Is this book good or is Gary Taubes full of shit?

>>41564626
>Controversial
It wouldn't be if fatties weren't so dumb about nutrition, gullible to "lose weight quick schemes" and insecure about bettering themselves and their diet
Nutrition is very objective and it is a science
For weight loss, it is as simple as calories in calories out
But being healthy takes it deeper
Taking in calories at a healthy macro nutrient level, getting proper micro nutrients, drinking a gallon of water a day over the course of the day and not in one sitting, getting fiber throughout the day through meals
That's it not secret to it

>>41564626
He's a half-crackpot. Bad arguments for things of which a few are probably correct. He's a journalist and not a scientist. I think he's like a detective investigating the history and motivations for why people support certain ideas and deciding what to believe based on that initially. The actual scientific data he presents is influenced by his confirmation bias since he's already decided on his bottom line.

The Hungry Brain by Stephen Guyenet is a more recent and lot more trustworthy book.

>>41565187
>For weight loss, it is as simple as calories in calories out
He literally makes the case that CICO is bullshit.

this is not a review of that book, but this review is still worth reading, OP:

http://www.stephanguyenet.com/bad-sugar-or-bad-journalism-an-expert-review-of-the-case-against-sugar/

>>41566289
i should add that >>41566269 is right. if you don't want to spring on that book, you could always read this review/summary: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/

Gary Taubes is pretty much the biggest faggot shill in the diet book industry.

Cherry picks old disproven studies to further his agenda.
Fuck him.

>>41566269
>>41566288
>>41566289
>>41566296
>>41566307
t. big sugar

>>41566288
I don't notice the exact science but for me, I lose more weight when I do CICO with low carbs and higher fat (not quite keto but try to stay under 100g of carbs a day, no straight sugar, whole wheat whenever possible) than with higher carbs.

But to claim CICO is wrong, is moronic. If all I do is eat bread, but stay under maintenance, I still lose fat just much slower.

>>41566338
Wow, you sure showed them didn't you, what with that sick argument full of facts and critical thought.

>>41566338
Sugar is cancer, but to say that CICO doesn't work at all makes no sense.

File: 390525986_1280.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>>41566338
ya got me

>>41566338
Consider this:
Low-carb is likely an effective method for reversing type 2 diabetes and obesity but Taubes' arguments for that are still incorrect. You can make incorrect arguments in support of a belief that coincidentally happens to be true. Taubes' is still shit even if his viewpoint is proven right; listening to him will rot your mind with the wrong kind of thinking.

>>41566288
no. he says that cico holds true – at the level of adipocytes.

>>41566296
Good read. I've been mocking anyone complaining about muh genetics as much as the next guy, so it's interesting to see an account of the genetic factor that actually makes sense scientifically.

Though it's also kinda depressing that the ultimate tip for losing weight and staying there is "stop taking pleasure in food".

>>41567040
>the ultimate tip for losing weight and staying there is "stop taking pleasure in food"

I've always liked eating as long as the food's not disgusting. Even when I started lifting, counting calories and adjusting my foods for optimal nutrition and minimized cost I still look forward to getting to eat every day. Maybe it's different for people who ended up becoming super obese (since I'm not one of them) but I'm going to believe at least tentatively that taking pleasure in food is possible even without hyperpalatable foods.

>>41567562
It's probably a good enough strategy to moderate the pleasure you take in food, and gradually get used to the relatively duller food being your new baseline. It just seems like adjusting your baseline up is a lot easier than adjusting it down, so really minor factors like your environment changing to include more temptations, or social pressure to give in more, could potentially reintroduce all those cravings you've worked to get rid of.

>>41564626
His interview with Sam Harris was painfully cringe

>>41567040
>Though it's also kinda depressing that the ultimate tip for losing weight and staying there is "stop taking pleasure in food".

At least initially it's a good piece of advice. Good for beginners and the really advanced I know that once you become serious into fitness you just have to see macros and nothing else...

Taubs is notoriously full of shit, hopping on the low farb, fat-pandering bandwagon to make money.

https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/tag/gary-taubes/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImWYirF0es&index=1&list=PLv3QDzdxan_JkGX47Rpboyh2oYyAFZDBA&

>>41564626
Gary taubes is an idiot.

>>41567998
High fat/low carb (while following CICO) is the best way to lose fat though.

>>41568133

Maybe the tastiest way but not the best way.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278052

>>41566288
It's not as simple as CICO. The difference between the calories burned and calories consumed will not exactly equate to that much weight lost.

However, it does impose a floor on the actual deficit. If you eat 1800 and burn 2000, you will burn at least 200 calories from fat/muscle. You could possibly burn more depending on where those calories came from, and how efficiently your body can utilize them, but there's an absolute minimum amount of weight that you *will* lose assuming the input and output calories are measured correctly.

>>41568347

>t's not as simple as CICO.

It is, it's just that CICO isn't always so simple.

>>41568145
I dunno man, then my body is weird.

When I go low carb with CICO I always lose more fat than just vanilla CICO.

>>41568454

You may be losing more water and/or glycogen rather than fat

>>41568347
You could fail at losing weight with a deficit because your body becomes less motivated for activity. Even if you push yourself to exercise, your brain thinks you need to preserve calories and will sabotage you from getting the most out of the session. It's still technically CICO, it's just that you don't have complete conscious control over in and out.