Skip to comments.Treat obesity as physiology, not physics (Gary Taubes)
Posted on 12/14/2012 6:41:08 PM PST by neverdem
The energy inenergy out hypothesis is not set in stone, argues Gary Taubes. It is time to test hormonal theories about why we get fat.
It is better to know nothing, wrote French physiologist Claude Bernard in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865), than to keep in mind fixed ideas based on theories whose confirmation we constantly seek.
Embracing a fixed idea is one of the main dangers in the evolution of any scientific discipline. Ideally, errors will be uncovered in the trial-by-fire of rigorous testing and the science will right itself. In rare cases, however, an entire discipline can be based on a fundamental flaw.
As a science journalist turned science historian, I have written at length about how and why this may have happened in obesity research. I have suggested that the discipline may be a house of cards as, by extension, may much research into the chronic diseases associated with obesity, such as diabetes.
Before the Second World War, European investigators believed that obesity was a hormonal or regulatory disorder. Gustav von Bergmann, a German authority on internal medicine, proposed this hypothesis in the early 1900s.
The theory evaporated with the war. After the lingua franca of science switched from German to English, the German-language literature on obesity was rarely cited...
NuSI aims to fund and facilitate the trials necessary to rigorously test the competing hypotheses, beginning with inpatient feeding studies that will rigidly control dietary interventions for participants so that we know unambiguously the effects of macronutrients protein, fat and carbohydrates on weight and body fat. These studies will be done by independent, sceptical researchers. This may be an idealistic dream, but we have committed ourselves to the effort.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
People have different metabolisms. Go figure.
...and especially the field of climatology.
To me he proves without a shadow of a doubt that Atkins works. Of course, I have a wife who loves to bake, and who cooks using a lot of carbs. So I have an excuse.
The ONLY scientific weight formula proven countless times (and disproven only for a few extraordinary cases) is:
(lower Calories )+ (exercise) =weight loss
The more you increase the variables on the left the more you get results on the right.
Everything else is wishful thinking.
And I am working on the left but I don’t hold out any visions of anything affecting my weight except hard work and discipline.
I’m not overweight, I’m just too short so I’ve decided next year I shall grow another 5 or 6 inches taller.
Your equation doesn't include those of use that consume a lot of calories, and don't spend a lot of time exersizing, and stay rail thin.
As a food service professional, I care about this issue. I'm glad they are doing the test. I look forward to the results.
Medicine operates, according to an ID friend of mine, much like a religion. To attack principles that are believed holy will be met with much resistance. A good example of this is statins and cholesterol where the side effects are frequently ignored in groups such as geriatric patients. First do no harm often goes out the window in the zeal to prescribe the holy drug.
Simply not true. You can eat unlimited calories and do no excercise on the Atkins diet, and lose weight. It’s all about carbs, especially “bad carbs”.
Very few people can stay on the Atkins diet for long though.
>>What kind of calories? Carbohydrates? Fats? The body treats them differently.
Your equation doesn’t include those of use that consume a lot of calories, and don’t spend a lot of time exersizing, and stay rail thin.<<
Statistical Outlier. There are some forms of calories that affect the formula more than others but overall the formula holds.
Wishful thinking “science” in weight loss is just that. Wishful thinking. Good for Dr. Nick infomercials at 1:00 AM.
Look at the show “Biggest Loser.” They do formulate the diets to be the most efficient for weight loss (and tailor it to the the individual). But it is the sweat that does the most (and most important) work.
Thanks neverdem :Gary Taubes is very good indeed. He points out that fat does not make fat but carbs do. If you’re interested see this article...
Explains nothing. Describe a mechanism.
Why the Atkins diet doesn’t work (1 of millions): http://www.zonediet.com/blog/2011/01/why-the-atkins-diet-doesn%E2%80%99t-work-and-never-will/
I assume you were checking your blood sugar levels through out. You may have given yourself Type II diabetes.
Lol must be nice! I can’t lose weight unless I embrace a low GI diet. Too bad I love dark chocolate and bread! Seriously, I work out like crazy and I see no results. Cut carbs? Oh yeah, instant weight loss!
I eat steaks, hand-crafted pizza, for breakfast I have scrambled egg, sausage, and hashbrowns, except Sundays when I have herring, stewed tomatoes, and dark beer.
I don't gain weight. I'm within 10% of what I weighed when I enlisted the first time back in 1980.
Gotta be a mechanism. Science should figure it out.
Thanks for the link.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.