IGX

Read a book by Gary Taubes, Good Calorie Bad Calorie. Very good. He goes into the origin of every statement of modern nutritional science: cholesterol causes heart disease, saturated fat is bad for you, food pyramid, origins of type 2 diabetes, obesity and so on. I wasn't that surprised at the conclusions, i.e. that most of what we believe is wrong. But the way he does it - going to the references as early as 19th Century - is very impressive. Just the discussion on cholesterol hypothesis is mesmerizing: how the whole issue got the go ahead without substantial evidence, and in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary.

Discussion of obesity is also very interesting. We generally accept thet in prder to lose weight one should eat less and move more. But we forget other factors in the equation. Appetite control is a complex physiological mechanism, and the feeling of hunger is extremely difficult to resist, no matter how much willpower one has. Same goes for moving: central nervous system regulates the desire and the ability to do so, and is difficult to overcome.

The discussion of optimal diet is enlightening: it is not really known if a diet of steaks and eggs three times a day is any worse than "balanced" mix of proteins, carbs, "good" fats with berries, leafy greens and other politically accepted good nutrition. Dietology as a science does not really exist: it is rather promotion of dogma mixed with health politics.

Anyway, the book is a great read and is packed with information (it's about 600 pages) useful for health conscious freaks like me. I came out of it born again low-carber, though this was not the goal of the book. Highly recommended.

Just realized this is the wrong sub-forum. Mario, can please you move this post to book reviews?

Taubes makes a few idiotic errors. The one that comes to mind is that calories don't count if you are eating a low carb diet. He conveniently ignores several metabolic ward studies that show excess protein and fat CAN make you fat in the absence of carbs.

I heard about this before I got the book. Yes, he makes this statements a few times, but doesn't dwell on it. You don't finish reading the book with the idea that calories don't count. I mean he quotes some doctors using low carb for that patients as saying that calories don't count. But he also states that low carb makes appetite control much easier. I guess nobody is perfect, but the book is a worthwhile read. Don't forget, it is coming from me - I seldom say good things (check my posts).

It's length was a bit excessive.

I scanned through it shortly after it came out.

Excessive calories on low carb do matter. I know first hand.

I had a gift card sitting in my wallet so I picked this up today. After doing some reading this morning on a cultfit related site I decided to try a 30 day challenge of no sugar and refined carbs. This should help motivate me.

Other than the calories don't count thing which has been worked to death most critiques of the book keep claiming that he is a low carb guy. In the prologue I've gotten the sense that he is a no sugar, potato or refined grain guy (bananas may be in here is well). Most critiques completely ignore the distinction here.

Smet, a quick question about steel cut oats. Where do they fit into the picture? Oats are found once in the index and that page just passes over them.

Bump for young smet.

I read most of it. I think it's garbage. The first part of his book where he discusses various past diets is quite good, and he does make a decent arguement against low fat diets high carb diets. But his arguements for the high protein low carb diet that he advocates are extremely weak.