| Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF | |
|
|
|
Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health (Vintage) | 
 enlarge | Author: Gary Taubes
Publisher: Anchor
Category: Book
List Price: $16.95
Buy New: $11.53
You Save: $5.42 (32%)
New (48) Used (13) from $9.00
Rating:  203 reviews
Sales Rank: 1539
Media: Paperback
Edition: Reprint
Pages: 640
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.5
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.9
ISBN: 1400033462
Dewey Decimal Number: 613
EAN: 9781400033461
ASIN: 1400033462
Publication Date: September 23, 2008
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
For decades we have been taught that fat is bad for us, carbohydrates better, and that the key to a healthy weight is eating less and exercising more. Yet despite this advice, we have seen unprecedented epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Taubes argues that the problem lies in refined carbohydrates, like white flour, easily digested starches, and sugars, and that the key to good health is the kind of calories we take in, not the number. In this groundbreaking book, award-winning science writer Gary Taubes shows us that almost everything we believe about the nature of a healthy diet is wrong.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 198 more reviews...
 Great info, fascinating history, a new view on why we gain weight over time October 20, 2007
Timothy D. Lundeen (San Francisco, CA USA)
244 out of 254 found this review helpful
This book is an impressive review of the science and the politics behind our ideas about good nutrition and healthy diets. Taubes took 5 years to write this, and says it wouldn't have been possible without the ready access to original resources that the Internet makes possible. It does indeed have an incredible amount of information about the subject.
One of the sad and infuriating themes of this book is that much of the currently accepted wisdom about healthy diets has a political basis, that recommendations were made and marketed before the science was solid, or in many cases before the science was even done. The people pushing their ideas strongly believed that they were doing the right thing, that their recommendations would save lives and wouldn't hurt anyone. Unfortunately, as the science gets better and better, it looks like they were wrong -- they may have helped a small percentage of people, but at the expense of greatly increased risk of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, and cancer for large numbers of us.
Taubes opens his book by reminding us of the "diseases of Western civilization", that diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks, and cancer were relatively unknown in the third world until they adopted a more Western diet. Albert Schweitzer didn't treat many cases with these problems when he started practicing in Africa, but at the end of his service was seeing a lot of them, as local diets changed during his practice.
One hypothesis for why a typical Western diet is so unhealthy is that we eat a high level of refined carbohydrates: sugars, white flour, polished white rice. Taubes does an excellent job of supporting this hypothesis.
The basic model is that refined carbohydrates are absorbed very quickly by the gut and result in large blood sugar (glucose) spikes that require large insulin surges to keep blood sugar in a healthy range. Over time, many people develop metabolic problems and are not able to cope with these repeated glucose surges and keep their blood sugar under control. As average blood sugar and insulin level levels go up, they cause a cascade of increasing metabolic problems, leading to higher weight or obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, inflamation, and increased risk of heart attack, stroke, cancer, and dementia.
Taubes looks at a number of other explanations for "Western diseases".
* Cholesterol and saturated fat. This theory was championed by Dr Ancel Keys, who succeeding in turning it into dogma. The idea was that people with extremely high total cholesterol (265 and up) had higher risks of heart attacks, so lower cholesterol must be good for everyone, even though only a very small percentage of people have total cholesterol over 265. Eating saturated fat increases total cholesterol, so it must be bad. Eating polyunsaturated fat reduces total cholesterol so it must be good. Eating less saturated fat means that you need to make up the calories that were coming from it, so you needed to eat more polyunsaturated fat or reduce fat and eat more carbohydrate (e.g. a "low fat" diet).
The problem with Keys' theory is that further research did not support it: the epidemiological studies showed a modest risk of increased heart attack for men with total cholesterol over 240, and no increased risk for women. Low levels of cholesterol, under 160, are associated with increased risk of cancer, so you don't want to get too low. High levels of polyunsaturated fat are associated with increased risk of cancer, so you don't want to eat too much polyunsaturated fat.
Cholesterol is carried around in your blood in small globules of fat and cholesterol with a protein backbone, known as "lipoproteins". These globules range in size from very large (VLDL for very low-density lipoprotein) to medium sized (LDL for low-density lipoprotein) to small (HDL for high-density lipoprotein). When you get a blood test for total cholesterol, what is really measured is the cholesterol carried in all of these different sized globules.
It turns out that lipoprotein globule size is correlated with heart attack risk. Having more HDL is good (so your total cholesterol can go up and you have a lower risk of heart attack, if the increase comes from HDL). For LDL, there is a wide range of sizes, and the large ones are innocuous (e.g. "pillows floating around in your blood"). The smaller LDL particles are indeed correlated with an increased risk of heart attack. So if your total cholesterol goes up but it is because you have more large LDL globules, that is fine. If it goes up because you have more small LDL globlues, that is bad. But when you get a total cholesterol number, you have no way to tell which is which.
Eating saturated fat does increase total cholesterol, but it increases the large LDL particles, which appears to be harmless. Eating more carbohydrate increases the small LDL particles, which is likely dangerous. So saturated fat doesn't appear to increase risk of heart attack, but eating high carb diets might.
* Fiber. The theory that low fiber was the problem with Western diets was advanced by Dr Denis Burkitt, and held sway for quite a while. It was gradually disproved, and today the science is that fiber helps with constipation, but that's it.
* Overabundance and lack of willpower. This theory is that the various problems of a Western diet stem from an overabundance of good things, and our lack of willpower to resist them. As a result of our gluttony and overeating over time, we gradually put on weight, leading to the various Western health problems.
This theory is also called the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" theory of weight gain and resulting metabolic dysfunction.
Taubes makes an overwhelming case that weight problems are due to metabolic dysfunction, not the other way around. The obvious cases are people with diabetes type I, whose pancreas doesn't make insulin at all. These people cannot put on weight without insulin injections. On the other side of the spectrum, heavier people have higher-than-average insulin levels. People who eat diets that lower their average insulin levels lose weight without being hungry (e.g. low-glycemic index diets or extremly-low carb ketogenic diets such as Dr Atkins).
Also, eating high-carb diets makes you hungry, and makes you want to eat more, and makes it very hard to lose weight or stay at a lower weight. Eating a low-glycemic-index diet, you lose weight and are not hungry (where most people go wrong is to gradually add back in more refined carbs, which are literally addictive, increasing dopamine levels in the brain, and give you a craving for more and more once you eat any). It is also interesting that the only way to get normal rats to put on weight is to feed them more carbs, less fat and protein.
So, all in all, it looks like it is the highly refined sugars and carbs that cause us to gain weight.
The book has a lot of useful information about where the current science stands, and led to a lot of new threads for me, to try to figure out how to be healthier and feel better.
I did have some issues with it, however.
* Taubes doesn't discuss one of the major difference between Western and other diets, which is the level of omega-3 polyunsaturated fats. The Western diet is significantly deficient in omega-3s, with too much omega-6 fats. Research shows that DHA (an omega-3 fat) is a critical part of having insulin work as it should, so over time the typical Western DHA deficiency could be the mechanism that starts the cascade of damage from insulin resistance to higher average levels of insulin, higher average blood sugar, higher levels of damage with time, etc.
* There is recent research that shows extremely low carb (ketogenic) diets such as Dr Atkins increase methylglyoxal levels. Methylglyoxal is extremely reactive, and could cause much more rapid aging on a long-term ketogenic diet than on a glucose-based metabolism. So my take is that you shouldn't be in ketosis by choice.
* I think Taubes is too hard on some of the people involved in this story, and doesn't appreciate how hard it is to recognize bias at the time. From our vantage point, it is easy to point fingers. I think a lot of the people he talks about had reasonable, defensible perspectives at the time. Where I do think Taubes is right is when he protests that they shouldn't have been so sure that their recommendations would do no harm. Recommending major changes in everyone's diet is not something that should be done without stronger evidence!
* Taubes doesn't seem to appreciate some of the value of epidemiological studies, and overrates the value of controlled studies, which have their own risks and errors.
* I would have liked the history and the current science to be more clearly separated. As it is, you have to wade through a lot of history to get a clear picture of where we are today.
All in all, though, it is absolutely outstanding, fascinating and highly recommended!
 Revolutionary? October 23, 2007
Jan Koncewicz
226 out of 237 found this review helpful
Gary Taubes is not a doctor or a scientist, but he researched a lot about dieting, exercising and obesity. He published his findings in the book that in some respects confirms what others have been saying for some time already. In some aspects, however, his observations are on the edge of being revolutionary. Like Atkins and his later followers (South Beach Diet) Taubes names carbohydrates as the main culprit of overweight problem. No surprise here. However, he notes that the obesity problem is not as simple as some inventors of "perfect diets" often try to portray it. It is indeed a very complex problem... The author maintains that people are not overweight as a result of overeating. The cause and effect are actually reversed: People overeat when they are overweight. Hormone imbalances of obese people make them overeat - wow! One more revolutionary statement: You cannot actually lose weight by exercising, as this only makes you eat more... but what happens when you exercise and restrain yourself from eating more?
This book definitely presents a new look at obesity, its causes, and ways of treating it. Whether you agree with the author or not, I suggest you read it as it definitely deserves your attention. Another great reading on the subject is a chapter about Obesity in the book Can We Live 150. A great amount of practical information about bad habits that lead to obesity and the ways of fighting them, proper food combination, and much more...
The proof is in the pudding October 5, 2007
E. Fox (San Jose, CA USA)
147 out of 153 found this review helpful
Yes, this book is probably too academic for most citizens but it's worth the effort to try and understand a little more about endocrinology if you want to really be in control of your own health. Hormones rule.
If you are a skeptic or still can't let go of "calories in-calories out" and "fat and cholesterol clog arteries and cause heart attacks," do this. Eat a high carbohydrate diet (normal Western diet) for 6 weeks and get your triglycerides checked. Then eat no starch, no sugar, no potatoes, no pasta, no rice, no grains, no bread and no alcohol for 6 weeks. Get your triglycerides tested again. See the difference? There is no debate on EITHER side that triglycerides kill. The debate is how they get there. And by the way, eating that way is surprizingly satisfying and not nearly as hard as most people think it would be!
I have had the good fortune of working in a medical clinic where we test lipoproteins, insulin and many other metabolic markers on clients every 3 months. We recommend they avoid starchy and refined carboydrates but do eat many vegetables and protein. They do not use low-fat dairy but whole dairy. Saturated fat is not avoided. It takes a good 6 to 12 months but with this way of eating LDLIIIa+b (the intermediate lipoproteins that can be altered from VLDL to more dense and less lethal), insulin and yes even CHOLESTEROL will go down. It is not fat... it is carbohydrate that drives the metabolic engines to death.
What I love about Taubes' book is that he gives the history on why much of this scientific research has not been adopted by nutrition and health policy makers. It is not a 'great conspiracy' but human nature. Egos get involved and facts get distorted. If I hadn't seen hundreds of lipoprotein lab results I wouldn't have believed it either. If I hadn't heard the reports from clients that life without refined carbohydrates isn't really hard to do I wouldn't have believed it either. Taubes is on to something and you need to do your own experiements to test his assumption...
Taubes explains the science behind the metabolic discoveries from research about fat metabolism. He explains what happens when food meets hormones. And THAT is what the science of nutrition is really about! Hormones play a key role in metabolism and the manner in which food impacts hormones is what creates disease or health.
One area that Taubes did not elaborate on is the effect of feeding refined carbohydrates to the animals we eat. Fatty acids (the `omega' fatty acids) found in plants and animals, are converted to hormone-like substances, called eicosanoids or prostaglandins, by our body. These eicosanoids control many key metabolic functions including inflammation. It has been shown that inflammation is the root cause of most chronic degenerative diseases in humans. Eating animals that are fed grains rather than grass increases omega-6 fatty acid consumption and risk for chronic disease in humans.
There are two other insulin considerations to consider. If you eat omega-3 rich foods like walnuts, pumpkin seeds, wild caught fish and grass-fed animals, and your insulin is elevated, the insulin interferes with the conversion of omega-3 fatty acids to the eicosanoids that reduce inflammation in our body. Eating foods high in carbohydrates will increase inflammation and so increase risk for heart disease, autoimmune disease and further exacerbate diabetes. Also cortisol, the stress hormone, elevates insulin.
Being an omnivore has its own set of challenges. We can and DO eat anything. The metabolic pathways of nutrition and health are complex and inter-related. It is worth taking the time to understand them, especially how insulin works, so that when you do make a food choice you understand the impact to your health and well being. If you can't take the time or don't want to read Taubes' book, simply eat foods that come to you as nature intended; whole, real, micronutrient dense and carbohydrate sparse.
Do not let his remarks make you think that exercise is not important for your health just because it is not significantly important to weight loss. Your mitochondria are healthier when they undergo vigorous stress which is measured by heart rate. Mitochondria are organelles in your cells that are the power producers using food and oxygen to make energy. They are the fountain of youth and vitality. Exercise also keeps bones and muscles strong and keeps your endocrine (hormone) system healthy.
This is a great work and I will probably read it several times to absorb all of the science. It may not be an 'easy read' but it is vital information!
Sorely needed because it finally puts low-fat vs. low-carb to rest. November 5, 2007
Tech Nut (Phoenix, AZ)
146 out of 150 found this review helpful
I'm a researcher by trade. Not a medical researcher, but an analyst nonetheless and I have been waiting for a very long time for this kind of work to come out. This isn't advocacy whatsoever. It's a look at what everyone says, and what the science says, and the politics that led us to ignore the science. The research level is staggering and evidence so overwhelming that portions of the book are downright infuriating.
I personally found reading the one-star reviews here interesting because there is not a single, negative review here that remotely suggests the reviewer actually read the material.
On to my own rating, here's what I think you should know when considering this purchase:
This is unlike any book you've ever read on the subject of diets. It is not a diet book. It is not a lifestyle book. It is not an advocacy book. It is a look at the science that has been ignored as our country has rolled toward the low-fat religion and what the consequences of this have been. It is a look at how and why overwhelming science and evidence was ignored.
Society has needed someone to do what Taubes did here -- to strip away what is popular, to dig into claims and recommendations, and see what the EVIDENCE shows us for claims on both sides of the diet argument. It will give you clarity where there has never been any, while explaining why it has been absent.
If you are looking for a book that lays out a diet plan and recipes and sample meals and such, this is not for you. This is a work of scientific journalism, not a diet plan.
On a final note, it is noteworthy that there have been no real rebuttals to this work whatsoever from the "experts" and "authorities" who have, because of politics and money and cowardice, advocated dietary guidelines that have driven our society into our miserable states of health and obesity.
That silence is shame.
LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com Interview With Gary Taubes About 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' September 25, 2007
Livin' La Vida Low-Carb Man (Spartanburg, SC)
136 out of 153 found this review helpful
I was talking with my wife Christine the other day about the front cover of the Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories." I asked her, "Why do you think there is a slice of bread with butter on the cover?" Christine, being that brilliant woman who was the salutatorian of her high school class, retorted matter-of-factly by saying, "Jimmy, the butter is the 'good calories' and the bread is the 'bad calories.'" Isn't she BRILLIANT! That makes so much sense now. DUH!
Well, I'm pleased to have the author of that book--Gary Taubes--with us for an exclusive interview with the "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" blog (LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com). This is the first such media interview he has conducted with anyone about this highly-anticipated book set to shake up the diet and health industry. And I'm privileged to bring it to you today.
Taubes is quite forthright about why his book took so long to come out, why it was he would decided on the ultimate title of the book, and what he hopes will happen as a result of the book releasing to the world next month. That book could very well be the beginning of a major "paradigm shift" in nutrition that has been sorely needed for decades.
If we can only get the doctors, nutritionists, and other so-called health "experts" who Taubes says "haven't got a clue what real science is" to wake up to the truth, then that may happen sooner than later. Relax and enjoy this one-on-one with the man who could very well be the instigator of it all.
1. One of the most exciting news stories to happen not just in the low-carb community but in the entire world of diet and health is about to take place on September 25, 2007. That's the fateful day when the long-awaited book from New York Times reporter Gary Taubes will be releasing at long last. This book has been literally years in the making and we are ecstatic to have the man of the hour himself here for an exclusive interview prior to what is sure to be an all-out media blitz coming in just a few short weeks.
Did you have any idea when you wrote that long and thorough article on the positive role of fat in the diet over five years ago the degree to which this subject matter would evoke such a fiery response from those who subscribe to the traditional low-fat diet while simultaneously emboldening the argument for people who advocate livin' la vida low-carb?
TAUBES: It took me surprise. It shouldn't have, because I'd spent much of my professional career reporting on controversial science, but I'd never strayed so directly into beliefs about diet, which seem to be embraced with almost religious fervor. I think what made it worse was that I was writing about a subject that had been covered in the press excessively for decades, so not only did my article imply that the authorities might be wrong about the nature of a healthy diet, it suggested that many of my journalistic colleagues were as well. One of my close friends in the business, someone who had also written a book on the obesity epidemic, went from considering me one of the top three science journalists around to accusing me of having a "brain transplant" and selling out just to get a book contract.
2. It was obvious in that New York Times Magazine article that you had done your homework on this subject and were well-prepared to hit a grand slam that was irrefutable by even the staunchest critics because everything was backed up by dozens of experts in the field of nutritional science. Was it the overwhelming reaction, both positive and negative, that led you to begin working on this new book you are about to release or was this book already well underway and the New York Times column was merely a teaser of things to come?
TAUBES: I have to clear up two points, here. One is that the staunchest critics certainly didn't see the NYT Magazine article as irrefutable. In fact, they did their best to refute it, and if you were to ask them, they'd say they succeeded. I'd disagree, but I'm biased.
As for the book, on the one hand, this is a book I've wanted to write for about a decade, ever since I first researched the dietary fat issue for an article in the journal Science and came to suspect that the bad science I was finding was par for the course in nutrition and public health research. I even circulated a proposal for the book with editors, but until I wrote the NYT Magazine article I couldn't finance it.
I knew the book would take me at least three years and the kind of advances publishers were offering would only cover maybe half that. In other words, if I wanted to write the book, I'd have to go into debt, which isn't a viable option when you have a family to support. The NYT Magazine article was so high profile, that the book advances now being offered could cover the years it would take to research and write the book.
The other point is that when I started the book, I had one conception of what it would say. But the thing about research is you don't know what you're going to learn until you do it. The research dictated the book, and one reason its so long is that I kept learning new things. I'd say maybe 40 percent of what I wrote in the Times article I no longer believe, and much of what I say in the book, I would never have believed myself before I did the research.
3. The attention span of most people is extremely short and many may not even remember who Gary Taubes is and your famous (and some say infamous!) article from July 7, 2002. Do you think this will work to your advantage in trying to draw the attention of those who will be hearing about the concepts in your book for perhaps the very first time? Who do you hope is the ultimate target audience of your book anyway? Doctors? Researchers? Nutritionists? The obese and sick?
TAUBES: I think many people remember that article and will want to know what the book says because of it. On the other hand, the staunch critics we discussed will likely say that the article prompted a two-to-three year Atkins craze that has since died away, and that's somehow proof that the concept of the diet and the concept of the article were both misguided.
As for who my ultimate target is, I tried to write the book so that anyone concerned about their health and weight could read it, but also so that it contained enough details to convince doctors, researchers and nutritionists that they may have made some grave errors in judgment. This was a tightrope walk, though, and I won't find out if I succeeded until after the book comes out.
As I would often tell my editor, it doesn't do any good to have yet one more book telling the lay reader that carbohydrates are fattening and dangerous, if that reader then goes to his or her doctor and the doctor says Taubes is a quack, eat your carbohydrate and cut back on the fat. So I want the doctors to read it and think about these issues, perhaps a little more deeply than they ever have. It's important that the physicians and public health types take it seriously, but I would hope that their patients read it, as well.
4. Speaking of drawing attention, I couldn't help but notice the title of your forthcoming book has gone through quite a radical evolution of sorts over the past year or so. The original title was going to be "A Big Fat Lie?: What If Fat Doesn't Make You Fat..." (an obvious play on the NY Times Magazine column you wrote), but then it was subsequently changed to "The Diet Delusion." That didn't last long and now it looks like the current title "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging The Conventional Wisdom On Diet, Weight Control, And Disease" is indeed the name of your book.
Was this much "softer" title a compromise that you and your publisher Knopf felt was needed to reach a much broader audience of readers who might have been turned off by the original title? Plus, you can't help but notice the irony of having a melting pat of butter on a slice of toast now compared with the slab of butter on top of a big fat juicy steak in the initial cover art design. Was this intentional to ward off controversy? Doesn't controversy help market the book better so that it piques the curiosity of the would-be reader?
TAUBES: It's actually never changed. Only the prospective titles on Amazon did. The British publishers always seemed fond of Big Fat Lie and they had it on their website. My publisher, Knopf, probably would have liked that, as well, but I was the one who was adamantly against it.
The point is that I don't believe that lying has ever been the issue, catchy as the title and the idea may be. I think a lot of authorities and self-appointed experts zealously believed something to be true that the data never actually supported. They deluded themselves, and they may have tried to delude us, but they weren't actually lying, in that they were making things up that they knew to be false.
The book aspires to be scrupulously honest in its interpretation of the evidence and what happened, and so I thought that intellectual honesty better extend to the title, as well. Hence, The Diet Delusion for the title in the UK and Good Calories, Bad Calories in the U.S. Again, the world doesn't need another polemic on this subject; it needs an intelligent analysis that will be taken seriously. That's what I tried to do.
5. Although the book title has gone through some major changes, from all accounts I have heard from those who have read pre-pub copies of the book it sounds like you have kept the primary content of the book intact although you had to cut 200 pages away to whittle this down to a 600-page book.
What are some of the major themes you address in "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and is there anything that was taken away that you wish had remained? Also, would you consider releasing the extra material that was removed as a book or e-book after the book has been out there for a while? I know there will probably be a great demand for it and these 200 pages could very well be the beginning of a full-fledged follow-up to "Good Calories, Bad Calories" if it is the HUGE commercial success we all expect it to be.
TAUBES: The book is divided into three parts. The first explores how we came to believe that saturated fat causes heart disease via its effect on cholesterol and that monounsaturated fats could prevent it, and what the real evidence shows. The second part looks at the alternative hypothesis -- that it's the sugars and easily digestible carbohydrates that are the problem. This section ends with the observation that everyone agrees that whatever makes us fat also increases our risk of heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers, and so the third part looks at this question of weight and how and why we fatten. Is it the calories -- and so over-eating and sedentary behavior -- or is it the carbohydrates? Obviously I argue its the latter and that calories per se have little or nothing to do with it.
As for the length, most of what was cut was technical details that we could all live without. And because much of what I say will come as a shock to people -- certainly to physicians and nutritionists -- I tended to pile on the details, the historical explanations, and to repeat myself to make sure that everyone understood what exactly the evidence showed and how it should be interpreted.
Luckily, I have a great editor and he pruned a lot of that away so that the book, I think, is just as convincing but a much better and shorter read. Worth noting is that the text is not 600 pages long. The text is only 500. The rest is notes and bibliography. There are few subjects that were cut out entirely, and I'm hoping that maybe I'll be able to pursue those as magazine articles in the future. Ideally, I'll get my act together, put up a website, and then all of the relevant material can go there.
6. You have had your share of critics over the years who have attacked you personally and questioned your credentials as it relates to writing about diet and nutrition. I'm sure you are aware the boo birds are getting ready to come after you again hot and heavy once "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is released next month.
I can certainly relate to that on a much smaller scale with the work I am doing here at my "Livin' La Vida Low-Carb" blog and it's a common sideswipe at your integrity as a writer. Legitimacy within most circles is earned by proving yourself reliable and trustworthy on the issues that matter most and that's precisely what you have done throughout your writing career.
How do you respond to those who believe you have no right to even acknowledge the positive role of dietary fat and the potentially negative role of dietary sugar/refined carbs without any formal nutritional education? Do you believe what you write about is diminished in any way because of that?
TAUBES: Well, for starters, nutrition isn't rocket science. In fact, one of the problems I talk about in the book is that many of the people involved in this nutrition research haven't got a clue what real science is all about. They believe it's about proving their own beliefs to be true, not rigorously testing their hypotheses.
And the problem today is you can get a Ph.D. in nutrition or a Master's in public health and never interact with anyone who really does know what science is and how it has to work to obtain reliable knowledge. Moreover, I'm a reasonably smart guy with reasonably good credentials -- Ivy League education, etc.
And I wrote the book in a way to address those issues. The nutritionists who disagree with it can try to shoot the messenger, which is a natural response when you don't like the message, but they'll still be left having to address the message. All I did is follow the facts and try to interpret them without bias.
7. The work of the late great Dr. Robert C. Atkins was a focal point of your New York Times Magazine article because he had been touting the low-carbohydrate approach for decades and only in the past few years have researchers begun giving the high-fat, low-carb way of eating a closer look with some truly outstanding results as it relates not only to weight loss, but also improved HDL "good" cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, and many other health markers.
I'm sure Dr. Atkins would be very proud of your work if he were still with us today. Do you foresee a time coming in the future when he will be hailed for espousing nutritional truths that went against common consensus rather than vilified for daring to challenge the status quo with his scientifically-based controlled-carb approach to health and weight management?
TAUBES: In all honesty, I don't know. Or rather, I kind of doubt it. It would be nice if it were true, but I don't think the world works that way. The saturated fat thing is so ingrained in our nutritional wisdom that I can't imagine what it would take for nutritionists to acknowledge that it's harmless if not beneficial. And until they can do that, Atkins will always be the guy who pushed a diet high in saturated fats.
If you think of this stuff in scientific terms, then the idea that fat is the dietary cause of our chronic illnesses is one paradigm and it's the one that we bought into for the past thirty years. Atkins was pushing a different paradigm: that it's the carbs that are dangerous and the fat that's healthy.
Should there be what historians and philosophers of science call a paradigm shift -- maybe because the NIH finally funded the kinds of long-term, very expensive clinical trials needed to test these ideas -- then its still unlikely, at least if the history of science is any indication, that the supposed experts who bought into one paradigm will be able to acknowledge that they were wrong and the other guys were right.
Rather, so the old saying goes, they'll have to die off first. By that time, Atkins will be ancient history the way William Banting, his 19th century predecessor, is now considered ancient history. Atkins deserves better, as do some of his predecessors in this field.
8. There is quite a bit of dietary dogma that still exists in our culture to this day--such as eating fat makes you fat and will clog your arteries, you must expend more calories through exercise than you consume in your diet, and carbohydrates are the primary source of fuel for the body--despite the fact that many of these have been found in study after study to simply be false assumptions that we've just universally accepted without question.
What can those of us who believe in the strong, fact-based message of your book do to help it penetrate through to the hearts and minds of Mr. and Mrs. America so that these people can finally realize the so-called truths they have long believed in aren't backed up by the evidence? How and when do you think acceptance of livin' la vida low-carb will begin happening in earnest?
TAUBES: You're right, some of this stuff -- like calories-in-calories-out and carbs being the primary source of fuel for the body -- is so patently false and/or nonsensical that it always boggles my mind when I see supposed figures of authority making these arguments. It's as though reality doesn't matter in this particular field of research. You can say or believe anything, so long as it supports the dogma.
What can be done about it? Figure out a way to get doctors to read the book. This sounds self-serving, but it's all I can say. Beg your family physician to read it and to read it all the way through, not just read the first thirty pages, get to something that challenges his or her beliefs and then put it down.
Writing letters to Congress wouldn't be a bad idea, either. The problem inevitably is that we all end up preaching to the converted. The goal has to be to get some of the agnostics to pay attention.
9. Meanwhile, research is still happening behind the scenes about how the much-vilified saturated fat is actually HEALTHY for the body when dietary carbohydrate is reduced. Dr. Jeff Volek from the University of Connecticut is just months away from releasing his data on this very subject which will further solidify the overall thesis of your book. Who are some of the most prominent researchers we should be watching out for in the coming years to produce studies regarding the implications of dietary fat and specifically saturated fat in the diet on health?
TAUBES: There are some very good researchers looking into the effects of carbohydrate-restricted diets out there. Jeff Volek is certainly one of them. Eric Westman and his colleagues at Duke are pursuing this. The problem is that the establishment tends to perceive their research as irrelevant, because they are studying something seriously that these people consider either out-and-out dangerous or nonsensical.
What will finally change the way the medical research establishment views carbohydrate-restriction is when establishment scientists find themselves confronted with evidence that supports it and find it themselves to interpret it without bias. There's an old saying that if an atheist tells me that God doesn't exist, I'm not going to put much credence in it, but if the Pope says as much, it's a different story. So the mainstream medical community will start taking this stuff seriously when mainstream researchers start looking into it.
One example is Ron Krauss at Berkeley. Ron is considered one of the smarter scientists in the metabolism field and he chaired two different American Heart Association nutrition guideline committees. For the past twenty years he's been unraveling the real reason why high LDL cholesterol is associated with a higher risk of heart disease. He's demonstrated that it's not the cholesterol in the LDL particle that is the problem, but the size and density of the LDL itself, and his diet studies show that it's carbohydrates that make the small dense form of LDL that causes heart disease. Saturated fat has no effect. At the moment, the authorities are trying their best to ignore the dietary implications of Krauss's research, but they may not be able to hold out indefinitely.
10. Thanks again for sharing a few moments discussing your new book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" with me and my readers today, Gary. I cannot wait to personally read and review your book that has been years in the making and I'm confident it will quickly become not just a commercial bestseller, but also a virtual primer on the subject of low-carbohydrate diets and dietary fat that will belong in the personal library of everyone who wants to know the truth.
THANK YOU for taking all the darts that you have to stand up for what's right. You are an honorable man who is to be commended for your professionalism and exhaustive commitment to get this book as perfect as it can possibly be. Your efforts will not go unrewarded because the low-carb community, which is still going quite strong in 2007 by the way, will be behind you supporting this project 100%!
Do you have anything you would like to share with those of us who have been praying for you and anxiously awaiting this book to come out?
TAUBES: All I can say is that it's going to be interesting. I learned my lesson from the New York Times Magazine article that writing something like this is like passing through a black hole. You can never predict what's going to happen. I just hope people find my book compelling and convincing, and that it manages to survive whatever attacks are levied against it.
|
|
|
| |
