Why We Get Fat - Page 7

You guys don't know shit. You want a real expert on nutrition from SF...look no further: http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=3520

i agree with you gradstudent. i was trying to prove a hunch i had and it turns out not to be black and white. anyways shibbel, going back to good calories bad calories here is george bray review of GCBC in the obesity journal (peer reviewed) http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/w...ew-of-gcbc.pdf now who is george bray? is he some random blogger on the webs talking out of his ass? ie one of taube's biggest point (that heavy people eat the same as lean people) was based off a report that this guy wrote in 1988 for the national research council. and this guy in 2008 says what they thought back then was totally wrong. dude totally rips the book apart.

Good article.

but bro, the age of the data doesnt matter. just look at how long ago they discovered the earth was round, and it's still round isn't it?

I think you guys that haven't read the book, but choose to attack it based on another's argument need to look into what Taubes was really trying to say. That is, people need to find their tolerance for carbs. The best way to do this is eliminate and slowly re-introduce. Also BBSLM, funny how you're recommending Leangains to people and the guy has Paleo ads plastered all over his site. Paleo was fueled by guys like Taubes. Note: I am low carb only on off days, however I'm Paleo+Low lactose full fat dairy all the time.

Why are you still in this thread

i feel myself getting fat just reading that blog.

lol. not going to read the book, cliff notes?



also do you have an actual background in nutrition or are you just regurgitating what you read (3)?

This. The reason many Ameicans are fat isn't because they're pigging out all the time on things like BBQ pulled pork donut sandwiches. It's because they're pigging out, and have no idea they're doing so, when they eat processed and packaged foods. Most everything that comes in a box is packed with high fructose corn syrup, thousands of artificial additives, and oils galore. Packaged food is insanely calorie dense, and often in deceptively small and non-filling portions. All of this is by design. You could eat an entire bacon chedder cheeseburger's worth of calories in one small package of snackfood -- even "healthy" snackfood -- and have no idea you're doing so. Couple this with the fact that portions and calories at restaurants have skyrocketed, and you have a perfect recipe for weight gain.

DC, your avatar is WINNING!

The problem isn't that insect-sized porions of pesticides are harmful to humans; it's that greater portions are. Pesticides get concentrated the higher up the food chain you go. Chickens and fish eat bugs containing pesticides, which concentrates large quantities of pesticides in their flesh by the time humans eat them. That's just one vector. There are plenty of others.

Also, LOL at the idea that "the definition" of a pesticide is something that's harmful to pests and not to people. Most pesticides are extremely harmful to humans in sufficient quantities. Why do you think you leave the house when it's being fumigated, for example? It's the extremely rare and exceptional pesticide that isn't toxic to humans.

@shibbel i dont have to read it to argue with the points you're making. i finished reading the review and its clearly an interesting book to read, but the science is complete crap. i mean he regularly uses data from the 60s and 80s just to prove his point when not even the textbooks today agree with it. insulin can be stimulated by protein and is not solely influenced by carbs. insulin is not the only factor of adipose fat deposit. if you at 500g of only fat everyday you would get fat even if the fat doesnt cause insulin. even a fucking high schooler who took ap bio could see that wow his sixth conclusion (Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller. ) is utter bullshit. cannot believe an intelligent person like shibbel could believe this (0) @BBSLM i think you're being sarcastic, but you're right that just because its old data doesnt mean its not true, but if the guy who wrote it then says its not true now? @DC you're right. i guess is or isnt is too black and white. but pesticides in food are meant to be so that when they're consumed within normal ranges they dont kill humans. if there was clear research showing ppl started dying or developing cancer because of pesticides those pesticides would get outlawed or heavily taxed (eg DDT, tobacco) the research is ambiguous and most of the studies are done either in rats or are population/epidemiological studies that are terrible for showing effects in humans or showing causation. there's been a ton of meta-reviews and they're mostly inconclusive. anything in massive amounts can be toxic. one study showed massive amounts of EPA (from omega3s) in rats can cause prostate cancer. however even if humans had the same exact pathway of omega 3 absorption as rats that would have to eat like 20 bottles of fish oil everyday to get prostate cancer. you would have to show that the pesticides accumulated in produce is so great that it actually harms or even has a physiological effect on humans, which is very tough (difficult to isolate just pesticides), expensive, and time consuming to prove. and you cant just introduce pesticides to humans and so cause and effect is so far been very difficult to prove. the epa does the best it can to review pesticides and establish lower limits that are beyond what research shows is harmful in humans. to completely discount an entire organization you'd have to have solid evidence showing that. i mean its clear that pesticides are harmful, but if it was clear that they were harmful enough, its not like the epa is going to say oh fuck the us citizens. people who eat unorganic food deserve to die. i thought this was a good read on how the epa tests for pesticides http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm

You must be fucking illiterate if you think that's Taubes' argument.


And Martin obviously follows paleo principles to a T and agrees with all of Taubes' arguments.

I was. Shibbel used that argument when I originally mentioned the old data.

Again read the book, that is one of his points. I didn't say he did, I was jus sayin'.