Skeptic Project

I personally don't advocate atkins type diets, but I do advocate a lower carb intake.

Fathead made some very good arguments and provided convincing evidence. I'm just trying to obtain accurate information here. I did look for proof on both sides of the argument, and I'm still leaning towards the lipid hypothesis as being inaccurate or partially inaccurate.

Being referred to as a ct'er makes me rage.

Essentially. They also claim there were fossils found at different depths where they shouldn't be. Not sure if there is any truth to that. I can see if I can find more contradicting evidence maybe next week. We should start a separate thread for it, though.

@Falkner:

I don't have time or inclination to debate this issue properly with people on this board, not after what happened on the McDonalds thread where I presented ample experts and studies and was presented with quite literally absolutely nothing apart from mocking denials.

Firstly however, I did not just use a book review to prove anything - you act like I was just using any old review off amazon. I used a book review written by a doctor specialising in weight management who calls Taubes theories "pseudoscience" and his book "just another magic diet book". Hand waving that just because its a blog is like ignoring a paleontologists blog criticising a Creationist book just because it was written on a blog.

But its more than that, you also seem to think Freedhoff agree's with Taubes' basic argument anyway. I think its because you seem to think all low carb diets are the same and since Freedhoff says he is "quite low-carb friendly" I guess you assume that any criticism no matter how harsh it sounds we can assume must only be subtle anyway. Except Taubes' basic argument is not just "low carb", that's just one part of it. The issue is whether CALORIES have anything to do with weight gain. Taubes says they have nothing to do with it and you can consume as many calories as you want so long as its not from carbs because he says its the carbs that make you fat.

For example... thats why Freedhoff wrote:

"So what's the cause of everything according to Taubes? Oh yeah, carbs. In fact he states that the reason any diet works isn't because of caloric restriction, but rather it's due to carb restriction, with the corollary also being true - weight gain's not a consequence of caloric intake, but rather carb intake. Tell that to Twinkie Diet guy Mark Haub who lost 34% of his body weight eating 1,800 controlled, processed carby, junk food calories a day purchased from convenience stores."

This is also why you don't seem to understand that the scientist in the radio interview you posted ALSO disagree's with Taubes as well, which is why several times he talks about watching your calorie intake. Some interesting research on fat however.

(PS: I also kept going on about it because Rox says she was would not read the article, how would you react if I said that? I wonder. )

In case you're interested, here's another critique of Taubes's book by James Krieger who has a Master’s degree in Nutrition from the University of Florida and a Master’s degree in Exercise Science. Like Freedhoff he has extensive experience working in weight management. You also asked for journal articles and he provides many in his article. http://weightology.net/?p=265 He says he is doing a chapter by chapter critique of the book, since he posted this today its only the first of many. I hope he continues.

You could say he agree's with Taubes' "underlying argument" like you did with Freedhoff if you didn't bother to read anything else he wrote and simply picked this one part from an intro article to the above series:

"Low-carbohydrate diets are certainly an effective strategy for some people intending to lose weight… "

So I guess this means Krieger basically agree's with Taubes' and stop there, right? Except like Freedhoff saying Taubes promotes pseudoscience which apparently you gloss over, Krieger also said this about Tauber:

"A close examination of the latter half of Taubes’s book reveals logical fallacies, erroneous assumptions, misquotations of research, and an absence of scientific data that does not fit with his story about obesity and his hypothesized cause. In fact, a general theme is the use of very old scientific data, despite the fact that newer data of a higher quality is available."

I will also note that there is a strange cognitive dissonance here, in the McDonalds thread it was being promoted that their cheeseburger for example was actually a healthy nutritionally rich well-balanced meal. We went on for all those pages trying to get people to understand that it was none of those things. The point is that while people like Gary Taubes would undoubtedly have different reasons from me he would have strongly disagreed with the idea as well, as McDonalds food is VERY HIGH in carbs, but not just carbs, processed carbs. For example a single McDonalds cheeseburger is listed on their website as containing 31g of carbs and 7g of which are sugars, for example. In fact its an almost perfect example of the kinds of foods Taubes says to AVOID. Taubes argues that its CARBS that make you fat, which is why Freedhoff disagree's (eg, see quote above) and gives the example of Mark Haub and his Twinkie Diet who lost lost 26.6 lbs eating ONLY the very things (processed sugary carbs) Taubes claims is the cause weight gain. I don't know how that can be explained by his theory. Taubes is so against sugars and carbs that in a Google lecture in a Q+A someone asks him how to find meat that has not had sugar added to it and Taubes says its difficult and you have to try going to independent butchers where that has not been done. My opponents in the McDonalds thread can't have been right about that and right here at the same time, though what Taubes is saying is far more sensible than the ridiculous health nonsence being promoted in that thread.

Next, Keep posted two articles from Skeptic Magazine. The first person was skeptical but seems didn't know what to think and was not qualified anyway, the second person is Harriet Hall. Its strange again that her disagreement should again be hand waved as subtle and merely to do with how Taubes makes his point and that she still agree's with the "underlying argument"...

So lets have a look, here's some quotes from that article from Hall:

"Many readers will come away convinced that all we need to do to eliminate obesity, heart disease and many other diseases is to get people to limit carbohydrates in their diet. I’m not convinced, because I can see some flaws in his reasoning."

....

This is simply not true. The laws of physics are unavoidable. His
demonization of the calories-in/calories-out principle strikes me as a
bit of a straw man argument.

...

Diets are just tricks to get people to reduce total calorie intake, and
low-carb diets are no exception. A 2003 systematic review in JAMA showed
that weight loss on low-carb diets was principally associated with
decreased caloric intake and increased diet duration but not with
reduced carbohydrate content.

...

Taubes says “In a world without carbohydrate-rich diets, obesity would
be a rare condition.” That’s undoubtedly true. But is it the carbs or
the calories? The two are confusingly intertwined. Carbohydrate-rich
diets are high calorie diets. Cutting calories usually involves cutting
carbohydrates, and cutting carbs usually results in cutting calories. On
any weight loss diet, dieters avoid “empty calories” and try to pick
foods that will satisfy their hunger better and for longer.
...
He admits that studies show that low-carb diets tend to raise the level
of “bad” LDL cholesterol, but he thinks that this is more than
compensated for by rises in “good” HDL cholesterol and by lower levels
of triglycerides. Published evidence suggests that he may be wrong. In a
2010 study, adherence to a Mediterranean-like dietary pattern reduced
mortality but a carbohydrate-restricted diet appeared to increase
mortality in elderly Swedish men. Another 2010 study showed that
low-carb diets based on animal sources were associated with higher
all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based
low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and
cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

Again, notice the issue with calories, this is not at all agreeing with Taubes' underlying argument. This is why I thought Kepp was agreeing with me somewhat at this point because he posted an article that so strongly disagreed with Taubes and then he essentially said that low carb can mean lots of different things, which would mean Freedhoff saying he was low carb friendly did not necessarily mean he agreed with Taubes' underlying argument.

Kepp also posted some studies and papers about cholesterol and heart disease, now I will say I was surprised they were there and did show me that I had some misconceptions about how black and white the issue is. However, being published in a journal is not the end of the line, that is simply the first hurdle. Generally CT's like truthers and Creationists can't get anything published which just shows you how terrible those really are! One title Kepp gave did strike me as odd. The last one he gives, he puts the title..."Scientists working in this area are starting to get angry that their research is being ignored" ... yet it was written in 2002, so why "starting"? Ah well, its a small point. I also imagine Kepp has not actually read those articles (that aren't available for free), now neither have I but we also have to put this into context and many times we need expert discussion of what the study really showed us in a wider context since the conclusion given in the paper can be off the mark while still provide real research. I find this many times on 911 WTC papersa and the NIST report.

I mention Kepp's list because it deals with heart disease and cholesterol, but Harriet Hall, the expert writing in Skeptic Magazine he posted before and I just talked about, seems to strongly disagree with these "cholesterol myth" advocates.

Several years ago she got into a heated exchange with one of these "cholesterol myth" promoters Marshall E. Deutsch, a member of the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics. You have to make sure you know who is saying what in this thread below, but its good read for someone that thinks Hall agree's with the "basic argument" being put forth here. Its clear she doesn't and gets quite frustrated with the responses she gets from Deutsch. When she wrote that article about Taubes she still seems to disagree something that Kepp apparently didn't notice, but I think it would be interesting to find out what she thinks of some of those more recent studies posted by Kepp.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51460

Lastly, the reason I was talking about conspiracy theories here was in part due to how black and white I saw certain claims and for that I was wrong, its not so black and white and it has prompted me to want to genuinely want to find out more, but mainly it was due to the logic of the arguments I was receiving was EXACTLY like those CT's use and the refusal to read what was posted and acknowledge that Freedhoff really did strongly disagree with Taubes. A doctor calling calling Taubes health book pseudoscience is very strong accusation!

Rox also posted a clip from Fat Head on page 3 and at the end of the video it said that the big bad government would remove your funding unless they said exactly what they wanted to hear and Fat Head said this in exactly the same way that CT's would say it. Just imagine the same part in a Raw Food film for example. Also, many people who promote these claims DO refer to it as a "conspiracy", just google "cholesterol conspiracy" for example and you'll get many hits, the first one should be a book by a Dr Ladd McNamara called "The Cholesterol Conspiracy", who's description is:

"How Pharmaceutical Companies Continue to Hide the Truth About Nutritional Supplements (and Cholesterol)

Interestingly Ladd McNamara also seems to have some issues with his medical licence:
http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2007/09/05/another-usana-representative-with-falsified-credentials/</p>

There's also a page on Quackwatch which is normally very reliable:
http://www.quackwatch.org/06ResearchProjects/lcd.html

Just try it with something else like "calorie conspiracy" and you get other similar hits. You also find groups like the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, which a lot of fringe CT groups will do. So please forgive me for calling it a conspiracy theory, as I say while I was wrong for thinking it was quite as black and white I am not totally wrong about advocates for this calling it a conspiracy and those using arguments that are just like ones that actual conspiracy theorists use.

@Ed,

My concern isn't what other people say, when it comes to CTs, you can find them all over the place on every single subject, and you know that. Just having nuts out there using things to promote their bullshit doesn't automatically make something a part of the conspiracy or having interest in inquiring further make one a conspiracy theorist.

You see this kind of stuff with New Agers jumping on quantum physics stuff, that doesn't mean because I research and call into question hypotheses regarding quantum physics that I also believe what they do, or am using it to promote some hidden agenda.

As someone already pointed out, the Lipid Hypothesis hasn't even made it to accepted theory yet, so it's not like debating mainstream science on gravity and spacetime. There's obviously some misunderstanding held in the mainstream when more and more studies are showing interesting things in regard to carbohydrates, weight gain, etc.

I imagine just like everything involving the human body, it's extremely complicated by not only the nature of humans but also genetics.

So I stand by what I say in calling the Lipid Hypothesis bullshit, because it doesn't work out as claimed, but why that is, I don't know, I showed tons of links, not just for primordial but also for low-carb, and those definitely aren't the same thing.

Clearly there are some things with Taubes I was wrong about, and that's fine, but that doesn't make the Lipid Hypothesis any more correct.

When it comes to government funding and research science, there's definitely a box you often have to work in depending on what you're doing, and that's not because of a conspiracy, I think it's more of a CYA (cover your ass) kind of thing. Pouring money into something that's commonly held to be inaccurate or wrong can end up being an embarrassment, and things like cold fusion created this sort of environment. I don't base that on anything other than what I think I've seen when it comes to research science in the world world, especially the public sector.

Ed, there is lots of great info in your post that has made me re-think this a bit. The point I'd like to bring up is that this could of remained a civil discussion had you left out the CT accusations. I think being pissed off might of effected my own research into this topic.

I still lean towards there being something not quite right with the lipid hypothesis, but I'm going to keep trying to learn more.

I'm not buying this whole "the gubbermint did it" thing. If that was true and it was just a regulatory failure the whole idea should be national in scope, the same way shit like DDT was. That's not what we see, googling for a while on german medical journals showed dozens of experiments with a positive correlation between LDL and coronary heart disease and a negative one for HDL.

The problem is that these ideas get blown out of proportion and misinterpreted, as the thread on randi.org showed. The "truth", and CTers have made me detest that word, is not going to lie in some simplistic notion that some filmmaker can portray correctly in his biased movie (and that's targeted at both Fathead and Supersize Me).

I'm not an expert, but I consider my decision to avoid trans fats, which have been shown to increase LDL and decrease HDL (and aren't useful in any way) to be fairly reasonable. On the other hand, there's some research pointing towards "healthy" uses of saturated fats, so I include some in my diet, even if there might come some incredibly minor risk with that choice.

You could say he agree's with Taubes' "underlying argument" like you did with Freedhoff if you didn't bother to read anything else he wrote and simply picked this one part from an intro article to the above series:

Oh, by the way, anyone with even an ounce of science literacy will know immediately that from the book review he does not throw the hypothesis out with the book (but, but, but he says some of Taubes' arguments are terrible!) because in this field there are high degrees of uncertainty and debate. To do so in a book review would be utterly inane and would require a separate, dedicated project. When Freedhof writes a paper against the base hypothesis, post that. And the next time you use a book review, try to qualify it with "this book can't be a champion of the hypothesis as it has already come under sharp criticism..." and not as a way to dismantle the basic hypothesis.

Yea, last I checked Gary Tabues' theories along with diets like Atkins are not looked at as the mainstream view. Don't forget to be skeptical just because it says something completely different to what the The Raw Food diet advocates.

Here's what seems to be a good critical responce from weight expert Dr Yoni Freedhoff.
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2011/01/book-review-gary-taubes-why-we-get-fat.html

So lets take a look at this. Either you're a really terrible writer or you just hope the ambiguity is enough to qualify your statement. You posted Freedhoff after you have already conflated the hypothesis with its various iterations. You say that the "mainstream view" (which I have already shown a problem with immediately arguing from the point of the "mainstream" as it is nothing more than intellectual laziness and can, in fact, get people into serious problems) doesn't agree with the types of diets you list and then post Freedhoff as a critical response to Taube. That's being a tad generous. Freedhoff demonstrates that Taubes' arguments are problematic and are not done in good science. He does not dedicate his review to asserting the scientific mechanisms behind the two hypothesis. The problem I have is that, unlike Domkato, you didn't go to better sources in support of your book review. You know, a kid in my 1st year sociology class tried the same thing with "The Road To Serfdom." Mind you, most everyone in the class already disagreed with Hayek. But this kid walks in with a book review where people point out the fallacies in Hayek's arguments. What he didnt do was actually get at the logic- the theory- in the book. Kid failed. Do you know why? Because its laziness and is in no way a good way to really get at the root of an idea. So when you conflate the state of research and hypothesis vis a vis the "mainstream view" and then post a book review, its very hard to take what you post as being, in any way, serious.

and then post Freedhoff as a critical response to Taube.

I posted Freedhoff's blog post for the reason I said I did. ... "Here's what seems to be a good critical response from weight expert Dr Yoni Freedhoff."... It is your assumption that I would argue so irrationally as to assert that this one blog on its own somehow proved my previous statement about Taube not being mainstream. Of course one person wouldn't! All I wanted was to provide a link to an article I had seen before criticising Taubes' work from a Dr who specialises in obesity thinks Taube is very very wrong indeed as an example of an expert who does not agree, the idea of which did not seen to be recognised in the OP.

I wasnt intending start a massive research project on it like apparently you expect me to do in order to disagree with it. The Freedhoff review is what it is, that is - an expert in this field thinks Taubes' book is misleading, promotes "pseudoscience" and is "just another magic diet". For some reason you didn't care about any of that and focused on something that sounded like he agreed with Taubes on and because you didn't know what Taubes theory really was stated that he must therefore agree with Taubes' "underlying argument" despite his harsh criticism and wordings.

I also don't know why you have a problem with it being a book review, Taubes is not a scientist a doctor or technically qualified in a relevant field and he wrote a pop culture book about health. Freedhoff is qualified and experienced in the field he wrote about and heavily criticised him in a post on his blog, which shows that someone qualified and experienced in the field criticises Taubes - that's it.

That's being a tad generous

Whats "generous"?

Btw I don't understand why you must have such a over the top attitude with me, I already apologised for how I handled things earlier and that it was based on some misconceptions about how black and white I thought the issue was, but mainly it was because Rox refused to read the link I posted while still saying Freedhoff agreed with Taubes' when he didn't, but neither Rox or yourself apparently understood that because you thought him being "lo carb friendly" meant something. Not all low carb diets are the same, I talked about this in my previous post. The idea that calories don't matter is central to what Taubes is talking about and they do not agree with it which means they cannot by definition agree with the underlying argument he is making..

As an aside Rox and Kepp managed to write a civil response to me and for that I'm thankful, for some reason you won't and want to keep being pedantic. I assumed based on your response to me that you supported the assertions in this thread, so when you posted that raido interview I had guessed that you thought he supported the claims being made here. So you say i was wrong about that assumption, ok whatever, sorry I assumed. The point is that this radio interview shows us a scientist that disagree's with Taubes, because he talks about being carefull of how many calories you eat. Can you at least accept that Freedhoff does not accept Taubes' "underlying argument"? Even Rox admitted she was wrong about that.

I don't know why you seem so obsessed with me, I use the word obsessed because you never appear to critcise anyone else in these threads especially not with the furious anger you seem to have. What about the fact that in the McDonalds thread the claims made by my opposition in those threads literally contradicts what is being supported here? As I said in my post, McDonalds food - ie. Cheeseburgers etc - are very high in processed carbs and the exact thing Taubes is saying is unhealthy and making us fat. Yet I was being told that a cheeeseburger was a well balanced healthy nutritionally rich food. It can't be both ways. McDonalds burgers are even worse according to Taubes because I say that what makes you fat is the excess calories rather than the carbs and that you can lose weight on a diet consisting purely of cheeseburgers and sugary junk food - and people have lost weight on exactly that diet. Why have you failed to criticise any of the people in that thread? They literally ignored all my sources and just kept insisting they were right in stubborn denial. No matter why you do it, its weird. I'm sure you'll have a massive rage hemorrhage reading this, but can you think of time in these threads where you have critcised my opponant for being unreasonable, much less run your mouth off at them like you are doing with me?

Oh and PS: You quoted me as not having enough time and how thats not an excuse and no I don't really have time to get into these discussions but as I also said, which you missed somehow, the reason I especially don't have time is because I thought it would end up like the McDonalds thread and Rox's posts to me at the start of this thread signalled that it would likely go the same way. Nothing was gained from the McDonalds, that was enlightening for sure. I have to wonder if some in this thead that were there in that thread know they can't have it both ways.

Sorry Rox, I read your post wrong.

You said ..."Clearly there are some things with Taubes I was wrong about, and that's fine,"... for some reason I read Taubes and thought Freedhoff!

What about Taubes do you think you were wrong about?

How does Freedhoff agree with Taubes' underlying argument if Taubes' underlying argument is that carbs, not calories, cause people to be fat?

EDIT: To add because of your edit,

he said he agreed with the premise

Yes but he qualifies that with what he means by saying that.... "that we eat way too many carbs, that they in turn impact on our weights, and that weight-wise exercise isn't much to write home about".... I don't think you'll find many experts that will disagree with this, does that mean they all agree with Taubes' basic premise and we can safely ignore the rest of their criticisms? Taubes' point is about far more than just the fact that high carb diets should be avoided because they tend to contain lots of calories, its that only carbs make you fat not the calories. I posted a link to another criticism by another expert in weight management in my post as well, he also agrees with low carb dieting as a good way to loose weight, but he also could not possibly be said to agree with Taubes' main theory.

It's been said multiple times here that 1) a blog post is simply a blog post, 2) book reviews aren't rebuttals.

1. And Taubes is just writing a pop culture book at least the review was from an actual expert in obesity.
2. But they are expert opinions. If he wrote a book too would you class it as a rebuttle?

Again, it shows an expert in the subject telling you why he finds his book very very wrong. So you don't consider Harriet Hall's critique in Skepic Mag posted by kepp earlier any more worrying either? What about the review by James Krieger who provided various links to papers when he critiques the first chapter (he has only just posted it, so there are plans to write more)

Lets get off this subject maybe, its probably pointless. If calories don't have any relation to weight gain and its carbs how did the calorie controlled Twinkie diet work so well and help professor Marc Haub loose so much weight? How do people lose weight on one of those McDonalds diets? Diets of very high in processed sugary carbs, yet people loose weight. How is it possible if high calories is not the cause?

I never said high calories didn't cause weight gain.

Perhaps it's a little bit more complicated? What about genetics? How can some people eat thousands of calories a day and gain no weight? Did I say that Fat Head and Taubes were infallible? I said they weren't peer reviewed. You sure love putting words in peoples mouths and then using it as a way to argue against them.

You have a major bug up your ass because I said the Lipid Hypothesis was bullshit, and I mentioned some links to low-carb and primordial diet. Instead of pointing out actual things wrong with what I said, you mention a blog post, where in the first sentence the doctor agrees with low-carb dieting, and then proceed to fuck up the thread by dragging everyone who doesn't view you as gospel through the mud.

You're on a high horse about something you aren't an expert in, but neither am I, at least I sure as shit don't pretend I am, and then make up things and argue against them, and pretend to know what the other person is thinking.

Like Kaiser said, get real.

weight gain = f(genes,calories,carbs,protein,fat)

according to taubes,

weight gain=f(carbs,protein, fat) and not f(calories).

The latter contradicts the law of conservation of mass, therefore, taubes is not correct.

I've already said that I'm wrong about Taubes, and the more I look into it, the more wrong I was in regard to his work. At least I can admit being wrong, I don't have to sit here like Ed and pretend I'm right and call for backup over private messages.