I'm getting too skinny!

[Neal Winkler]

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.

He probably gets paid for seminars and consultations but he doesn't have a "product" other than that. But that's besides the point since you just rationalized away the entire fitness industry, including Gary Taubes himself who sells a book. Last time I checked, a book is a product. If you point applies to Krieger, it also applies to Taubes.

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.

How are USDA guidelines at all relevant here? Krieger was an early advocate of low carbohydrate diets in terms of the latest surge in their popularity. To claim he simply repeats USDA propaganda is ludicrous.

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.

If I remember correctly, this is in the first half of the book. Krieger's main problem is with the second half of the book. Also, his critique is a chapter by chapter critique, starting with chapter 14. This is the only chapter he has done so far. Other chapters will follow. So, I fail to how this point is relevant.

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.

He also cites another study that looks at food availability in poor neighborhoods in New Orleans. They have the easiest access to cheap, high-fat/high-carb, energy dense food.

What places around the world is the cheapest food not calorie dense and at the same time the poor people are obese?

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

I'll have to wait to speak about this until I get the book which is at my parents house.

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

This is too much for me to answer right now.

[Nicholas Sortino]

He probably gets paid for seminars and consultations but he doesn't have a "product" other than that. But that's besides the point since you just rationalized away the entire fitness industry, including Gary Taubes himself who sells a book. Last time I checked, a book is a product. If you point applies to Krieger, it also applies to Taubes.

Point taken. I was merely stating he was not unbiased.

How are USDA guidelines at all relevant here? Krieger was an early advocate of low carbohydrate diets in terms of the latest surge in their popularity. To claim he simply repeats USDA propaganda is ludicrous.

I didn't intend to make that claim. I did very little research into Krieger honestly, and know little about him except the few posts of his I've read. I really just got off topic there, I can't argue that I am the best when it comes to that, lol.

If I remember correctly, this is in the first half of the book. Krieger's main problem is with the second half of the book. Also, his critique is a chapter by chapter critique, starting with chapter 14. This is the only chapter he has done so far. Other chapters will follow. So, I fail to how this point is relevant.

You stated that the entire book was full of "bad science." I was stating that half the book was not even in contest buy this guy, or anyone for that matter, because it is right. If this is true I fail to see how the entire book is full of it. I was addressing your comment and not Krieger here.

He also cites another study that looks at food availability in poor neighborhoods in New Orleans. They have the easiest access to cheap, high-fat/high-carb, energy dense food.

What places around the world is the cheapest food not calorie dense and at the same time the poor people are obese?

I might need to look at his blog again because I do not recall the new orleans one. Regardless of that, the majority of those energy dense foods are in fact very high carbohydrate foods, typically made from grain and sugar. The majority of the fats in these foods are from low quality vegetable oils, hardly a source of anything either of them would call healthy. It is a lot cheaper to get a McBurger and fries with a coke, than a steak, asparagus and water.

I don't expect either of us will agree on this. That is fine, we are both allowed to believe what we like. There is enough out there for others to make an informed decision of their own as well. I just find it interesting that a book composed of nothing but research could be full of bad science. The studies are cited, if you care to look them up, do so to determine whether the information really was cherry picked or not and the studies were legitimate.