Skeptic Project

Anticultist, you got it right in your edit. I was trying to put taube's criticism by Hall in a mathematical way. It is not an equation because a methamatical equation on this would be an extremely arduous job to do. There are only guidelines.

Is it too late for me to spam Naked Spock?

After reading a few articles, its fairly clear to me that the key debate here is between what are called "hypocaloric high-protein diets" versus "hypocaloric high-carbohydrates" and not between high-caloric diets of either kind. Does anyone disagree with this distinction?

Please explain then. Do you believe that caloric intake doesn't matter? You'll have to explain why. In terms of the protein/carbohydrate divide, it appears to me fairly convincing that there is a legitimate scientific inquiry into why protein may not be the place to cut calories. I linked a study a page back thagt talks about the linkages between various health issues and high-protein diets, though id love to hear contrary evidence. But there's an interesting underpinning to all of the "paleolithic diet." However I think the story is largely unfinished.

No I think there's a misunderstanding. I have already pointed out earlier, that the total number of calories is a very important factor in weight loss equation, regardless of how you consume them. If one consumes more calories than required, one will gain weight! However, in my not so great understanding of the subject, the ratio of carb/protein is a major player in lowering and increasing your metabolism due the way carbs affect your insulin levels. Therefore, the AMOUNT of weight one will gain will depend on the ratio. I try to go with C/P/F ratio of 50-30-20 (%) although I have difficulty maintaining it strictly to that and it swings between that and 70-30-10 through out the year.

The metabolic pathway is simple enough. It takes more energy to break down proteins than it does carbohydrates. Thus, if you had hypocaloric high-protein diet, would it not stand to reason that because the digestion of protein actually takes some energy it is, in reality, even "more hypocaloric"? While talking just about calories may in fact be wrong, it is important to be hypocaloric period. I think the question is about what the diet looks like. To that end, there should be a review of the literature that suggest high protein is actually healthy and even necessary. I again suggest reading the article I posted earlier.

Kaiser, the one about paleolithic diet?

@freeflyer. The pdf one that I quoted two sections from

@anticultist. I'm much the same though compounded by distance running. But my bodys resting metabolism is already quite high (hello genetic component)

Just as a thought... you can eat more calories and not gain weight if your metabolism is high (as has been mentioned), conversely if your metabolism is low you can eat much less and put on weight. A lot of women especially think if they starve themselves they will loose weight, its obviously true that starving yourself will make you lose weight but its also not sustainable or healthy and what invariably happens is they then binge when they start eating again. The real problem is when you starve yourself your body lowers your metabolism because it thinks it needs to conserve energy, so when you do eat again you're going to put more weight and more gets stored as fat. That's why these people never end up becoming skinny like they want. This is probably why you'll hear many women talking about how they think they put on weight after just eating a single cake or a burger, much of that is probably psychological but these are the same kind of people that seem to be on this "occasional starvation" diet and so they likely are really seeing more gains than they would normally.

Exercise and resistance training appears to speed up metabolism as your body requires more calories, this is why many highly active individuals and athletes can consume many more calories than the average person. Its not just that they do more exercise to burn it off but rather their body has gotten used to burning that many calories. Mark Phelps the olympic swimmer eats a massive 10,0000 - 12,000 calories a day! And don't imagine that its a low carb diet, as it apparently contains pancakes, toast, pizza and pasta. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/13/the-michael-phelps-diet-dont-try-it-at-home/</p>

Its clear some people have naturally faster metabolism than others and metabolism slows down with age which is the reason why people tend to put more weight on later in life.

Also here's a link to paper dealing with some aspects of Taubes' theories published in 2008 in Obesity Reviews I saw linked in the James Krieger's critique I posted earlier:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bray-review-of-gcbc.pdf</p>

Concluding remarks:

Although Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful
information, the part on obesity, at least, needs to be read
and interpreted in the light of the more complete story of
developments in this field. The important contributions
resulting from the discovery that energy expenditure could
be measured using doubly labelled water make non-sense
out of the claims that ‘calories don’t count’. However, the
energy-balance concept does not provide the explanation
for why some people become obese and others do not in the
same food environment. There are many kinds of obesity,
and only some depend on diet composition. Genetic factors
play a role as do the contributions of other environmental
agents. Eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or HFCSsweetened
beverages are two of them. When diet is important,
it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the
deadly duo) that prevents energy balance from occurring.
Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over
months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese
people clearly eat more than do lean people, and foodintake
records are notoriously unreliable. Underreporting
of food intake is greater in the obese than in normal-weight
people and is worse when the foods are high in fat than
with other macronutrients.

(_ link again to the James Krieger's review I mentioned above http://weightology.net/?p=265)

Yes, I'm more interested in a question of which hypocaloric diet is healthier for weight loss. Health benefits in general is a question separate in and of themselves and merit much more research, though there is evidence that high protein is essential in some regards and perhaps even more compatable with human physiology. Though that remmains to be proven.