What I’m Reading: Good Calories, Bad Calories
So I’m late to the party, but it took a long time to get through the request list at the library. I finally got a hold of Gary Taubes excellent book Good Calories, Bad Calories and went through it. My reaction is that this could be the book that turns things around in the nutrition world, but only if people can put aside their preconceived notions of the causes of obesity and ill health and actually read it with an open mind. That’s going to be the problem.Since so many other people have already reviewed the book quite thoroughly, I’m just going to point out a few of the parts that really resonated with me. First was the thorough discussion of how we got to our present “fat is bad, fat makes you fat” advice. Having read The Great Cholesterol Con, there wasn’t a whole lot of new information there. But for the person that hasn’t read Colpo’s book, there’s a good deal of revelation there.
Taubes devoted a good bit of time to discussing the politics surrounding where our nutrition advice has gone and the lack of good science to support it. He mentions, as others have, that a good bit of the problem has been a lack of faith in the ability of the public to grasp difficult concepts. We want it boiled down to the easiest thing to implement. Since officials didn’t think people would understand “eat less saturated fat” at the time that it was believed to be the cause of heart disease, they just told us to eat less fat and therefore more carbohydrates.
The part that I think has the potential to do the most good is the discussion of biochemistry and the reasons why it’s not about “calories in versus calories out”. For those that haven’t read it, the basic premise is that you don’t get fat because you eat too much, you eat too much because you’re fat. The cells are starving and force you to eat more. It’s a hormonal drive that causes fatness, not a caloric one. That isn’t a big surprise to those of us that understand the workings of insulin (it locks up fat), but to most of the public, it could be a big surprise.
I really see two problems with the acceptance of this book. First, people simply refuse to put aside their preconceived notions that it’s calories that make us fat; that cholesterol is a harmful substance that must be controlled and that since fat raises cholesterol, it leads to heart disease; and that carbohydrates could be bad for you. Second, I think the book is simply too dense for the lay person. But doctors should be able to read this and go “Duh! How could I have not seen that?” and then advise their patients accordingly.
In the end, it all boils down to eating a diet of real, unprocessed foods. Meat, tons of vegetables, nuts and seeds. Fruit and starches can be useful, but aren’t necessary to health. Grains, especially processed grain products like bread and pasta, should be avoided at all costs. They drive fat storage through their actions on insulin.
And if you haven’t yet, get this book and read it front to back. Even those of us that have a passion for nutrition and read everything we can get our hands on will learn something. One of my favorite parts was in the Epilogue where Taubes talked about expecting the science to reveal something totally different to him than it did. Yet he still wrote the book showing what the science says and interpreting it against his preconceived notions and the common wisdom that was already in his mind. It’s similar to Charles Darwin setting out to prove evolution false and coming home saying “Boy was I wrong.” Too many of our health advisers are invested in their version of the story and are unwilling to take a look from a different angle.
About Scott
Scott Kustes loves to cook and loves to eat. He started Real Food University to help you get maximum enjoyment out of the meals that you eat. To find out more about how he has rebelled against the fast food culture and counting calories or carbs, join the Real Food Revolution.
14 Reader Comments
Feel free to leave a comment below... and as always please keep it in good taste. Comment spamming ONLY to promote your website is NOT allowed. So please use your real name in the field below otherwise it may be edited or removed. Constructive discussion is always welcome, personal attacks or useless bickering is not. Not all comments may be answered directly by editors/writers.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve been reading books on nutrition for 40 years, and this was the best such book I’ve ever read. it’s probably the best science book I’ve ever read as well. When I got it, I could barely put it down and read it straight through in about 3 days.
I don’t think people should be scared away by the description of it as “dense.” It’s dense with information, I guess, but Taubes is a great writer (not just a great science writer), and it reads like a good novel or detective story.
I think you hit on the key concept that I would hope would come out of the book: we don’t get fat by overeating, we overeat because we become fat. That is going to take some head-stretching for people to get, but if you do understand it, everything changes.
If you haven’t read this book, you really can’t intelligently discuss the field of obesity and diabetes.
One of the major things Taubes also points out is that many times the conclusions of papers about various research studies aren’t supported by the results of those studies. Too often, researchers stretch the facts to support their pre-conceived notions, whereas when you look at the actual data, it’s the opposite.
It’s a great book not only about nutrition, but about the politics and sociology of science and public health, and you really get the sense of how much nutritional science acts more like a religion than science.
It’s laying on my floor with all my other books to read. It’s next in the pile though. I have read Colpo’s book though so I figure, I knew the first part you discussed.
“In the end, it all boils down to eating a diet of real, unprocessed foods. Meat, tons of vegetables, nuts and seeds. Fruit and starches can be useful, but aren’t necessary to health. Grains, especially processed grain products like bread and pasta, should be avoided at all costs.”
Amen. I did exactly this 180-degree flip in my diet about a year ago, after reading Cordain’s _The Paleo Diet_. The result was 15 lbs off my already-slim frame (5’11″, now 142 lbs!) without effort. I read Taubes six months into my new diet lifestyle and everything jibed with my experience. What I changed after reading GCBC was that I no longer am afraid of fat. I eat as much of it as I want, and am more satisfied with less food, and it tastes better! I think Cordain’s anti saturated fat stance was a concession to dogma he had to make in order not to be dismissed as a quack, as was Atkins.
One point I worry about that Cordain makes is that if the world ate as I do, we would run out of food. Most of the world depends on grain to live. We reached a point of no return on grain consumption years ago.
Your last paragraph has a very important point:
“One of my favorite parts was in the Epilogue where Taubes talked about expecting the science to reveal something totally different to him than it did. Yet he still wrote the book showing what the science says and interpreting it against his preconceived notions and the common wisdom that was already in his mind. It’s similar to Charles Darwin setting out to prove evolution false and coming home saying “Boy was I wrong.â€
That is what true, rigorous science is all about – challenging conventional thought. Real science always turns current theories upside down (history is full of examples and the “heretics” are rarely championed in their lifetimes).
The last sentence in that paragraph sums up modern medicine and health advice:
“Too many of our health advisers are invested in their version of the story and are unwilling to take a look from a different angle.”
Whenever I discuss paradigm changes with my husband (he’s a research scientist) he reminds me that “medicine” isn’t “science”. Many people are confused by this. Medicine is a practical application of whatever current theory prevails, usually lagging behind the science by quite a few years (at best) or decades. MDs are taught to avoid risk and go with the herd (or perhaps they are naturally risk-averse or else they would be research PhDs). Scientists (PhDs) are taught to be skeptics (or perhaps they are naturally skeptical or else they would have become MDs) and constantly question the status quo. MD-PhDs are a contradiction in terms and training. How that training combination works, I cannot figure out, because I think the MD training would really mess up the necessary skepticism that a PhD needs. No offense intended to MDs, of course
.
In pure, “basic” science, the peer review system works reasonably well. But as Taubes and others have pointed out, some newer “soft” science disciplines, such as nutrition, have not been subject to standards as rigorous as in the “hard” sciences.
And sitting on the sidelines of science (as a non-science spouse) I can readily attest to how funding promotes research in some areas and not in others and shifts it like the wind (anytime the phrase “war on X” used). Anyone working in biomedical research, publicly funded (NIH, etc.) as well as privately funded (industry, foundations, charities, etc.) must work within the current paradigm of their discipline to get continued funding. When the funding emphasis shifts, everyone shifts the focus of their grant applications. If one doesn’t, funding dries up. I’ve watched that happen as funding moved into to AIDS research, then various cancers (breast, prostate, and colon cancer are the money pots now). Back in the early post 9-11 days infectious disease researchers with specialties in obscure diseases were awash with “biological agent” research money (including anthrax, I’m sure). I’m sure it happened in the 50s with polio research, too. A few decades ago, anyone in lipids, heart disease, or cancer research who didn’t get onto the low fat bandwagon, was left without funds (or careers) to continue their research. And so it goes. These days it is even hard to be properly (or at least publicly) skeptical as a scientist or else a career goes down the tube. I’m not saying it is all bad – I doubt we can go back to the early days of modern science when most research was done by private gentlemen “with means” (and a very few women) in their own personal laboratories – but with grant funding so scarce, one can’t be blind to the practicalities.
Note to Joe: GCBD, while “dense”, it is much easier to read than Colpo’s book. Go for it, you won’t regret it.
Note to GK: I’m more worried about the increasingly industrial production of food (both plants and animals) than not being able to feed the world. Enough food is already produced to feed all people today, yet people starve or are malnourished (though not in every geographic location), but societies all over the world choose not to feed all their people (lots of fodder on that topic!).
Food is a economic, social, and political issue more than a lack of quanity issue. Food commodity production (I hesitate to even call it agricuture even) is now an international wealth-building enterprise on a scale we’ve never before seen, not really a way to feed people. Colin Tudge, a UK writer, has a great book, So Shall We Reap, that goes into easy-to-grasp detail about the current projected world population figures, which will plateau perhaps in my son’s lifetime if he lives to 80 or so). Current projections are in stark contrast compared to the doomsday overpopulation projections of the 60s and 70s) and future food production capacities (Tudge is misguided on sat fat consumption though so ignore that small error in his writing) are likely to be fine if changes are put into practice soon. Not that I am holding my breath on that.
[...] with insulin. Insulin is the great regulator; as we know from our biochemistry textbook (or from Good Calories, Bad Calories), when insulin is up, fat mobilization is down. The other four hormones are lipolysis [...]
Scott:
What do you think about Lyle Mcdonalds’ thoughts about this book?
You can read about it here:
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=249&page=1
He is so arrogant but I think he has some good points.
Les, Lyle makes lots of good points. As he points out, in the end, it comes down to calories. I’ve pointed out quite a few times in different posts (mostly since reading this book as my understanding of physiology has improved) that it’s not necessarily carbs that make people fat. Particular types of carbs, especially sugar or highly processed grains, tend to make overconsumption easier. While dietary fat is highly caloric, it also causes hormonal releases that shunt appetite. Carbohydrates don’t. And I do think there’s a good bit to be said from controlling insulin to control appetite…keep blood sugar stable and you keep appetite stable. Essentially, eating fewer carbs tends to make it easier for the average person to control their intake. From Stephan’s posts at Whole Health Source, it also seems that wheat, in particular, has some elements that predispose to weight gain.
As for metabolic advantage, I doubt the average metabolically-normal person will get a metabolic advantage of one type of calorie over another. From a bit of reading though (and I’ve not looked for studies to back this up, so it may be completely off-base), the insulin resistant obese person may see a short-term advantage from going low-carb simply because their body lacks the proper machinery to really use incoming calories effectively, resulting in some loss. Again, pure speculation.
You have to remember that Lyle is dealing mainly with athletes, who have more leeway in their intake and who typically need more carbs and tend to be rather insulin sensitive to go with their higher than average expenditure. Your average person does benefit from lowering carbs, particularly because protein and fat are rather satiating. But dropping carbs in favor of artificial sweeteners and low-carb products is ditching one negative for another…low-carb products are still processed foods.
Anywho, yes, I think Lyle makes some rather good points. The body is far too smart to waste excess protein and fat. Evolution would not have selected for such a trait. Our macronutrient intake does however drive our hormonal environment which determines our overall health.
Cheers
Scott
Thank you! I am not confused anymore.
Scott nailed it….excess calories make people store fat (excess energy)…the wrong carbs cause excess insulin which in turn will create more cravings and hunger….also more insulin resistance (which takes you down a road of ill-health on another tangent)…ergo…more food (calories) are eaten. Fat and protein help control appetite while also supplying the necessary building blocks for muscle (key to long term weight loss and health). Some people do well on low carb….more active people (with better insulin sensitivity) do fine on higher….they all need calorie deficit to lose weight. Hence why the Zone makes people hungry all damn day….small insulin spikes all day long will do that….especially if the choices are processed carbs like those zone bars.
Here is what I don’t understand: for example If I strongly stick to a low calorie intake during the day but I eat every hour or so some high GI food, such as pure sugar, how can I still lost weight none the less my insulin is always spiked up?
Many blogs around this paleo and crossfit scene advocate low(er) carb intake and they explain this with the insulin thing. (And not with the hunger after an insulin sipe up).They advise to read this book, because it’s so good. And then Lyle, who has some knowledge about nutrition says GCBC is pure garbage.
Sorry for the bad english.
So insulin is not the direct reason we get fat. It’s the reason we might eat more calorie or become insulin resistant. Am I right?
Correct me if I’m wrong but If it’s true then Eades, Atkins, Taubes and all the lowcarb advocaters are wrong. They blaim the insulin not only for this hunger thing but for its direct reason why we get fat.
Controlling/managing insulin for weight loss is a good thing and very important….but could someone snack on mountain dew and snickers and lose “weight”…perhaps if they have alot to lose…but is alot of muscle lost in this process and are they setting themselves up for diabetes? (as skinny people can get diabetes too) High insulin levels as a result of insulin resistance will lead down a road of ill-health and increased chances of most all degenerative diseases….not a good thing. High insulin also does shut down fat “releasing” hormones in the body…those like glucagon and GH that allow stored fat to be released and burned as fuel. So if you spike your insulin all day…and need to burn fuel….you can probably see alot of muscle wasting that will happen in the process while access to stored fat is limited. The leaner you get, the more important this is to remember if fat loss is your goal.
Low carb (all the time) works well for less active people or those who are already overweight (and may have insulin resistance). Then you can look at very active people who can eat crap all day yet are still lean…they have a high activity level and probably very good insulin sensitivity. One has to find the right combination for them…but usually a good plan is finding your daily lowest carb point to maintain “fat” loss (which could be anywhere from 30-150g) and then using pwo eating(or higher days cycled in every now end then…could be every 3-5 days) to re-load muscle glycogen with more carb intake as your workouts increase in intensity (but as you raise carbs, you have to lower fat….as too many calories makes you fat).
There’s nothing wrong with those enjoying a low carb lifestyle….however more active people do enjoy (and can tolerate) their carb intake for performance as well. The important choice is in the type and timing of carbs….stick to whole foods (fruits and veg) for the most part and time your majority of carbs (to when your muscles are primed to reload after a workout) if you are still trying to stay lean and increase performance. Adkins….Zone…..Cyclical Ketogenic Diet……Metabolic Diet…..Anabolic Diet……Body Opus…..there is no one right way for everyone, and there doesn’t have to be….just find a way that works for you and maximizes your health. But in the end the message is the same, spiking your insulin all the time is not a good idea….and if you want to get access to that stubborn fat, then you need longer periods of low insulin to force the body to release it (carb cycling diets). The body just wants to burn some fuel….it’s up to you to tell it what to throw in the furnace.
Thank you again, it gets clearer and clearer.
Anyway, I was looking for the answers not for weightloss, but for finding the optimal way to be healthy and fit. And I got it.
Keep up the good work!
Les – You may also like this article on insulin and longevity too : http://lifespotlight.com/health/2008/07/11/insulin-and-sugar-the-one-hormone-you-need-to-control-and-the-one-enemy-you-need-to-avoid/