Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.

To start, yes reducing what you eat certainly covers a lot of weight loss.

But the action shown of what's going on is more than the simple accounting of calories in and calories out.

Specifically, the hormonal action on the fat storage/release is what Taubes talks about.

Yes, if you reduce calories IN, or increase calories OUT, there will be some change to the homeostasis of the organism (you, me them, everybody)... but the specific nature of some of the bio-chemistry we ingest, namely the insulin trigging of the sugars/starches CHANGES the equation.

The change might be better understood when generally looking at the concept of catalyst, and how a catalyst changes the speed of a chemical reaction by even a billion fold. E.g. enzymes modify biological processes and without a certain enzyme, chemical reactions will still take place but the time it will take could be years instead of seconds.

The idea with excercise not "working" is that despite the change in the caloric accounting, if the chemistry is overriding that caloric deficit, then we're left wondering why someone can workout forever and not see a change (as reported in TFA).

The point is, if the biochemical system is stuck on "storage", aka unable to switch to "release", because of all the sugary/starchy "Energy Drink" (or pop tarts) the excerciser consumes, then no matter how much excercise there is, the biochemsitry just can't make that change.

On the other hand that same excercise without the presence of the one thing that triggers fat storage, you'd see that person drop excess weight.

There is hormonal control beyond just the quanity of energy. That's the point.

Ultimately its not that excercise is ineffective, it's that biochemistry trumps the accounting.

Again, just so its archived in the thread, here's Taube's Top 10 (his goes to 11)

The 11 Critical Conclusions of Good Calories, Bad Calories:

1.Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.

2.Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.

3.Sugars -- sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically -- are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.

4.Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimerâ€s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.

5.Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.

6.Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.

7.Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.

8.We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.

9.Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.

10.By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.

11.The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

+++ Reply:

hey don't throw the baby out with the bathwater :^)

I appreciate your skepticism so don't take my word for it, please! I'm just J random interwerb.

but the evidence Taubes presents, though nailed up 'protestant' in many ways, is very accessible to those with a medical background -- he's dug up the "commonly accepted" knowledge that prevailed for a century, and shows how it was then basically forgotten when glitzier science came along. He shows very convincingly in the 176 pages of citations and notes (on top of the 460 pages before!) that "the rigourous pursuit of truth" that science is supposed to be, got lost on the way...

If I was a doctor myself, I'd be excited to find what seems to be the invisible elephant in the room. if only for the river of obese patients whom I see and wish I could help more... At least enough to dig in a little myself before turning to the bathwater...

Do check out some of the slides in his presentation at least :^)

+++ Reply:

I hear you that it seems mad.

Maybe think less about it less as what to eat or not to eat, and simply look at Taubes' lecture slides.

His assertions speak to the actual cellular mechanisms.

The main idea is that the G3P/AGP, which is needed for adiposity, only comes from carbohydrates.

I wish he was wrong (trivially or not) as it wouldn't mean that we've all been sold down the river of corn syrup these past 30 years or so...

The science he writes about is sound. But since it goes against everything we've been told, its tough to believe it could make any sense.

FWIW we all know lots of people who could never imagine that there was something other than windows, and who can only write if they have MS word... (I prefer MS VI ;^)

I encourage you to check out his slides in his lecture. http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

To add to this, I encourage anyone to simply read some of the slides in Taubes' lecture. http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

The easy way to peruse the slides without watching the video is to click below the video on the "CHAPTERS" tab ... It'll switch to a list of 64 "Chapters", each of which is actually a slide at the right.

(and here's another way to change between the slides: look to the right of the video, where you'll see "SLIDES" and "THUMBS". Click on 'THUMBS' to see the thumbnails, then double click on one to change to it, then click on SLIDES again to see that slide (a pain but its easy).)

http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

Just for the sake of a suggested start try "Chapter 62" (in THUMBS near the end at TIME 53:59). Here what it says:

Adiposity 101: a reasonable summary

it may be stated categorically that the storage of fat, and therefore the production and maintenance of obesity, cannot take place unless glucose is being metabolized. Since glucose cannot be used by most tissues without the presence of insulin, it also may be stated categorically that obesity is impossible in the absence of adequate tissue concentrations of insulin. Thus an abundant supply of carbohydrate food exerts a powerful influence in directing the stream of glucose metabolism into lipogenesis, whereas a relatively low carbohydrate intake tends to minimize the storage of fat.

Edgar Gordon, JAMA, 1963

Just check out some of the slides :)

http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

Please reply here with any head-scratcher you have as questions are the only way to find answers. To me, the only dumb question is the one that goes unasked :^)

I appreciate your skepticism so don't take my word for it, please! I'm just J random interwerb.

but the evidence Taubes presents, though nailed up 'protestant' in many ways, is very accessible to those with a medical background -- he's dug up the "commonly accepted" knowledge that prevailed for a century, and shows how it was then basically forgotten when glitzier science came along. He shows very convincingly in the 176 pages of citations and notes (on top of the 460 pages before!) that "the rigourous pursuit of truth" that science is supposed to be, got lost on the way...

If I was a doctor myself, I'd be excited to find what seems to be the invisible elephant in the room. if only for the river of obese patients whom I see and wish I could help more... At least enough to dig in a little myself before turning to the bathwater...

Do check out some of the slides in his presentation at least :^)

here's my reply on another thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&cid=30036266

+++

I hear you that it seems mad.

Maybe think less about it less as what to eat or not to eat, and simply look at Taubes' lecture slides.

His assertions speak to the actual cellular mechanisms.

The main idea is that the G3P/AGP, which is needed for adiposity, only comes from carbohydrates.

I wish he was wrong (trivially or not) as it wouldn't mean that we've all been sold down the river of corn syrup these past 30 years or so...

The science he writes about is sound. But since it goes against everything we've been told, its tough to believe it could make any sense.

FWIW we all know lots of people who could never imagine that there was something other than windows, and who can only write if they have MS word... (I prefer MS VI ;^)

I encourage you to check out his slides in his lecture. http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

At the page, look to the right of the video, where you'll see "SLIDES" and "THUMBS". Click on 'THUMBS' to see the thumbnails, then double click on one to change to it, then click on SLIDES again to see that slide (a pain but its easy).

http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

Just for the sake of a suggested start, near the end at TIME 53:59, you'll find this one:

Adiposity 101: a reasonable summary

it may be stated categorically that the storage of fat, and therefore the production and maintenance of obesity, cannot take place unless glucose is being metabolized. Since glucose cannot be used by most tissues without the presence of insulin, it also may be stated categorically that obesity is impossible in the absence of adequate tissue concentrations of insulin. Thus an abundant supply of carbohydrate food exerts a powerful influence in directing the stream of glucose metabolism into lipogenesis, whereas a relatively low carbohydrate intake tends to minimize the storage of fat.

Edgar Gordon, JAMA, 1963

Just check out some of the slides :)

http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

Maybe think less about it less as what to eat or not to eat, and simply look at Taubes' lecture slides.

His assertions speak to the actual cellular mechanisms.

The main idea is that the G3P/AGP, which is needed for adiposity, only comes from carbohydrates.

I wish he was wrong (trivially or not) as it wouldn't mean that we've all been sold down the river of corn syrup these past 30 years or so...

The science he writes about is sound. But since it goes against everything we've been told, its tough to believe it could make any sense.

FWIW we all know lots of people who could never imagine that there was something other than windows, and who can only write if they have MS word... (I prefer MS VI ;^)

I encourage you to check out his slides in his lecture. At the page, look to the right of the video, where you'll see "SLIDES" and "THUMBS". Click on 'THUMBS' to see the thumbnails, then double click on one to change to it, then click on SLIDES again to see that slide (a pain but its easy).

http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

Just for the sake of a suggested start, near the end at TIME 53:59, you'll find this one:

Adiposity 101: a reasonable summary

it may be stated categorically that the storage of fat, and therefore the production and maintenance of obesity, cannot take place unless glucose is being metabolized. Since glucose cannot be used by most tissues without the presence of insulin, it also may be stated categorically that obesity is impossible in the absence of adequate tissue concentrations of insulin. Thus an abundant supply of carbohydrate food exerts a powerful influence in directing the stream of glucose metabolism into lipogenesis, whereas a relatively low carbohydrate intake tends to minimize the storage of fat.

Edgar Gordon, JAMA, 1963

http://dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm

Check out my reply relating Taubes' info to the original post here and tell me what you think.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&cid=30035102 [slashdot.org]

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.

Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&cid=30035102 [slashdot.org]

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.

Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&cid=30035102

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.

Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&cid=30035102

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.

Reply to the original post here. Tell me what you think.

It's all about the hormones...

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&cid=30035102

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.

Check out my reply to the original post here and tell me what you think.

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1436166&cid=30035102

I used to be all about the "calories in/calories out" bookeeping, but once you see the actual cellular mechanisms at work, its a real DOH! eye opener.