, particularly MCT and SCTs, causes an upregulation in fat-digesting enzymes. This actually shifts your body's metabolism so that it is MORE capable of digesting fats. A higher percentage of fatty acids released from body fat would be burned.

There is also the issue of the quite well known hormonal effects of carbs: insulin secretion. Our bodies don't need insulin to handle fat since for whatever reason the fatty acids don't seem to pose a threat to our health and therefore aren't shuttled out of the blood ASAP, unlike high levels of sugars. DIgestion is also much slower, which also helps to mitigate the immediate metabolic consequences of a given calorie intake when compared with the same calorie intake derived from carbs. Lower overall insulin levels lead to lower overall shuttling of nutrients into existing fat cells and help to reverse insulin resistance.

That has actually been tested quite well and found to be true. There was one excellent study that was shared here which compared two groups of people who were physiologically similar. One group consumed 200 calories of mostly carbs, and one group consumed 2500 calories of mostly fats. At the end of 8 weeks(i think it was 8) the carb group had mostly gained weight, and the fat group had either maintained or lost body weight in the form of body fat. I think the title was something like "A calorie is not just a calorie" but i might be wrong. This did an excellent job of exposing what seems to be a new fact, which is that there is more going on with fat gain and fat loss than just simple arithmetic. Surprised the hell out of ME.

[Neal Winkler]

That's not the whole story. Dietary intake of fats, particularly MCT and SCTs, causes an upregulation in fat-digesting enzymes. This actually shifts your body's metabolism so that it is MORE capable of digesting fats. A higher percentage of fatty acids released from body fat would be burned.

Reference? How do you know more body fat is being burned and not just the dietary fat? If more body fat is burned how do you know the dietary fat doesn't simply replace it according the calorie balance?

There is also the issue of the quite well known hormonal effects of carbs: insulin secretion. Our bodies don't need insulin to handle fat since for whatever reason the fatty acids don't seem to pose a threat to our health and therefore aren't shuttled out of the blood ASAP, unlike high levels of sugars. DIgestion is also much slower, which also helps to mitigate the immediate metabolic consequences of a given calorie intake when compared with the same calorie intake derived from carbs. Lower overall insulin levels lead to lower overall shuttling of nutrients into existing fat cells and help to reverse insulin resistance.

What does this have to do with fat loss? Protein causes an equally large increase in insulin secretion, I guess that means protein is a threat to our health?

That has actually been tested quite well and found to be true. There was one excellent study that was shared here which compared two groups of people who were physiologically similar. One group consumed 200 calories of mostly carbs, and one group consumed 2500 calories of mostly fats. At the end of 8 weeks(i think it was 8) the carb group had mostly gained weight, and the fat group had either maintained or lost body weight in the form of body fat. I think the title was something like "A calorie is not just a calorie" but i might be wrong. This did an excellent job of exposing what seems to be a new fact, which is that there is more going on with fat gain and fat loss than just simple arithmetic. Surprised the hell out of ME.

Reference?

[Joshua Naterman]

That's not the whole story. Dietary intake of fats, particularly MCT and SCTs, causes an upregulation in fat-digesting enzymes. This actually shifts your body's metabolism so that it is MORE capable of digesting fats. A higher percentage of fatty acids released from body fat would be burned.

Reference? How do you know more body fat is being burned and not just the dietary fat? If more body fat is burned how do you know the dietary fat doesn't simply replace it according the calorie balance?

There is also the issue of the quite well known hormonal effects of carbs: insulin secretion. Our bodies don't need insulin to handle fat since for whatever reason the fatty acids don't seem to pose a threat to our health and therefore aren't shuttled out of the blood ASAP, unlike high levels of sugars. DIgestion is also much slower, which also helps to mitigate the immediate metabolic consequences of a given calorie intake when compared with the same calorie intake derived from carbs. Lower overall insulin levels lead to lower overall shuttling of nutrients into existing fat cells and help to reverse insulin resistance.

What does this have to do with fat loss? Protein causes an equally large increase in insulin secretion, I guess that means protein is a threat to our health?

That has actually been tested quite well and found to be true. There was one excellent study that was shared here which compared two groups of people who were physiologically similar. One group consumed 200 calories of mostly carbs, and one group consumed 2500 calories of mostly fats. At the end of 8 weeks(i think it was 8) the carb group had mostly gained weight, and the fat group had either maintained or lost body weight in the form of body fat. I think the title was something like "A calorie is not just a calorie" but i might be wrong. This did an excellent job of exposing what seems to be a new fact, which is that there is more going on with fat gain and fat loss than just simple arithmetic. Surprised the hell out of ME.

Reference?

http://books.google.com/books?id=yAtR8L_qT0MC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=can+MCT+replenish+glycogen&source=bl&ots=RLHy9ki6Zt&sig=j8nUyWrtBpIG2VFqcEIIW-Gi-7U&hl=en&ei=WfmKTImIHcP38AbonJDvCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=can%20MCT%20replenish%20glycogen&f=false

This book references a ton of studies, but they don't have the stupid reference page viewable, so I can't give those references. I don't have time to track them all down.

My first paragraph has nothing to do with that link, so don't expect to find that there. That is basic biochemistry, as well as the personal experiences of both myself and tens of thousands (at least) of other people. Let me see if I can find a reference for this. Got it! You're going to be interested in this one.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/6/1375

You know what specifically happens that I didn't know about? The oxidation (utilization in metabolic processes, for those who don't know) of fatty acids causes an upregulation in the formation of peroxisomes in the liver. What the hell does that mean? Peroxisomes specifically exist to metabolize fatty acids. The more fat you eat, the more fat-burning organelles your body has. That is going to positively affect your ability to utilize adipose fatty acids when they are released into the bloodstream. Pretty cool, eh? Combine that with some caffeine to increase the release of adipose fatty acids and you've got a powerful fat loss program.

As for the proteins, again it's all about the absorption rate. If you take 75g of straight up whey powder with nothing in your stomach to slow down absorption then yea, that's bad unless it's directly PWO! Proteins are great in that they have a low net calorie count. Every 10 calories from protein is only 8 net calories, because your body spends 2 calories processing those 10 calories from the protein! So protein too is a powerful tool in a fat loss regimen. Fortunately we have a lot of food options that allow slower release of nutrients, and that protects us from the potentially harmful effects of improper nutrient intake modulation.

Isn't that cool?!

[sasquatch]

I haven't posted anything on here for some time now (still read the forums every day though). I've finally stopped getting skinnier, and my muscle hardly ever feel bad anymore... I think it just took my body some time to get used to the extra work. I still want to start buying a bunch of stuff for calories and protien but that will have to wait a little longer. I'm finally using my rings again, i was only using my weights for awhile because i was too lazy to go hang up my rings in the wind. It's always windy were i live now

[Neal Winkler]

http://books.google.com/books?id=yAtR8L_qT0MC&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=can+MCT+replenish+glycogen&source=bl&ots=RLHy9ki6Zt&sig=j8nUyWrtBpIG2VFqcEIIW-Gi-7U&hl=en&ei=WfmKTImIHcP38AbonJDvCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=can%20MCT%20replenish%20glycogen&f=false

This book references a ton of studies, but they don't have the stupid reference page viewable, so I can't give those references. I don't have time to track them all down.

My first paragraph has nothing to do with that link, so don't expect to find that there. That is basic biochemistry, as well as the personal experiences of both myself and tens of thousands (at least) of other people. Let me see if I can find a reference for this. Got it! You're going to be interested in this one.

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/6/1375

You know what specifically happens that I didn't know about? The oxidation (utilization in metabolic processes, for those who don't know) of fatty acids causes an upregulation in the formation of peroxisomes in the liver. What the hell does that mean? Peroxisomes specifically exist to metabolize fatty acids. The more fat you eat, the more fat-burning organelles your body has. That is going to positively affect your ability to utilize adipose fatty acids when they are released into the bloodstream. Pretty cool, eh? Combine that with some caffeine to increase the release of adipose fatty acids and you've got a powerful fat loss program.

As for the proteins, again it's all about the absorption rate. If you take 75g of straight up whey powder with nothing in your stomach to slow down absorption then yea, that's bad unless it's directly PWO! Proteins are great in that they have a low net calorie count. Every 10 calories from protein is only 8 net calories, because your body spends 2 calories processing those 10 calories from the protein! So protein too is a powerful tool in a fat loss regimen. Fortunately we have a lot of food options that allow slower release of nutrients, and that protects us from the potentially harmful effects of improper nutrient intake modulation.

Isn't that cool?!

I haven't paid much attention to MCT in the past and looking into them now I see what you were saying before about consumption of MCT increasing fat oxidation, but it seems that is not fat oxidation in general just oxidation of the MCT.

But you can't make the jump from that to buring more body fat on an isocaloric higher carb diet with equal protein which is the assertion I assume you are making.

[Joshua Naterman]

I haven't paid much attention to MCT in the past and looking into them now I see what you were saying before about consumption of MCT increasing fat oxidation, but it seems that is not fat oxidation in general just oxidation of the MCT.

But you can't make the jump from that to buring more body fat on an isocaloric higher carb diet with equal protein which is the assertion I assume you are making.

It is an indirect consequence. At first, the oxidation of MCT and all other fatty acids increases gene expression for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors. This results in a host of consequences that include increasing the number of cellular peroxisomes AND increasing insulin sensitivity. Peroxisomes help digest all fatty acids, not just MCTs. Higher levels of peroxisomes mean more fatty acid digestive capability. It's just like increased mitochondrial counts lead to the ability to generate more energy in aerobic respiration and anaerobic glycolysis(I believe this is also a direct effect, it might just be the aerobic respiration that primarily benefits) which in turn leads to better strength-endurance(I'm pretty sure) and aerobic endurance performance. The more mitochondria you have, the more energy you can produce in the citric acid cycle because there are more cells processing things. Same will go for peroxisomes, though I can not say to what degree.

Insulin sensitivity has a massively positive correlation with lower body fat levels, so just through affecting insulin sensitivity the actual stored body fat levels in a person's body will be affected by increased levels of peroxisomes.

I don't know where you got the isocaloric higher carb diet idea from, but I am absolutely saying that when you increase insulin sensitivity and increase the number of fat-burning organelles you ARE going to lose more body fat. We don't just pee it out, we burn it. It just so happens that MCTs are ideal catalysts for the intracellular changes that lead to these results. They aren't the only way but man are they efficient! Maintaining an isocaloric diet, shifting to more MCTs and slightly less carbs will help produce impressive body transformations both internally and externally. I can not say what levels of various macronutrients will produce ideal results, but that would be a fascinating area of research.

[Neal Winkler]

It is an indirect consequence. At first, the oxidation of MCT and all other fatty acids increases gene expression for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors. This results in a host of consequences that include increasing the number of cellular peroxisomes AND increasing insulin sensitivity. Peroxisomes help digest all fatty acids, not just MCTs. Higher levels of peroxisomes mean more fatty acid digestive capability. It's just like increased mitochondrial counts lead to the ability to generate more energy in aerobic respiration and anaerobic glycolysis(I believe this is also a direct effect, it might just be the aerobic respiration that primarily benefits) which in turn leads to better strength-endurance(I'm pretty sure) and aerobic endurance performance. The more mitochondria you have, the more energy you can produce in the citric acid cycle because there are more cells processing things. Same will go for peroxisomes, though I can not say to what degree.

The thing is, all of this may be true but it can still be false that a higher fat intake will lead to lower body fat over time when compared to a isocaloric higher carb/lower fat diet. Often times our reasoning about what occurs at the micro level doesn't always have the effect we think it will at the macro level. Which is why I would like to see a study that that looks at body comp as the end point over the long term to prove your assertion. After that we can sort out the mechanistic explanations.

Insulin sensitivity has a massively positive correlation with lower body fat levels, so just through affecting insulin sensitivity the actual stored body fat levels in a person's body will be affected by increased levels of peroxisomes.

Correlation does not equal causation.

I don't know where you got the isocaloric higher carb diet idea from, but I am absolutely saying that when you increase insulin sensitivity and increase the number of fat-burning organelles you ARE going to lose more body fat.

But is this really true?

For example, in this study obese subjects were divided by those with normal blood sugar (group 1)and those with high blood sugar (group 2). Group 2 had greater insulin resistance at the start of the study. Both groups were similar in starting weight and fat mass. After 3 months on a hypocaloric diet, group 1 lost 2.2% fat mass and group 2 lost 4.2% fat mass. Group 2 had greater improvement in insulin sensitivity.

Now, I know what you are going to say, "See, the group with the best insulin sensitivity improvement had the best fat loss!!" Ok, but after 3 months group 2 still had significantly worse insulin sensitivity, so, according to your theory shouldn't group 1 of had the most fat loss since they had the best insulin sensitivity?

I have a couple other studies like this too.

Sorry, I mean to say isocaloric lower carb diet with equal protein.

[Joshua Naterman]

I think part of the problem with drawing conclusions from these studies is that we are well aware that without an increase in fat-burning organelles AND/OR activity, there is very little reason for the body to make drastic composition changes. Even with a hypocaloric diet there are only so many fat-burning engines in the body, so to speak. Without increasing the number of fat-burning engines the only initial improvement that should be seen is the loss of fat that was maintained as a result of higher insulin resistance. As the two groups become more similar in the levels of insulin resistance/sensitivity you will most likely see similar rates of fat loss over time. I never said causation with this link, and that is partially because insulin resistance and excess body fat have a linked relationship. They each affect the other, like a feedback loop. Depending on the situation either could be the original root of a cycle that has led to high levels of each, and there are many other factors that play into body fat accumulation. While correlation is not causation, only a fool dismisses very strong correlations. I'm fairly sure you are not a fool.

The difference between the study you referenced and what I am talking about is that I am talking about increasing insulin sensitivity through different pathways. If you feed people less they will need less insulin to shuttle the nutrients, and the less insulin they produce the more sensitive they become to it. That's not anything new and that effect has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Now, you could certainly use BOTH techniques to possibly get even BETTER results but I don't know if that hypothesis has been tested.

I absolutely agree that further study is needed before science can provide support for the specific assertions I have made, but in the meantime a very large body of anecdotal evidence is in favor of the effects I am proposing. They aren't very complicated and they aren't cutting edge. It's pretty basic biochemistry, and I am fairly sure that I am touching on something valid.

It is also absolutely possible that a higher carb iso-protein iso-caloric diet could produce better results, but based on the high carb versus high fat research I was talking about earlier that may not work out in the higher carb diet's favor. Again, it will depend on both the fatty acids and the carbohydrate sources that are chosen. SCT and MCT alone aren't going to slow down digestion hardly at all, and fruits + other fast carbs aren't going to do very well either. This would be an easy study to confound.

[Brendan Coad]

It seems like carb tolerance of the individual is what is going to matter more than anything for body composition. I follow alot of the natural bodybuilders over on bodybuilding.com including guys like Layne Norton who is a contest prep coach. Some people get to 3% on 400G of carbs, others have to go all the way down to 100G even weighing to 180-190 lbs at 3ish percent. If I'm not misquoting I know Layne likes to say that carb is even more protein(muscle) sparing than protein is so its very useful when dieting down that low. For health reasons I like paleo, I feel great(most important for me), perform well and I don't have to count anything or worry about doing something internally thats going to hurt me in the long run. But I think the bodybuilding scene has proven that for body comp all you have to do is count your macros.

Out of curiosity do other people cook with their coconut oil? I just spoon it and eat it, haven't found a good use for cooking yet.

[Neal Winkler]

I think part of the problem with drawing conclusions from these studies is that we are well aware that without an increase in fat-burning organelles AND/OR activity, there is very little reason for the body to make drastic composition changes. Even with a hypocaloric diet there are only so many fat-burning engines in the body, so to speak. Without increasing the number of fat-burning engines the only initial improvement that should be seen is the loss of fat that was maintained as a result of higher insulin resistance. As the two groups become more similar in the levels of insulin resistance/sensitivity you will most likely see similar rates of fat loss over time. I never said causation with this link, and that is partially because insulin resistance and excess body fat have a linked relationship. They each affect the other, like a feedback loop. Depending on the situation either could be the original root of a cycle that has led to high levels of each, and there are many other factors that play into body fat accumulation. While correlation is not causation, only a fool dismisses very strong correlations. I'm fairly sure you are not a fool.

The difference between the study you referenced and what I am talking about is that I am talking about increasing insulin sensitivity through different pathways. If you feed people less they will need less insulin to shuttle the nutrients, and the less insulin they produce the more sensitive they become to it. That's not anything new and that effect has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Now, you could certainly use BOTH techniques to possibly get even BETTER results but I don't know if that hypothesis has been tested.

I absolutely agree that further study is needed before science can provide support for the specific assertions I have made, but in the meantime a very large body of anecdotal evidence is in favor of the effects I am proposing. They aren't very complicated and they aren't cutting edge. It's pretty basic biochemistry, and I am fairly sure that I am touching on something valid.

It is also absolutely possible that a higher carb iso-protein iso-caloric diet could produce better results, but based on the high carb versus high fat research I was talking about earlier that may not work out in the higher carb diet's favor. Again, it will depend on both the fatty acids and the carbohydrate sources that are chosen. SCT and MCT alone aren't going to slow down digestion hardly at all, and fruits + other fast carbs aren't going to do very well either. This would be an easy study to confound.

I think this convo is starting to wind down. I'll end by saying that I am not asserting that higher carb, iso-protein/calories is superior I'm just of the camp that body fat stores are ultimately determined by calorie balance, all else being equal. Although I do think there may be differences in regional storage with varying macros.

Also, there was a study that had results where insulin-resistant people had better results on low-carb and non-insulin resistant had better results on high carb. Since not all obese people are insulin resistant (and I'm not convinced that insulin secretion is all that important in driving fat storage) we can't make blanket recommendations that low-carbs is better. I'll see if I can find the reference.

No doubt this will come up again so no fear we will revisit later!

[Tarun Suri]

It seems like carb tolerance of the individual is what is going to matter more than anything for body composition. I follow alot of the natural bodybuilders over on bodybuilding.com including guys like Layne Norton who is a contest prep coach. Some people get to 3% on 400G of carbs, others have to go all the way down to 100G even weighing to 180-190 lbs at 3ish percent. If I'm not misquoting I know Layne likes to say that carb is even more protein(muscle) sparing than protein is so its very useful when dieting down that low. For health reasons I like paleo, I feel great(most important for me), perform well and I don't have to count anything or worry about doing something internally thats going to hurt me in the long run. But I think the bodybuilding scene has proven that for body comp all you have to do is count your macros.

Out of curiosity do other people cook with their coconut oil? I just spoon it and eat it, haven't found a good use for cooking yet.

Every morning when I make my 4 eggs. Besides that no. But then again, I don't know much about cooking.

I'm also looking into coconut milk also. I don't really know if I'm supposed to drink it alone or mix it with something or use it with cooking, to be honest.

[Neal Winkler]

Out of curiosity do other people cook with their coconut oil? I just spoon it and eat it, haven't found a good use for cooking yet.

For cooking you simply use it in place of cooking spray.

[Neal Winkler]

I'm also looking into coconut milk also. I don't really know if I'm supposed to drink it alone or mix it with something or use it with cooking, to be honest.

A common use of coconut milk is with chicken recipes. A google search will lead you to these. I also enjoy using it for occasional protein/meal replacement shakes. Great for mass gain.

[ASForum]

I'm also looking into coconut milk also. I don't really know if I'm supposed to drink it alone or mix it with something or use it with cooking, to be honest.

A common use of coconut milk is with chicken recipes. A google search will lead you to these. I also enjoy using it for occasional protein/meal replacement shakes. Great for mass gain.

When you guys say Coconut milk.. you're not talking about the Coconut water..right.. But the "white flesh" that is processed / milked into a thick / thin liquid?

[Neal Winkler]

Yeah.

[Joshua Naterman]

Curry too! Coconut milk is the base for curry, mmmmmmmm!

[Ryan Libke]

I also cook my eggs in the morning with coconut oil, or with evoo. I like it with spinach and mushrooms. Also for breakfast, I like coconut milk with canned pumpkin. Pretty easy.

[Brendan Coad]

Curry or chicken makes sense and I've done that before. But I eat alot of red meat and coconut+red meat doesn't sound too good to me. Same with eggs, who wants coconutty eggs? But I guess that was the point of my question, if some people think its good with eggs maybe Ill give it a try.

[Tarun Suri]

The choice of oil never changed the taste of my eggs.

[Nicholas Sortino]

Curry or chicken makes sense and I've done that before. But I eat alot of red meat and coconut+red meat doesn't sound too good to me. Same with eggs, who wants coconutty eggs? But I guess that was the point of my question, if some people think its good with eggs maybe Ill give it a try.

Coconut oil goes well with fish and especially shrimp (think coconut shrip, which of course is best done with coconut oil). I mostly just add it to shakes though...

[Cole Dano]

I was thinking milk, the oil is very neutral, i cook everything with it including red meat and eggs and it doesn't impact the flavor at all. Standard olive oil colors the flavor much more.

[Nicholas Sortino]

Newer evidence suggests that grain consumption could date back as far as 100,000 years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141312.htm

Good calories, bad calories is filled with bad science.

For example, see here:

http://weightology.net/?s=taubes&searchsubmit=

I am quoting this because I want to remind myself to come back to it and take this guys blog apart. There are lot of problems with it, far more than any that may be in GCBC.

I've been gone for a while or I would have tackled this earlier.

[Nicholas Sortino]

Newer evidence suggests that grain consumption could date back as far as 100,000 years ago.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141312.htm

To address your first point, I would like to point out that from that article it would seem that it was only wild grain, and not cultivated as a primary source of food. I believe there is a large difference between occasionally eating some wild grain and turning it into a large portion of your caloric intake.

Now onto the matter at hand:

Good calories, bad calories is filled with bad science.

For example, see here:

http://weightology.net/?s=taubes&searchsubmit=

First let me address my issue with the Kreiger himself. While I am sure he is a very well educated man, he is also a man selling a product. From what I have gathered browsing briefly through his site, his vision of weight loss does not coincide with Taubes'. From the very beginning this makes his a biased source, since the more people that believe Taubes, the less that believe him. Along with this, his Education is in nutrition, and just from looking at the most recent USDA guidelines, you can see how far off the modern view really is. They actually had the gall to say that their low fat beliefs aren't working properly, so lets lower saturated fat intake even more! But I digress, this is not about the USDA... My point is traditional nutrition training and advice tends to be very off base with what has been shown is studies time and again.

On to Krieger's first and primary argument. He sets up a strawman by stating that Taubes main argument is that is that the obese do not eat more than the lean. He then goes on to reference a study showing that the majority of overweight people under-report their caloric intake on studies. He fails to address that some of the studies cited for the chapter were not self reported, and were infact conducted in clinical conditions. He also quote's Gary out of context. He does not state that ALL obese eat more than the non obese. He states that obesity is not caused by overeating – some obese people over eat because they are obese. Obeseity, Gary argues, is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. George Bray made a very similar critique of GCBC, so I will post Taubes' response to him here since it applies. Just replace the name Bray with Krieger:

Much of Bray’s critique hinges on his assertion that I believe that obese individuals do not eat more than lean

individuals. He quotes a line from GCBC, but by doing so out of context directs attention away from the critical observation that must be explained.

“Even if it could be established,†I wrote and Bray quotes, “that all obese individuals

eat more than do the lean – which they don’t – that only tells us that eating more is associated with being obese.â€

The keyword in the sentence, however, is ‘all’. It must be the case, as discussed in GCBC, that the obese tend to eat more than the lean, because they tend to expend more energy than the lean. This does not mean, however, that all lean individuals expend less energy than all obese individuals of comparable height, *** and bone structure. The distributions of calories consumed overlap, as do the distributions of calories expended. This is the observation that requires explanation.

I do not mention doubly labelled water in this context, because the necessary observations were made with calorimeters nearly a century ago (3).

In this context, Bray’s statement ‘that obese people eat more food energy than do lean people’ is either meaningless – is he indeed claiming that it’s impossible to find lean individuals who naturally expend more energy on a daily basis than obese individuals of comparable height, *** and

bone structure? – or it is indefensible.

The relevant point is how greatly energy expenditure and metabolic rate ‘might

differ between any two individuals of equal weight, or how similar [they] might be among individuals of vastly different weights’ (GCBC, p. 278).

Bray also consistently confuses associations – the obese eat more than the lean; the obese are in positive energy

balance as they fatten – with causes and effects. Do they get fatter because they overeat, as Bray continues to imply, or

do they overeat because they’re getting fatter. The goal of science is to correctly determine causality. In these two competing hypotheses, the causalities are diametrically opposed.

In this section, he also cites a study where women who claimed they were eating 1200kcal/day were actually put on that diet and lost 1.7lbs/week. I fail to see how this supports his argument, since this is boderline starvation and at that low of a calorie intake, macronutrient intake fails matter. This is in the book as well. His assertion here is that the macronutrients do not matter, but rather the total calories consumed: total calories burned is what matters in weight loss. Here is a study and a blog post by DR Eades that both show how this is a poor use of the law of thermodynamics that is so often used to argue against low-carbohydrate iso-caloric diets being effective:

Study

Dr Eades blog

Interestingly in his argument the poverty/obesity relationship he posts a table that he believes shows that the cheapest foods are in fact the most calorie dense. Just from looking at his chart I see primarily refined carbohydrates of only moderate calorie density as the cheapest foods along with margarine, a source of hydrogenated fats. Lard is near the top, and cheap, but in my experiences, it is very difficult to find a store that actually sells lard. His chart also only uses supermarkets in the seattle area. This has little relevance to the rest of the world were there are large amounts poverty and high rates of obesity. He neglects to address the rest else in the world.

I don't recall the Pima chapter, nor do I have the book on hand (I lend it out all the time), so I cannot comment on that.

Finally, he never once address what I believe is the most important part of GCBC. That is total destruction of the lipid hypothesis/Diet-heart Hypothesis. I believe this is the most important part of the book. It points out that there never has been a link between fat, saturated fat or cholesterol intake and heart disease or mortality. It essential points out all the flaws with the dietary regulations set forth by the USDA in the 60's that have been a massive politically based medical experiment on the entire American populace and in my opinion, a drastic and terrible failure, tantamount to treason. The USDA is largely responsible for the poor state of health America is in, along with the lobbying and subsidizing of grain and soy. This is what truly changed my life, the realization that fats are not unhealthy and are in fact a very healthy part of the human diet. I truly hope his message and the message of others like him get out to the world before it is too late.

As an aside note, I do not take everything Gary writes as the word of God. Of course he is not correct in everything he says, but to claim the book is bad science is just uniformed. Please if you haven't read the book, check it out. You don't have to take everything it says as the truth, but it is pretty eye opening.