= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
hyporational comments on Critiquing Gary Taubes, Part 2: Atkins Redux - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (186)
Thanks for the clarification.
It illuminates the goal. There are smart and stupid ways to achieve that goal. I think simple calorie restriction without other concerns is a stupid way to achieve that goal, but I also think scolding anyone who states the goal is damaging to the goal of making people smarter about their diets. Through the power of connotation it's just going to make you look like a perpetual-motion-machine-quack to anyone not familiar with your arguments.
It could also make them come up with smarter ways to restrict calories the easiest way possible, which could be limiting carbohydrate intake.
... but it isn't. The question is how you do it, and I think you agree.
People interpret low carb diets all the time too as a permission to eat for pleasure as much as they want. Hedging against misunderstandings is advisable no matter what we're talking about.
Having thought about this some more, I think it's a good point. The problem with the soccer game analogy is that everyone is completely and acutely aware that you need to score more than the other side in order to win and that that's the only way to win. With dieting, weight loss, and obesity, a lot of people vaguely believe that calories don't matter; that there are a lot of thin people who eat lots and lots of food and stay thin; that there are a lot of fat people who eat very little food and stay fat; and so on.
Of course it's in Taubes' interest to have some vagueness on this point since he can sell a lot of books by being perceived as giving people permission to pig out.
Well is that a misinterpretation?I
I had this exchange with poster "Jack" a few posts back:
Me:
Jack:
It should be since he admitted that too much energy leads to weight gain. I suspect he meant that people naturally restrict their intake on certain diets, so you don't have to give them explicit warning about eating too much.
This leads me to believe some people are suffering from a typical appetite bias. Eating to satiety isn't the same thing as eating for pleasure. I could easily triple or quadruple my energy intake if I didn't have to worry about getting fat. This is why I try to make my food not too tasty and handle it more business-like.
I assumed he meant that in the absence of carbs, the body will either adjust its metabolism to burn any excess fat consumed or not absorb it in the first place.
That would be an extraordinary claim and I would like to see extraordinary evidence before I assume anything like that. I challenge anyone who believes that to eat 7500 kcal per day and few carbs for a week and see what happens, or say, 5000 kcal a day for two weeks.
Edited to be more reasonable.
I predict severe intestinal distress.
That's only roughly 1kg of fat. Add some fiber and take it throughout the day, I predict minor intestinal distress.
It would be very unpleasant to eat 1 kg of fat in a day (5 cups of pure oil or 12 sticks of butter), even before you got to the point of intestinal distress. That is well past the point of satiety for a normal person, and you would essentially be forcing it down in spite of your mind telling you to stop. Adding fiber would probably make this worse, as it is also satiating. Your stomach attempts to slow the amount of fat released into the intestine to enhance fat absorption, but you are well-past the normal limits of absorption, so your stomach gets as full as it can before it begins to release too fast. The majority of the fat and fiber mixture would pass through undigested.