Webcast of Taubes Berkely lecture

x-no-archive: yes


The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_de...ebcastid=21216


Susan

"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5u21uvF1g1qndU1@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care
>

I haven't read or heard Taubes, & don't much care about all the broo-ha-ha
about "why are we fat?". I do know what made *me* fat: overeating &
undermoving.

Changing that -- with not a lot of change in % of carbs/fat/protein, i.e.
didn't switch to low-carb or low-fat or low-anything-else, just "less of
everything except more of salad (though still not more than 1/day)" and
actually getting the regular exercise I'd been neglecting -- changed me.

No magic, no fads, just attention & perseverance.
bj

x-no-archive: yes

bj wrote:
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5u21uvF1g1qndU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>
>>The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care
>>
>
>
> I haven't read or heard Taubes, & don't much care about all the broo-ha-ha
> about "why are we fat?". I do know what made *me* fat: overeating &
> undermoving.
>
> Changing that -- with not a lot of change in % of carbs/fat/protein, i.e.
> didn't switch to low-carb or low-fat or low-anything-else, just "less of
> everything except more of salad (though still not more than 1/day)" and
> actually getting the regular exercise I'd been neglecting -- changed me.
>
> No magic, no fads, just attention & perseverance.
> bj
>
>
>

bj, I really understand and respect that you've made the changes that
you're most comfortable with and that work for you. I hope that
continues to be the case for as long as you live.

The Taubes material, for the record, is not a diet plan or diet book,
it's a review of the epidemiological science, how the wrong conclusions
and recommendations were arrived at, and the public health implications.

Not an assault on your personal choices, which you've voiced here often,
with great conviction, and little to no flak, if I'm not mistaken. :-)

Susan

Interesting, Susan. Thanks.

A revealing comment in the Q & A about how studies get
funded that are designed to promote what we
already "know." Of course some folks here
would bristle at the negative comments made about
the ADA's dietary recommendations.

But no worries, those are the people least likely
to watch the whole thing.

cheers

Paul


"Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:5u21uvF1g1qndU1@mid.individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_de...ebcastid=21216
>
>
> Susan

In article <5u21uvF1g1qndU1@mid.individual.net>,
nevermind@nomail.com says...

> The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why
> Nobody Seems to Care
> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_de...ebcastid=21216

Thanks very much for posting this link.

I think this is a good summary of his position on obesity
although there's much more support in the book. But his
address didn't really cover the issues of heart disease and
diabetes, which are at least half of the book, and in my
view where the real battle will be (if he can even instigate
a battle at this late date - the deck appears to be pretty
well stacked).

It was the conclusion that a high fat diet causes heart
disease that drove everything else. No doctor would
prescribe a diet for a diabetic that promotes heart disease.
So, his point is that the treatments for obesity and
diabetes just kinda defaulted to low fat too, as though it
just had to be the same cause/cure as heart disease.

He believes there's really no convincing evidence that a
high-carb diet works for either obesity or diabetes, or that
it's even the right direction. What's crucial, though, is
whether that's also true for heart disease. And that's
where I'm still looking for more evidence. Supposedly,
there is this "mountain" of published studies confirming
that high-fat diets cause heart disease, including actual
imaging from Ornish showing reversal of atherosclerosis on
an extremely low-fat diet.

But if Taubes is correct, it's becoming increasingly
difficult to explain in physiological terms why Ornish would
be right. As I understand it, the two most valid predictors
of heart disease are low HDL and small, dense LDL, and both
of those he says are promoted by carbohydrate consumption.
Well, maybe it's that under Ornish, even the carbs are
sawdust, so there's no sugar and no refined carbs. But
then, the absence of fat wouldn't be the causative factor.

Well, it will be interesting to see how it goes from here.
Either he will be ignored, or there will be a major
counter-attack. :-)

One thing that occurred to me is that he would probably say
there is no "French paradox." The French do not stay
healthly *in spite of* all the butter, cream and cheese.
They stay healthy *because of* all that - well, that and not
eating a lot of carbs. There is no paradox, because the
premise of the paradox is wrong. So maybe I don't need that
glass of red wine after all. :-)

x-no-archive: yes


Peabody wrote:

> Thanks very much for posting this link.
>
> I think this is a good summary of his position on obesity
> although there's much more support in the book. But his
> address didn't really cover the issues of heart disease and
> diabetes, which are at least half of the book, and in my
> view where the real battle will be (if he can even instigate
> a battle at this late date - the deck appears to be pretty
> well stacked).
>
> It was the conclusion that a high fat diet causes heart
> disease that drove everything else. No doctor would
> prescribe a diet for a diabetic that promotes heart disease.
> So, his point is that the treatments for obesity and
> diabetes just kinda defaulted to low fat too, as though it
> just had to be the same cause/cure as heart disease.
>
> He believes there's really no convincing evidence that a
> high-carb diet works for either obesity or diabetes, or that
> it's even the right direction. What's crucial, though, is
> whether that's also true for heart disease. And that's
> where I'm still looking for more evidence. Supposedly,
> there is this "mountain" of published studies confirming
> that high-fat diets cause heart disease, including actual
> imaging from Ornish showing reversal of atherosclerosis on
> an extremely low-fat diet.

Ornish's studies ignored the folks who died during them, IIRC, and the
dropouts.

My HDL and LDL both plummeted on Ornish, but my TGLs hit the roof and I
developed severe insulin resistance on the diet. No doubt, my lower LDL
was all small and dense, but now on high fat, I have very low VLDL.

>
> But if Taubes is correct, it's becoming increasingly
> difficult to explain in physiological terms why Ornish would
> be right. As I understand it, the two most valid predictors
> of heart disease are low HDL and small, dense LDL, and both
> of those he says are promoted by carbohydrate consumption.
> Well, maybe it's that under Ornish, even the carbs are
> sawdust, so there's no sugar and no refined carbs. But
> then, the absence of fat wouldn't be the causative factor.
>
> Well, it will be interesting to see how it goes from here.
> Either he will be ignored, or there will be a major
> counter-attack. :-)
>
> One thing that occurred to me is that he would probably say
> there is no "French paradox." The French do not stay
> healthly *in spite of* all the butter, cream and cheese.
> They stay healthy *because of* all that - well, that and not
> eating a lot of carbs. There is no paradox, because the
> premise of the paradox is wrong. So maybe I don't need that
> glass of red wine after all. :-)
>

There's no Swiss paradox, either, with all the loads of saturated fats
from grass fed cows they consume. :-) That red wine, in moderation,
confers many benefits.

Susan

Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <5u21uvF1g1qndU1@mid.individual.net>,
> nevermind@nomail.com says...

> > The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why
> > Nobody Seems to Care
> > http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_de...ebcastid=21216

> Thanks very much for posting this link.

> I think this is a good summary of his position on obesity
> although there's much more support in the book. But his
> address didn't really cover the issues of heart disease and
> diabetes, which are at least half of the book, and in my
> view where the real battle will be (if he can even instigate
> a battle at this late date - the deck appears to be pretty
> well stacked).

> It was the conclusion that a high fat diet causes heart
> disease that drove everything else. No doctor would
> prescribe a diet for a diabetic that promotes heart disease.
> So, his point is that the treatments for obesity and
> diabetes just kinda defaulted to low fat too, as though it
> just had to be the same cause/cure as heart disease.

> He believes there's really no convincing evidence that a
> high-carb diet works for either obesity or diabetes, or that
> it's even the right direction. What's crucial, though, is
> whether that's also true for heart disease. And that's
> where I'm still looking for more evidence. Supposedly,
> there is this "mountain" of published studies confirming
> that high-fat diets cause heart disease, including actual
> imaging from Ornish showing reversal of atherosclerosis on
> an extremely low-fat diet.

> But if Taubes is correct, it's becoming increasingly
> difficult to explain in physiological terms why Ornish would
> be right. As I understand it, the two most valid predictors
> of heart disease are low HDL and small, dense LDL, and both
> of those he says are promoted by carbohydrate consumption.
> Well, maybe it's that under Ornish, even the carbs are
> sawdust, so there's no sugar and no refined carbs. But
> then, the absence of fat wouldn't be the causative factor.

> Well, it will be interesting to see how it goes from here.
> Either he will be ignored, or there will be a major
> counter-attack. :-)

Taubes did say that many of the orthodox (and his view mistaken)
obesity researchers won't read his book on the grounds that they know
what he thinks from his earlier NYT article, and that has been
rubbished, so no need. But as that Berkeley University talk shows,
Taubes is converting some of the relevant scientists, so ignoring
isn't going to work, and a counter-attack will be necessary. There are
three major sources from which it might come: the AHA, the carb lobby,
and the drug lobby. I'm not counting the ADA because I don't think they
have an independent position.

There was, however an interesting comment about the position of the
AHA in the question and answer session at the end. He commented on one
rather bruised AHA funded researcher who had beem given research finds
to do an Atkins-refuting study. But the research actually gave the
unexpected result of showing benefits. The researcher thought this was
interesting and asked for more funding to pursue it, but got a
sufficiently frosty reception that she had also become rather cagey
about discussing her own now disapproved of research results.

A speaker in the audience then stood up to say that he was currently in
receipt of AHA funding to publish a paper which went against the usual
AHA position and towards the Taubes position, which he took as
evidence that there was an encouraging shift underway within the AHA.

Taubes IMHO does produce some quite startling evidence that suggests
that modern nutritional research isn't driven by science, it's driven
by a combination of medical politics and right wing puritan
morality. But the upholders of the current obesity orthodoxy do feel
obliged to make like they're doing science, and one of the major
planks in their simulacrum is the position of the AHA. If the AHA
shift there will be a fairly dramatic collapse of the orthodox
rationale in obesity research in general and the ADA in particular.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

I recently invested a little over $3,000 in digital photography equipment.
I have used digital camera's since they came out but this was my first DSLR.
After talking to people on the net I found some would claim Canon is the
best and Nikon sucks
some would claim Nikon is the Best and Canon sucks. I also came across a
web site that said.

Both Nikon & Canon are great cameras anyone that tries to tell you one or
the other is no good
is trying to sell you something. others have simply been fooled to believe
it.

its pretty silly for this taubes to tell anyone that knows anything about
nutrition to believe
that eating low fat and exercise is unhealthy.

Nope I didn't waist my time watching his Spam Web Cast. but it does go to
show
that spammers like Taubes do spam the internet.


> Interesting, Susan. Thanks.
>
> A revealing comment in the Q & A about how studies get
> funded that are designed to promote what we
> already "know." Of course some folks here
> would bristle at the negative comments made about
> the ADA's dietary recommendations.
>
> But no worries, those are the people least likely
> to watch the whole thing.
>
> cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
> "Susan" <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:5u21uvF1g1qndU1@mid.individual.net...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>>
>> The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care
>> http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_de...ebcastid=21216
>>
>>
>> Susan
>
>

Gantlet <Tom@tomsdiabeticdiary.com> wrote:

> its pretty silly for this taubes to tell anyone that knows anything about
> nutrition to believe
> that eating low fat and exercise is unhealthy.

Not only was he telling scientific experts in obesity about his work,
but he was doing it at their expense and by their invitation!

His audience was university researchers specialising in obesity. As
the questions and answers he got demonstrated many them had published
scientific papers on obesity. He had been invited to give the lecture
by the School of Public Health of Berkeley University, one of their
Dean's Colloquium series of lectures.

> Nope I didn't waist my time watching his Spam Web Cast. but it does go to
> show
> that spammers like Taubes do spam the internet.

The recording of the lecture was made and put out by the university as
part of their programme of public education by making their Dean's
Colloquium lectures available as webcasts.

Interesting that you think that a US university putting out public
education webcasts of one of its pretigious lecture series is
spamming! I hope you're going to complain to your congressman at this
disgusting misuse of public funds, a university spamming the web under
the pretence of public education, and what's more disguising it as a
highly prestigious invited lecture!

By the way, if you want to know what some scientific experts think of
Taubes you can listen to the introduction given by the two university
deans at the start, and at the questions from the floor at the
end. But why waist your time doing that? Obviously the spammer Taubes
must have bribed the whole lot of them to sell his book :-)

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm says...

> Taubes IMHO does produce some quite startling evidence
> that suggests that modern nutritional research isn't
> driven by science,

Well, I have to say that's the part of the book that struck
me the most. Whether Taubes is right or wrong in the end,
the real eye-opener for me is the description of what passes
for science in this area. I had read stuff before that said
most of the peer-reveiwed journal articles are wrong, but
had just never seen real examples like this. It's kinda
scary.

> If the AHA shift there will be a fairly dramatic
> collapse of the orthodox rationale in obesity research
> in general and the ADA in particular.

Oh I think that's absolutely right. If low fat becomes
viewed as heart-healthy, the others will come around. Well,
particularly the ADA. Absent the idea that fat causes heart
disease, why in the world would anyone tell a diabetic to
eat carbs?

"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc24@emorycardiology.com> wrote in message
news:50eb3ff3-264b-4963-956f-85a0f550ffd6@n23g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> bj wrote:
>>
>> No magic, no fads, just attention & perseverance.
>
> Your latter phrase does describe the 2PD-OMER Approach well:
>

I think I've just been insulted!
:-)
bj

On Jan 3, 8:23�am, "Gantlet" <T...@TomsDiabeticDiary.com> wrote:
> I recently invested a little over $3,000 in digital photography equipment.
> I have used digital camera's since they came out but this was my first DSLR.
> After talking to people on the net I found some would claim Canon is the
> best and Nikon sucks
> some would claim Nikon is the Best and Canon sucks. �I also came across a
> web site that said.
>
> Both Nikon & Canon are great cameras anyone that tries to tell you one or
> the other is no good
> is trying to sell you something. �others have simply been fooled to believe
> it.
>
> its pretty silly for this taubes to tell anyone that knows anything about
> nutrition to believe
> that eating low fat and exercise is unhealthy.
>
> Nope I didn't waist my time watching his Spam Web Cast. �but it does go to
> show
> that spammers like Taubes do spam the internet.

I'm getting the feeling that a.s.d might be ground zero!

Kurt

On Jan 3, 10:58�am, "bj" <bjone...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote in messagenews:50eb3ff3-264b-4963-956f-85a0f550ffd6@n23g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > bj wrote:
>
> >> No magic, no fads, just attention & perseverance.
>
> > Your latter phrase does describe the 2PD-OMER Approach well:
>
> I think I've just been insulted!
> :-)
> bj

LOL

Kurt

bj wrote in message <_eafj.2926$jX4.273@trnddc07>...
>"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc24@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
message
>news:50eb3ff3-264b-4963-956f-85a0f550ffd6@n23g2000hsh.googlegroups.co
m...
>> bj wrote:
>>>
>>> No magic, no fads, just attention & perseverance.
>>
>> Your latter phrase does describe the 2PD-OMER Approach well:
>>
>
>I think I've just been insulted!
>:-)
>bj

LOL

Cheri

"Kurt" <kurtwheeling1965@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d881ecc6-40cb-449c-b4cb-eefcaa5467af@y22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 8:23?am, "Gantlet" <T...@TomsDiabeticDiary.com> wrote:
> I recently invested a little over $3,000 in digital photography equipment.
> I have used digital camera's since they came out but this was my first
> DSLR.
> After talking to people on the net I found some would claim Canon is the
> best and Nikon sucks
> some would claim Nikon is the Best and Canon sucks. ?I also came across a
> web site that said.
>
> Both Nikon & Canon are great cameras anyone that tries to tell you one or
> the other is no good
> is trying to sell you something. ?others have simply been fooled to
> believe
> it.
>
> its pretty silly for this taubes to tell anyone that knows anything about
> nutrition to believe
> that eating low fat and exercise is unhealthy.
>
> Nope I didn't waist my time watching his Spam Web Cast. ?but it does go to
> show
> that spammers like Taubes do spam the internet.

I'm getting the feeling that a.s.d might be ground zero!

Kurt
_________________________________

There are spammers in every group. Sad to say that even Canon and Nikon are
probably doing it.
I know Microsoft does it. Adobe does it but at least they include that
they work for these companies in their sig.
Sorry to say that I do feel they are here as well. 1 bashes the giant while
the other pushes the book, pills, diet or what ever.
you cant even go into a weight lifting group and ask for a low fat recipe
with out low carb being pushed on you.


--
Tom

www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com

Chat in peace with other diabetes at the American Diabetes Associations Web
Site.
http://community.diabetes.org/n/pfx/...esz&redirCnt=1

Information You Can "Trust" From Your American Diabetes Association
www.diabetes.org

Information on Specific Types of Fat.
http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-an...cific-fats.jsp

"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> a écrit ...
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc24@emorycardiology.com> wrote ...
>> bj wrote:
>>>
>>> No magic, no fads, just attention & perseverance.
>>
>> Your latter phrase does describe the 2PD-OMER Approach well:
>>
>
> I think I've just been insulted!
> :-)
> bj


LOL

I think you'd have to have an intelligent beong opposite you to
REALLY feel insulted ... lower-class molluscs don't count.
)

" Frank t2" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:47927213$0$9665$79c14f64@nan-newsreader-06.noos.net...
>
> "bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> a écrit ...
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc24@emorycardiology.com> wrote ...
>>> bj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No magic, no fads, just attention & perseverance.
>>>
>>> Your latter phrase does describe the 2PD-OMER Approach well:
>>>
>>
>> I think I've just been insulted!
>> :-)
>> bj
>
>
> LOL
>
> I think you'd have to have an intelligent beong opposite you to
> REALLY feel insulted ... lower-class molluscs don't count.
> )

:-) indeed.
bj