Posted: Mar 08, 2011 2:32 am
I totally agree that sugar is the primary culprit. No problem there.
Maybe I didn't write the OP very well and thought that people would read the three links as a starting point to get to what I wish to de-bunk, or not-de-bunk:
Calories in/Calories out would add up those sugar calories and what is left to budget for the rest of the day, and for that moment say you either went over or you didn't. End of story. Each day is a simple equation where calories are the only variable. That is all there is to know. The sum total of each day's equations of in/out tells the complete story.
The critics are saying no. The problem here is the content of those calories. Sugar would be the worst choice of calories. An excess of sugar calories over time increases insulin in the body. As a side effect, your body changes. That change results in a new "normal" weight for the sugar consumer. Continue consuming this worst choice of calories and the "normal" weight goes up. In Taubes summary of this, over time, you don't get fat from eating more, you eat more because you are getting fat. You are getting fat because you consumed the sugar over time that changed the insulin level to change what your "normal" weight would be to a higher number.
So if it is correct, it would not be the sum total of each day's calorie calculation that matters. What matters is what those calories do to the body to re-set a "normal" weight.
This is what the sources in the OP are discussing.
I tried to summarize about a book's worth of Taubes "Why We Get Fat" in one paragraph and I know I didn't do it justice. If Taubes is right, calories in/calories out does not work over time, and chemistry matters. If he is wrong and calories in/calories out is right, it's just a matter of what the calculation is for each point in time (like X amount per day).
Just about all of the health and nutrition writing I can find take calories in/calories out to be a truth beyond question.
Maybe I didn't write the OP very well and thought that people would read the three links as a starting point to get to what I wish to de-bunk, or not-de-bunk:
Calories in/Calories out would add up those sugar calories and what is left to budget for the rest of the day, and for that moment say you either went over or you didn't. End of story. Each day is a simple equation where calories are the only variable. That is all there is to know. The sum total of each day's equations of in/out tells the complete story.
The critics are saying no. The problem here is the content of those calories. Sugar would be the worst choice of calories. An excess of sugar calories over time increases insulin in the body. As a side effect, your body changes. That change results in a new "normal" weight for the sugar consumer. Continue consuming this worst choice of calories and the "normal" weight goes up. In Taubes summary of this, over time, you don't get fat from eating more, you eat more because you are getting fat. You are getting fat because you consumed the sugar over time that changed the insulin level to change what your "normal" weight would be to a higher number.
So if it is correct, it would not be the sum total of each day's calorie calculation that matters. What matters is what those calories do to the body to re-set a "normal" weight.
This is what the sources in the OP are discussing.
I tried to summarize about a book's worth of Taubes "Why We Get Fat" in one paragraph and I know I didn't do it justice. If Taubes is right, calories in/calories out does not work over time, and chemistry matters. If he is wrong and calories in/calories out is right, it's just a matter of what the calculation is for each point in time (like X amount per day).
Just about all of the health and nutrition writing I can find take calories in/calories out to be a truth beyond question.