T Nation

Carbs Against Cardio

More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart

Fascinating read:

Synopsis for those in a hurry:

"Eat less saturated fat: that has been the take-home message from the U.S. government for the past 30 years. But while Americans have dutifully reduced the percentage of daily calories from saturated fat since 1970, the obesity rate during that time has more than doubled, diabetes has tripled, and heart disease is still the countryâ??s biggest killer. Now a spate of new research, including a meta-analysis of nearly two dozen studies, suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit. Processed carbohydrates, which many Americans eat today in place of fat, may increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease more than fat does…

…no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease…

The finding joins other conclusions of the past few years that run counter to the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is bad for the heart because it increases total cholesterol levels. That idea is â??based in large measure on extrapolations, which are not supported by the data,â?? Krauss says."

In other words, a breakfast of Cherios or Special K or oatmeal instead of eggs and bacon or a dinner of pasta and toast instead of steak may be what’s making you fat! More evidence for the hunter/gatherer diet (protien sources: meat, nuts, eggs; and fruits, berries and vegetables) and against processed foods.

If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.

I’m not saying I agree with everything in the book, but it sheds alot of light on how the govt’t came about making up the dietary guidelines (ie Food Pyramid).

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies.

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies. [/quote]

Yeah, according to the FDA.

I don’t understand why people think the calorie in/out model can’t work with modifying nutrients and nutrient timing to take advantage of hormones.

because it gets too complicated for most people’s brains. When I start talking about macros, and hormone responses, peoples’ eyes typically glaze over.

S

[quote]EGYnutrition wrote:

I don’t understand why people think the calorie in/out model can’t work with modifying nutrients and nutrient timing to take advantage of hormones.

[/quote]

The calories in/calories out model is completely valid, however the error most people make who are uneducated on the subject is that they do not realize the sheer amount of variables involved that actually affect both sides of the equation (some variables have large effects while some have minor) and the fact that many of these variables are often changing and often affect one another. So, you end up with one uneducated side who thinks the calorie model is wrong altogether when they learn that results can be different between two people on equivalent caloric intakes and you have one uneducated side that thinks 2000 calories of donuts has the same effect as 2000 calories of chicken breast and broccoli for body composition. Both sides misunderstand what the calorie model implies and what it doesn’t.

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies. [/quote]

what makes you say this? back this up please

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies. [/quote]

what makes you say this? back this up please[/quote]

The book is essentially claiming that the calorie model is completely invalid, that low-carb diets have a metabolic advantage to the point that gaining fat/weight is impossible on them, and the book cites a lot of shitty research, often uses arguments that are fallacious at best, cherry-picks data, and manipulates the results of the a lot of the studies it cites. That is really only starting complaints I can think of right off the bat. Tons of large assumptions are made with very weak evidence. He also loves playing the card that we are being consistently lied to and kind of uses it to instill paranoia on his readers. Forgot to mention, he claims that exercise simply does not work at all for weight loss (with lack of substantial evidence to back his claim).

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies. [/quote]

what makes you say this? back this up please[/quote]

The book is essentially claiming that the calorie model is completely invalid, that low-carb diets have a metabolic advantage to the point that gaining fat/weight is impossible on them, and the book cites a lot of shitty research, often uses arguments that are fallacious at best, cherry-picks data, and manipulates the results of the a lot of the studies it cites. That is really only starting complaints I can think of right off the bat. Tons of large assumptions are made with very weak evidence. He also loves playing the card that we are being consistently lied to and kind of uses it to instill paranoia on his readers. Forgot to mention, he claims that exercise simply does not work at all for weight loss (with lack of substantial evidence to back his claim).[/quote]

Sounds like the type of thing i’d expect from the FDA. So one could pose that he is merely fighting fire with fire.

Anyhow, i’d rather trust a book from an alternative source that isn’t being funded by the biggest companies on the planet than government propaganda to eat corn and bread 5 times a day.

It’s a book, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Don’t expect too much.

Josh I agree with you on your response to mine. The calorie in/out model is completely valid, but it’s not as simple as people make it. As Stu mentioned there are hormonal responses, environment, so many damn factors… so we agree.

I just don’t agree that the book is filled with lies. The people who took it as the gospel, and the people who think it is complete shit, don’t understand that calorie in/out works hand and hand with manipulating macronutrients and thus hormones.

And we are being consistently lied to my friend. If you think what the FDA preaches is gospel, you might just end up like the majority of the public who believes that too.

The FDA is controlled by pharma/agra companies… it follows the money.

[quote]EGYnutrition wrote:
And we are being consistently lied to my friend. If you think what the FDA preaches is gospel, you might just end up like the majority of the public who believes that too.

The FDA is controlled by pharma/agra companies… it follows the money. [/quote]

And someone writing a book in a capitalist society is also interested in making money.

OF course plateau. There is NOTHING wrong with making money.

But when you make money at the cost of life? Well then I have a problem with that. Good calories, bad calories, wasn’t perfect, but it outlined some MAJOR problems with the FDA and how the current food situation affects us.

[quote]dswithers wrote:
More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart

Fascinating read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio

Synopsis for those in a hurry:

"Eat less saturated fat: that has been the take-home message from the U.S. government for the past 30 years. But while Americans have dutifully reduced the percentage of daily calories from saturated fat since 1970, the obesity rate during that time has more than doubled, diabetes has tripled, and heart disease is still the countryâ??s biggest killer. Now a spate of new research, including a meta-analysis of nearly two dozen studies, suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit. Processed carbohydrates, which many Americans eat today in place of fat, may increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease more than fat does…

…no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease…

The finding joins other conclusions of the past few years that run counter to the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is bad for the heart because it increases total cholesterol levels. That idea is â??based in large measure on extrapolations, which are not supported by the data,â?? Krauss says."

In other words, a breakfast of Cherios or Special K or oatmeal instead of eggs and bacon or a dinner of pasta and toast instead of steak may be what’s making you fat! More evidence for the hunter/gatherer diet (protien sources: meat, nuts, eggs; and fruits, berries and vegetables) and against processed foods.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure processed carbs “increase the risk of obesity” because:

A) Most people snack on processed carbs (they are convenient) and thus end up eating more calories than they need (per day)
B) Carbs stored as fat only seems to occur in the presence of a huge surplus in calories

Thus…consumed, processed carbs are stored as fat.

I’m pretty sure with Big Gulps and SOBEs that most people drink (several per day, even) it’s easy for most of us to get in excess calories, so requirement B is easily met.

Processed carbs are everywhere and tend to be cheaper (more affordable) foods, and most people graze, so requirement A is met.

Hence, the “rise in obesity” due to processed carbs.

From everything I’ve read, I’m pretty sure that’s what’s going on.

If anyone is interested in that meta-analysis of studies on saturated fat:

Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. Epub 2010 Jan 13.

[quote]Chalky09Aus wrote:

Sounds like the type of thing i’d expect from the FDA. So one could pose that he is merely fighting fire with fire.

Anyhow, i’d rather trust a book from an alternative source that isn’t being funded by the biggest companies on the planet than government propaganda to eat corn and bread 5 times a day.
[/quote]

So, you’d take blatant misinformation distributed by the private sector over blatant misinformation distributed by the public sector?

You’d rather trust a book that has been shown to be filled with weak science and lies being marketed by someone trying to make money off of that book on the basis that he is being controversial and disagreeing with the status quo, NOT because he is accurate or even close to it?

Taubes is a hack. Your apologism is pathetic.

<3 Carbs

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies. [/quote]

what makes you say this? back this up please[/quote]

The book is essentially claiming that the calorie model is completely invalid, that low-carb diets have a metabolic advantage to the point that gaining fat/weight is impossible on them, and the book cites a lot of shitty research, often uses arguments that are fallacious at best, cherry-picks data, and manipulates the results of the a lot of the studies it cites. That is really only starting complaints I can think of right off the bat. Tons of large assumptions are made with very weak evidence. He also loves playing the card that we are being consistently lied to and kind of uses it to instill paranoia on his readers. Forgot to mention, he claims that exercise simply does not work at all for weight loss (with lack of substantial evidence to back his claim).[/quote]

i believe your analysis of the book is horribly simple, wrong, and off.

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies. [/quote]

what makes you say this? back this up please[/quote]

The book is essentially claiming that the calorie model is completely invalid, that low-carb diets have a metabolic advantage to the point that gaining fat/weight is impossible on them, and the book cites a lot of shitty research, often uses arguments that are fallacious at best, cherry-picks data, and manipulates the results of the a lot of the studies it cites. That is really only starting complaints I can think of right off the bat. Tons of large assumptions are made with very weak evidence. He also loves playing the card that we are being consistently lied to and kind of uses it to instill paranoia on his readers. Forgot to mention, he claims that exercise simply does not work at all for weight loss (with lack of substantial evidence to back his claim).[/quote]

i believe your analysis of the book is horribly simple, wrong, and off.
[/quote]

Did you actually read the book? Gary Taubes constantly reaffirms that no-carb diets have a supreme metabolic advantage to the point that fat cannot be stored on them, that exercise is useless for weight management, and that the calorie balance model is completely wrong. He tends to argue these and other extreme claims by cherry-picking data, and using weak and fallacious arguments, which isn’t enough to back up very large claims. Some of the book is good and the book does provide quite a bit of food for thought, but overall, I stand by my opinion on it.

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]toocul4u wrote:

[quote]Josh Rider wrote:

[quote]ADvanced TS wrote:
If you are interested in this in greater detail, like 640 pages detail, read “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes.
[/quote]

Mostly a garbage book filled with lies. [/quote]

what makes you say this? back this up please[/quote]

The book is essentially claiming that the calorie model is completely invalid, that low-carb diets have a metabolic advantage to the point that gaining fat/weight is impossible on them, and the book cites a lot of shitty research, often uses arguments that are fallacious at best, cherry-picks data, and manipulates the results of the a lot of the studies it cites. That is really only starting complaints I can think of right off the bat. Tons of large assumptions are made with very weak evidence. He also loves playing the card that we are being consistently lied to and kind of uses it to instill paranoia on his readers. Forgot to mention, he claims that exercise simply does not work at all for weight loss (with lack of substantial evidence to back his claim).[/quote]

i believe your analysis of the book is horribly simple, wrong, and off.
[/quote]

Did you actually read the book? Gary Taubes constantly reaffirms that no-carb diets have a supreme metabolic advantage to the point that fat cannot be stored on them, that exercise is useless for weight management, and that the calorie balance model is completely wrong. He tends to argue these and other extreme claims by cherry-picking data, and using weak and fallacious arguments, which isn’t enough to back up very large claims. Some of the book is good and the book does provide quite a bit of food for thought, but overall, I stand by my opinion on it. [/quote]

I’ve read it twice, have you? You seem way too black and white about the information provided in the book. I just don’t like when people become so closed minded that they miss the actual science and biological/biochemical fact that are in the book, because you choose to as you put it, cherry pick, data from the book yourself.