WSJ Article Says You Can Be Obese at a Normal Weight. Shocked?

Steve said:
As far as I can tell, this isn't about winning or losing. I don't care if I'm wrong. That's the point you're missing. If you presented something that made me question my beliefs or current level of understanding, I'd be very grateful to you.

So far that's not what you've done. Rather, you've expressed:

i) confusion pertaining to topics you're a supposed expert in

ii) what I suspect to be a cult-like following to Taubes

iii) an ego that's grand enough to disallow you from objectively reading posts because it's too concerned with being not wrong


Shift goalposts much? This was your original commentary:



To that I responded with a suggestion for researching acylation stimulation protein. Because you lack basic knowledge in research methodology is not my problem. I assume if it's not a reference in Taubes book you don't know about it.

Let me help you:





Now you're shifting goals posts by bringing up alpha glycerol phosphate. If that's the game you want to play, just say so up front. Then I won't waste my time responding to you.
Click to expand...

@Steve Just read your study and the paper. They both seem to suggest that ASP is elevated by fat ingestion, but neither of them really seems to say anything about what this does to the fat tissue itself. The study in particular is pretty stupidly done, particularly with regard to the elevation of triglycerides. In addition to giving an oral fat load, they gave one tablespoon of table sugar, a.k.a. sucrose. Why in the world would you give someone sucrose when you are testing for triglyceride formation?

Sucrose is unique in that it is one part glucose and one part fructose. When separated, glucose is the substance that we call "blood sugar," and we see the spike as a result of this, but fructose, that gets digested in the pancreas directly into triglycerides, as it is easier and more energy efficient for the body to convert fructose into a triglyceride than it is to convert it into glucose. Notice how the second test was just glucose solution, no fructose. That's convenient.

@clever_plant
You claimed insulin prevents body cells access to the energy[/]
Specifically to fat stores. This is what causes the obese to overeat. They are experiencing internal starvation.
You claimed we crap out surplus stuff from the body
We let it out as waste. Through the bowels, or through the urine, the point remains that we don't have to expend everything we eat in order to get rid of it.
You claimed that carbohydrates cause cancer
Inuit, Masai, Tokelau
You claimed carbohydrates cause depression
Inuit, Masai, Tokelau
You claimed carbohydrates cause diabetes
Inuit, Masai, Tokelau. By the way, while we're at it, let's throw in balding, vision problems, tooth decay, alzheimers and every other disease of civilization.
You claimed that all essential micronutrients are available from grass fed beef
Stefansson, then of course there's myself, my clients, my former clients, my friends, the NYC cavemen that had an article written about them in the NY Times, Dr. Pennington and his patients, Dr. Atkins and his 10,000+ patients (although he did encourage eating some vegetables), Dr. Eades and his patients, none of us have any vitamin deficiencies and many of us have been on all meat diets for years.
You claimed that ketosis (yes I'm aware that it isn't the diabetic dangerous sort) is more efficient than burning carbs
 
My point was - you're wrong. And still wrong regardless of how much you'd like to beat around the bush. You can store fat without eating carbs.
 
Steve said:
My point was - you're wrong. And still wrong regardless of how much you'd like to beat around the bush. You can store fat without eating carbs.
Click to expand...

But you didn't prove that. Show me a study of someone putting on fat eating <50g of carbs a day.
 
Right... lets go over this one more time then, I will try to keep my bitterness and fatty sadness from seeping through :)

First, you claim that obese people are, due to insulin causing internal starvation, overeating. So now I have to ask you, what is internal starvation, or rather, what is starving from what? I tried wiki'ing it but that turned out to be a pretty pathetic article without any sources worthy of anything... so.. explain?

Oh... well you then admit that we don't crap it out? I mean.. you seem to have a massively hard time going "oh, I made a mistake there" or something but.. well... there is a huge difference in whether we crap or pee things out.. you see.. it is two completely and utterly different systems. Anyways.. lets let that one slip then, you are then claiming that the body actually throws excess energy out (as in, surplus protein?) hmm.. thats weird.. In school I learned that the body simply turns the surplus protein into glucose which is then either burned or stored in fat tissue.. can you point me in a direction where it is scientifically studied and determine that we pee out surplus protein, if we are not diabetic patients?

Did you seriously just claim that all those diseases (diabetes, cancer, alzheimers, tooth decay, vision problems and balding) doesn't (or didn't) excist in inuit, masai and tokelau populations? and even if true, do you claim that this is evidence that... carbohydrates cause the diseases? Can I then ask you... why don't you believe that it is a rise in CO2 level that cause the diseases.. or perhaps... perhaps it is christianity that cause those diseases... I mean... those things came after civilization too.

with regard to you, your friends, your doctor and you clients... I just have to tell you that the multiple of anecdote is not data, it is anecdotes. where is the research finding all the micronutrients in meat? btw you don't die if you don't get your micronutrients.... it is more of a... long perspective thing.

Then there is the study... did you actually read it? it simply says that mild ketosis might be useful in some diseases, but that the ketosis diets have some problems and therefore maybe we should research diets where we feed people ketones and such.
 
clever_plant said:
Right... lets go over this one more time then, I will try to keep my bitterness and fatty sadness from seeping through :)

First, you claim that obese people are, due to insulin causing internal starvation, overeating. So now I have to ask you, what is internal starvation, or rather, what is starving from what? I tried wiki'ing it but that turned out to be a pretty pathetic article without any sources worthy of anything... so.. explain?

Oh... well you then admit that we don't crap it out? I mean.. you seem to have a massively hard time going "oh, I made a mistake there" or something but.. well... there is a huge difference in whether we crap or pee things out.. you see.. it is two completely and utterly different systems. Anyways.. lets let that one slip then, you are then claiming that the body actually throws excess energy out (as in, surplus protein?) hmm.. thats weird.. In school I learned that the body simply turns the surplus protein into glucose which is then either burned or stored in fat tissue.. can you point me in a direction where it is scientifically studied and determine that we pee out surplus protein, if we are not diabetic patients?

Did you seriously just claim that all those diseases (diabetes, cancer, alzheimers, tooth decay, vision problems and balding) doesn't (or didn't) excist in inuit, masai and tokelau populations? and even if true, do you claim that this is evidence that... carbohydrates cause the diseases? Can I then ask you... why don't you believe that it is a rise in CO2 level that cause the diseases.. or perhaps... perhaps it is christianity that cause those diseases... I mean... those things came after civilization too.

with regard to you, your friends, your doctor and you clients... I just have to tell you that the multiple of anecdote is not data, it is anecdotes. where is the research finding all the micronutrients in meat? btw you don't die if you don't get your micronutrients.... it is more of a... long perspective thing.

Then there is the study... did you actually read it? it simply says that mild ketosis might be useful in some diseases, but that the ketosis diets have some problems and therefore maybe we should research diets where we feed people ketones and such.
Click to expand...

The cells are being starved of fatty acids. This is the result of the negative flux that occurs when insulin levels are elevated causing fat to be stored in adipose tissue.

We know that these diseases were caused by carbohydrates because scientists watched as people started eating carbohydrates and the trajectory of disease that resulted, starting with tooth decay and within 12 years manifesting itself as diabetes and cancer. And not all cancer is caused by carbs, most cases of lung cancer are caused by smoking, for example. But all cancers of the digestive tract organs regulated by the endocrine system are caused by carbs. These include breast, prostate, ovarian, colon, testicular, thyroid, etc.

The study said a lot of things, did you read the article or the abstract? The article says:
The fundamental reason why the metabolism of ketone bodies produce an increase of 28% in the hydraulic efficiency of heart compared with a heart metabolizing glucose alone is that there is an inherently higher heat of combustion in -?-hydroxybutyrate [a ketone] than in pyruvate, the mitochondrial substrate which is the end product of glycolysis.
 
I give up, you have worn me out.

You are oversimplifying something that is muuuuuch more complicated... do you intend then that all the hormones that prevent lipolysis are evil and dangerous? I mean... as I understand it it is the inhibition of lipolysis that you propose is causing this "internal starvation" no? if not which mechanism is it then?

Then the disease thing again... you do realise that relation is not causation right? have you seen the statistic on global warming and pirates? it is pretty much exactly as precise as what you just wrote on carbs and diseases. I mean... I can see how you could reach the.... "conclusion" that carbs is at fault, but it is really a matter of... well.. not understanding causation and relation.

So.. ketosis increases the efficiency of the hydraulic function of the heart... dude... an increase in efficiency of the hearts hydraulic function does not make ketosis a more efficient way for the body to run in general than burning carbs.

I... man... I think I give up with you... either you are really well intentioned and should be treated by someone why has a deep grasp of terror management and in that case... I feel sorry for you. Or you're trying to sell something in which case.. you suck.

Anyways... there is more to life than this debate and well.. apologies to the drama llama lovers for giving up but.. I do :)

bye bye now.
 
Maybe we should just walk away. We are better served encouraging people and giving the REAL facts instead of jousting windmills.
 
Well... there comes an enough is enough point but... I do think that it is... hmm.. important... to refute ridiculous and unhealthy claims, or even claims and advice that have potential health risks, if not any confirmed risks.

If for nothing else then at least to remain intellectually honest, that is vastly preferable to being polite in my book, tho the combination is ofcourse prefered.
 
clever_plant said:
Well... there comes an enough is enough point but... I do think that it is... hmm.. important... to refute ridiculous and unhealthy claims, or even claims and advice that have potential health risks, if not any confirmed risks.

If for nothing else then at least to remain intellectually honest, that is vastly preferable to being polite in my book, tho the combination is ofcourse prefered.
Click to expand...

Well at least our motives are in alignment, you just happen to be grossly misinformed.
 
I agree that there's a point that it makes sense to walk away rather than beating your head against a brick wall over and over again. But it's also good to post reasoned and intelligent responses so that newbies who might otherwise believe this - or who might be swayed by the pseudo-science-intellectualism (or just all the big words) - will hear both sides.
 
Oh I do think we should call him on stuff when he posts to other people, but direct the right advice to the person, not to him

AKA don't listen to him, here is some sound advice and encouragement for you.


Make him the afterthought, we should be encouraging and helping the person who needs it.
 
LoseWeightNYC said:
Well at least our motives are in alignment, you just happen to be grossly misinformed.
Click to expand...

Don't you love parting shots. We won't argue against you anymore. We will counter your statements to the person they are directed at instead of you.

Good day.
 
Wow. My brain just exploded.

I mean... it was stretching it when I heard that insulin = the reason people get fat, therefore don't eat carbs... even though protein can cause an insulin response. Unless I've been completely misinformed, only fat generates zero insulin response, so eating 100% grass fed beef does not mean zero insulin. Therefore, since there is insulin, if you eat 10,000 calories of protein & fat, the excess calories can happily be stored as fat.

Then, I was bemused about the whole humans not being meant to eat plants. What were all these paleo women in hunter/gatherer societies gathering when the men weren't hunting? Wood to cook the meat on? And here I always thought they were out gathering edible plant material... Plus, if the plants didn't evolve to have their fruit & seeds be tasty to animals, it sure is a big coincidence that animal poop is such a great fertilizer.

And finally, my brain blew up when somehow the thousands of people doing Atkins is proof that you can get all the vitamins you need from grass fed beef. I did Atkins for 5 years. I lost weight on Atkins. I can assure you that Atkins absolutely did not recommend a diet with no vegetables or fruit. Asparagus, broccoli, lettuce, strawberries... hell, avocados, tuna and mayo are one of the suggestions to kick things off to a start if you're still not losing under Atkins.

Meanwhile, a year ago I went off of Atkins and am not keeping to a general calorie range and shooting for daily protein and fiber levels. Since the Atkins days, my LDL cholesterol went down from 173 to 125. My HDL stayed the same, and my triglycerides stayed the same (both good). I have lost an additional 10 lbs, have fewer inflammatory issues and enjoy the way I eat a lot more.

But maybe I'm just uninformed :D
 
KaraCooks said:
I agree that there's a point that it makes sense to walk away rather than beating your head against a brick wall over and over again. But it's also good to post reasoned and intelligent responses so that newbies who might otherwise believe this - or who might be swayed by the pseudo-science-intellectualism (or just all the big words) - will hear both sides.
Click to expand...

It's cute, you're like the vegetarian who thinks she's saving the planet, but she's really causing the destruction of ecosystems; draining of rivers, lakes and ponds; depletion of top soil; and desertification of continents.
 
LoseWeightNYC said:
It's cute, you're like the vegetarian who thinks she's saving the planet, but she's really causing the destruction of ecosystems; draining of rivers, lakes and ponds; depletion of top soil; and desertification of continents.
Click to expand...

Er, like when they cut down trees to graze cattle? :p
 
Jeanette401 said:
Wow. My brain just exploded.

I mean... it was stretching it when I heard that insulin = the reason people get fat, therefore don't eat carbs... even though protein can cause an insulin response. Unless I've been completely misinformed, only fat generates zero insulin response, so eating 100% grass fed beef does not mean zero insulin. Therefore, since there is insulin, if you eat 10,000 calories of protein & fat, the excess calories can happily be stored as fat.

Then, I was bemused about the whole humans not being meant to eat plants. What were all these paleo women in hunter/gatherer societies gathering when the men weren't hunting? Wood to cook the meat on? And here I always thought they were out gathering edible plant material... Plus, if the plants didn't evolve to have their fruit & seeds be tasty to animals, it sure is a big coincidence that animal poop is such a great fertilizer.

And finally, my brain blew up when somehow the thousands of people doing Atkins is proof that you can get all the vitamins you need from grass fed beef. I did Atkins for 5 years. I lost weight on Atkins. I can assure you that Atkins absolutely did not recommend a diet with no vegetables or fruit. Asparagus, broccoli, lettuce, strawberries... hell, avocados, tuna and mayo are one of the suggestions to kick things off to a start if you're still not losing under Atkins.

Meanwhile, a year ago I went off of Atkins and am not keeping to a general calorie range and shooting for daily protein and fiber levels. Since the Atkins days, my LDL cholesterol went down from 173 to 125. My HDL stayed the same, and my triglycerides stayed the same (both good). I have lost an additional 10 lbs, have fewer inflammatory issues and enjoy the way I eat a lot more.

But maybe I'm just uninformed :D
Click to expand...

1) Women were gathering things like eggs and nuts, as well as some berries and roots
2) Yes, protein does cause an insulin response, but it is a much smaller one and a much more consistent one. No one is saying that you will have 0% body fat, nor that you should. Again, type 1 diabetics die without insulin. I am saying you will have normal, healthy levels of body fat.
3) I know Atkins recommends vegetables, and in fact I pointed this out specifically. It happens to be unnecessary and counterproductive
4) Were you eating grass fed meat and butter? Were you eating less than 100g of carbs per day?
 
LoseWeightNYC said:
1) Women were gathering things like eggs and nuts, as well as some berries and roots
2) Yes, protein does cause an insulin response, but it is a much smaller one and a much more consistent one. No one is saying that you will have 0% body fat, nor that you should. Again, type 1 diabetics die without insulin. I am saying you will have normal, healthy levels of body fat.
3) I know Atkins recommends vegetables, and in fact I pointed this out specifically. It happens to be unnecessary and counterproductive
4) Were you eating grass fed meat and butter? Were you eating less than 100g of carbs per day?
Click to expand...

1) Do you have any sources to support this? If these root vegetables and berries were unnecessary and counter productive, why would they bother to spend all that time and effort gathering them instead of just looking for more eggs?

2) I never said anything about 0% body fat. However, high fiber vegetables and fruit also have a much smaller and more consistent insulin response than say, table sugar. How is protein okay, but these bad?

Realistically, if you are getting insulin as a result of protein, either you can gain body fat or you can't. If you can gain body fat, how could your body prevent you from gaining an unhealthy amount? I think you're confusing the effect of satiety from high protein diets with insulin response. However, they are completely different things and whether the insulin in your system comes from meat or vegetables doesn't affect protein satiety.

3) If Atkins allows vegetables, how could it prove anything about the nutritional diet of a people without vegetables? And you still haven't given any evidence that vegetables are counter productive other than "I said so" - and in my case, they have led to better lipid panels and allowed me to break a 5 year plateau.

4) No, I was not eating grass fed beef, but I was eating under 50g of carbs a day. I'm not sure what the grass fed part has to do with it. Are you saying that a diet with carbs and grain fed beef is better than a diet with no carbs and grain fed beef?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top