Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

3

So, I just saw A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity posted on Google News. It was written by Carson Chow, a mathematician for a division of the NIH. He argues, essentially, that it's calories in v. calories out concluding that "There’s no magic bullet on this. You simply have to cut calories and be vigilant for the rest of your life."

The other day, I saw Taubes' argument on The Daily Beast (Why the Campaign to Stop America's Obesity Crisis Keeps Failing). Most people here probably have a good idea of what this article says: Taubes places heavy blame in insulin impacting foods--that insulin spikes cause fat fat cells, which therefore causes fat humans.

If we could put these two in a room together to debate obesity's causes and solutions, who would win and what would the argument look like?

As a corollary question, what do you think of Marianne Cusato's condemnation of the Taubes' article as "short-sighted and dangerous"?

(The question title is an homage to The Big Bang Theory and Numb3rs, both of which had episodes with convergence in the title.)

flag	asked May 15 2012 at 1:01 Eric 1,961●3●13

I thought it was an homage to this science textbook I got in college because it has convergence in it over 100 times. – Dualhammers Jul 27 at 17:52

eddieosh · Accepted Answer · 2012-05-15 03:14:48Z UTC

10

The Calories In / Calories Out (CICO) model is a silly reductionism and serves only to screw up any intelligent attempt to understand the complexity and beauty of the human body. We are not just incinerators, that would be a daft oversimplification! It's like saying if I pour 10 litres of water into a pipe 10 litres will come out the other end -- wow, big deal. Our bodies are not pipes, they are extremely complex machines with interacting processes and stores that respond and adapt in a vast multitude of ways to what is consumed. The insulin hypothesis describes one important mechanism of the body and is in no way negated by the CICO attempt at reductio ad absurdum.

answered May 15 2012 at 3:14

eddieosh
1,229●4●13

1

CICO is simple because it has been around a while and is well understood. Low-carb also needs to be easily understandable. A message can be simple and accurate. While low-carb may never be as simple as CICO, it could be simpler than it is, and will always be a more comprehensive answer. – Simon May 15 2012 at 4:27

4

Just because the system is complex doesn't mean that energy balance is not in play. – Matt May 15 2012 at 10:50

2

@Matt, no one ever said it wasn't in play, it just is fairly meaningless in trying to explain obesity. Someone (maybe it was Taubes himeslf) used the analogy of telling someone the reason he was an alcoholic is because he drinks to much. Literally true, but completely useless. – trjones May 15 2012 at 13:49

1

True and useful. Decrease CI or increase CO, lose weight. I don't know why such a simple answer eludes Taubes. – Matt May 15 2012 at 15:00

2

Trjones, I don’t think CICO is “end of discussion,” but it is “first principle” that some people lose sight of in search of a magic bullet. I don’t think the insulin hypothesis explains very well why someone chooses Hot Pockets over a simple piece of meat, a potato or rice, and some vegetables. I don’t think IH explains why somebody who is not really hungry still will drink a soda or eat popcorn covered in transfats. I think looking at a single hormone is just too simplistic and just doesn't pan out shen looking at the Japanese and most other world populations. – Paleo2.0 May 15 2012 at 16:27

show 9 more comments

trjones · Answer 2 · 2012-05-15 01:29:04Z UTC

I think Taubes has fallen in love a little too much with his hormone hypothesis and presents it in a way that kind of undermines what I found to be the most interesting part of his book Why We Get Fat. It's not that calories in/calories out don't matter. The question is why people are driven by their bodies to consume more calories than they take in: the feedback loop of insulin spikes leading to hunger leading to more spikes. I was kind of disappointed that his Daily Beast article glossed over this point.

I actually think it's a misreading of Taubes that he is saying calories in/calories out simply don't matter, but it is his fault that his point is so easily misunderstood because he presents it so poorly in a quest to establish his own niche.

Matt · Answer 3 · 2012-05-15 01:30:22Z UTC

6

Taubes likes to tout that what you eat matters more than how much you eat. Conventional wisdom says that how much you eat matters more than what you eat.

The very reasonable middle ground is that what you eat (calories in) affects your metabolism (calories out). And it's still energy balance that determines weight loss/gain/maintenance.

answered May 15 2012 at 1:30

Matt
36.5k●2●10●69

2

I don't think that's middle ground, thats CICO. Also it doesn't explain why its perfectly possible to consume excess calories and be sedentary and still not put on weight. – Simon May 15 2012 at 4:23

Exactly, Simon. I cannot exercise, and drop weight like a rock when I eliminate the grains. – November May 15 2012 at 4:29

1

Calories out is not just exercise, calories out is simply existing. – Matt May 15 2012 at 10:49

@Simon, Of course, CICO explains that. CICO is simply a definition. If you're not gaining weight, CO >= CI. If you're gaining weight, CO < CI. – Matt May 15 2012 at 10:54

@November Can we see your detailed record of excess calorie consumption? We'd need a calculation of your TDEE and probably six months to a year of daily records. I have a similar question right now on PH asking people to post proof of chronic hypercaloric intake. – Dualhammers Jul 27 at 17:58

CoachCanadan · Answer 4 · 2012-05-15 01:11:54Z UTC

I agree with Jeff. Taubes makes a lot of sense, even if he did take it too far the other way. Hormones play a HUGE role in this equation, so to simply imply calories in - calories out doesn't take that into effect. You have to reset yourself if you want this whole situation to be long term. Otherwise you'll lose some weight at the beginning and then level out, followed by more gain. Taubes was on the Oz show and argued this point. Oz agreed somewhat but still brought it back to calories in calories out.

Anyway, I don't think anyone would win or concede any points. Just my two cents here.

Jeff · Answer 5 · 2012-05-15 01:34:00Z UTC

4

The convergence is that it's very difficult to overeat on a low-carb diet, and so you can't take in as many calories as you're expending.

edited May 15 2012 at 1:34

answered May 15 2012 at 1:07

Jeff
16.6k●1●8●33

6

You're just less likely to overeat, overeating is still very possible. – Matt May 15 2012 at 1:10

1

i can easily over consume beef, liver, shrimp, salmon sashimi....some people may be less likely, but many will.... – sage_ May 15 2012 at 2:32

1

I can still eat a full rack of ribs in one sitting. – air_hadoken May 15 2012 at 2:51

Anyone can easily overeat in one sitting, but with any amount of leptin sensitivity it will be hard to overeat for more than a week or so. – Jeff May 15 2012 at 4:31

I've been paleo for two years and haven't lost a pound. I can, and have, consumed 2-3lbs of meat daily, which keeps my weight steady at 347 since 2-3lbs of meat roughly equals my TDEE. I am not actually overeating, but it certainly doesn't cause me to want to eat LESS than what I need. – Dualhammers Jul 27 at 18:00

Evelyn aka CarbSane · Answer 6 · 2012-05-15 14:36:51Z UTC

Those two have been in a room, on more than one occasion, though not alone. Carson Chow is one of the two "young NIH biophysicists" Taubes has referred to in emails to me, interviews, etc. He and Kevin Hall (the other biophysicist and frequent co-author with Chow) confronted Taubes on his glycerol phosphate nonsense on at least one occasion (I think two). This resulted in Taubes reluctantly removing it from his lectures and WWGF.

No way Chow says that it all doesn't matter anyway because insulin so fundamentally regulates fat accumulation as Gary claimed.

Thanks for that link, I hadn't seen it!

Hack the Taubes-Chow Convergence (Hypothetical)

6 Answers