

"Inanity of Overeating" ignores the bacon in the room - yummyfajitas
http://crazybear.posterous.com/how-1-graph-reveals-what-3000-words-tried-to

======
jerf
That doesn't counter his point at all. The difference between "obesity" and
"maintaining weight" is still implausibly thin; what Gary was talking about in
the first place was the delta in the top two lines, not the net total. He
mentions that more obese people eventually do reach an energy balance, which
obviously happens because they income and outflow eventually balance, which is
a sign that he understands that. (Sixth paragraph, starts with "First, obese
people tend to be weight stable for long periods of their life".) You didn't
disprove his argument, you just reiterated bits of it, only with less
comprehension and a math simulation disconnected from what actually happens
(your simulation lacks the relative stability that people reach and simulates
the clearly false scenario in which people become fatter without bound).
("relative stability" - there is a long-term weight gain over pretty much
everybody's life but when people become obese they can do so much more rapidly
than ~1lb/year)

(Personally I'd break it down to the individual meals since that's where
satiety occurs and now we're talking about a delta of 3 or 4 calories. It's an
absurd argument. Nothing is that precise without a feedback loop. And if a
feedback loop is involved, the idea that the feedback loop is what is broken
is hardly that odd an idea.)

I'm seeing a lot more people declare that Taubes is wrong or obviously a crank
that there are people actually demonstrating a comprehension of his points,
which I tend to consider a prerequisite for an actually-effective "debunking".
Maybe he's wrong, but it's not because of people arguing against points he's
not even making while blatently missing the ones he is.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_(your simulation lacks the stability that people reach and simulates the
clearly false scenario in which people become fatter without bound)_

True. All I did was graph the exact scenario Taubes himself described. If it
is unrealistic, take it up with him.

The only difference is that I didn't "forget" to mention the 7 strips of bacon
the obese person consumes in excess of the thin person.

~~~
neild
What you appear to be aggressively declining to understand, despite two prior
commenters clearly explaining it--including the one that you're responding to
here--is that Taubes does not argue that 20 extra calories a day makes a
person fat. He argues the precise opposite, in fact, at great length and in
some detail.

~~~
yummyfajitas
What you appear to be aggressively declining to understand is that I'm arguing
that Taube's straw man is misleading. I'm not claiming his main thesis is
wrong, I couldn't even figure out from the blog post what that thesis is.

He used a misleading straw man: "Look, modern medical science says only 20
cals a day makes you obese! I'll repeat 20 cals/day many times, and tell you
it's just a couple of gulps of beer. I'll never mention the other 100-350
cals/day (depending on year) once in 3000 words. Only 20 cals/day must be
wrong, go read my book to learn the truth! Now for a made up dialogue between
myself and a personified straw man!"

Yes, technically he made no untrue claims. He just deliberately failed to
mention that the straw man has a good point: 7.5 sticks of bacon/day will make
you fat while 7.0 sticks of bacon will only keep you fat once you are already
fat.

------
nkurz
This is a brilliant graph, but I don't think you are reading Taubes' article
correctly. He is not offering "straightforward calculations", rather he is
setting up a "straw man" ("Aunt Sally") which he feels represents the "almost
incomprehensibly naïve and wrong-headed" conventional wisdom. Like you, Taubes
does not believe that 20 calories a day is a good way to represent the
difference between an obese and non-obese individual.

While it's obvious from the response here on HN that he fails to make this
clear, he's setting up a contrafactual argument. He's lamenting that even the
best science writers we have (like Jonah Lehrer) seem to offer only simplistic
truisms like the 20 calories myth. You point out (correctly) that 20 calories
is misleading by using a brilliant graph. Taubes attempts (and apparently
fails) to bring it down with logic and rhetoric.

Now, it's true that Taubes wouldn't fully agree with your graph. He believes
that 'calories' themselves are a faulty way of viewing the world, and that the
composition of the food matters more than the calculated calories. He believes
it matters whether that 450 additional calories are corn syrup or lean steak.
But at base, you are not disagreeing with him, and your (wonderful and to the
point) graph is not contradicting anything he's saying.

I'm just finding it now, but the blog post refers to a chapter in his book:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=Pm9ZcFYtLZ4C&pg=PT68...](http://books.google.com/books?id=Pm9ZcFYtLZ4C&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68)
Perhaps that will be a clearer exposition of his beliefs?

~~~
jls11
I've heard this one before. "Taubes's argument is more complex than that. You
need to spend more hours studying those pages, and read books x, y, and z."
It's the same argument they give in college English classes for
deconstructionism and all that other nonsense.

Taubes is a journalist. The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead
of his audience. If he's doing his job shouldn't we all be able to understand
him without any trouble? Here's a simpler argument: Taubes is wrong, and
that's where the problem is.

~~~
nkurz
_Taubes is a journalist._

Well, sort of. He also has an undergrad degree in Physics from Harvard and
masters in Engineering from Stanford. Which doesn't mean he's right, but it
does make him better qualified as a science journalist than most.

 _The people on HN are several standard deviations ahead of his audience._

Yes, and this is what's making me want to cry. This is one of the few
audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum' means, and yet bright people
(whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me seems to me a fairly obvious
argument. Are contrafactuals truly so rare as to be unrecognizable?

 _Ignoring the fact that his science is wrong._

Sure, it might be, but the commentary so far has not been about "his science"
but about his portrayal of conventional wisdom, which he also agrees is wrong.
It's like pointing out that a mathematician is obviously a fool for saying
"Let us assume momentarily that the square root of two is a rational number"
as the preamble to a proof.

It feels like a scene from Idiocracy. It's not that Taubes is wrong, it's that
you are misreading his argument. I'm not arguing that "it's complex" ---
although I'll happily stand up to defend deconstructionism --- rather I'm
trying to tell you that you are in agreement with Taubes that the conventional
wisdom is rubbish.

Now, if you want to point out the flaws in his actual argument and say that
there is no difference between calories from carbs and from proteins, please
do! But insisting that he's wrong because it really takes more than 20
calories sounds an awful lot like chanting "Brawndo's got electrolytes".

It's a new year. I want to regain my faith in the world. Please stop making me
cry.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_This is one of the few audiences that knows what 'reductio ad absurdum'
means, and yet bright people (whom I respect) seem unable to grasp what to me
seems to me a fairly obvious argument._

The problem is that his reducto ad absurdum isn't that absurd. It only sounds
that way because he spends 3000 words ignoring 90-95% of the actual argument
(specifically, 171 calories out of 191 in year 10).

The full argument: 7.5 strips of bacon/day will make you fat (technically
fewer strips in earlier years, but you get the picture). 7 strips will
maintain your current level of obesity, the extra 0.5 strips will allow you to
gain an extra 2 lbs.

The argument as present by Taubes: only 0.5 strips of bacon in excess of
maintenance is enough to explain the difference between an obese person?
That's ridiculous!

~~~
nkurz
Both of these are fair questions: is Taubes accurately portraying the
conventional wisdom, and what difference in diet corresponds to what final
weight maintained?

Yes, Taubes is presenting a very weak version of the argument. But I think he
does this for good reason: it's the camel's nose in the tent, it's the NRA's
(legitimate?) fear about reasonable gun control laws. Once he can show that
the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for further questioning.
And I don't think that his portrayal of conventional wisdom is that far off:
we have entire industries based on shaving off a few calories from our
desserts, and many people seem to believe that if the fat slobs would just
park at the far end of the parking lot and walk another 100 feet they wouldn't
be fat.

He doesn't present the version you offer because he doesn't believe it. You're
presuming that its possible to eat an additional half a slice of bacon a day
and have no other effects other than maintaining a stable weight of 2 lbs
greater after a year. You're also presuming that this effect would be achieved
by eating an additional sugar cube. Traditional calorie counting would also
imply that you'd be in the same place if instead of the bacon or sugar cube
every morning that you ate an entire 7200 calories pecan pie once a year at
Thanksgiving.

Taubes says this is also wrong: bacon and sugar are metabolized differently,
and will have different effects on your body. Both will also have side effects
on appetite and energy level. How sure are you that they are the same? How
sure are you that timing doesn't make a difference? How would you design a
solution to obesity that is more effective than merely encouraging people to
eat a little bit less and to exercise a little bit more?

I think these are good questions, and still open to discussion. Likely there
are better approaches than Taubes', but I think he's a bright guy on the right
path. At the least, I think it's worth attacking his actual thesis rather than
complaining that his straw man doesn't fight back as strongly as it should.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Once he can show that the simple version can be questioned, he opens room for
further questioning._

If you want to call the simple version of a theory into question, present the
simple version of the theory. Don't obscure 90% of it. Taubes doesn't present
the version I described because the version I described is pretty hard to
question. Has Taubes shown us that we need to question the theory that 7.5
extra strips of bacon each day will make you fat?

Also, no one believes that traditional calorie counting is perfect. It's a
good first approximation, but there are corrections to be made. You've
identified one - you can't absorb 7200 calories in a single day. But then
again, I never heard anyone in the nutritional mainstream claim that
Thanksgiving dinner is what is making America fat. They just make claims like,
for example, 7.5 strips of bacon/day might make you fat, and 7.0 strips of
bacon will keep you fat but not make you fatter. (Substitute cookies for bacon
if you want.) There are others, many of which are already well known. Pick up
any sports medicine book to learn all about them.

As for "designing a solution to obesity", we already have the solution for the
vast majority of people: eat less and exercise more. Taubes is trying to sell
books by misleading people about the theory underlying that solution (i.e.,
ignoring 90% of it). It's hard to see how that is helping us get to a better
solution than what we have now.

 _And I don't think that his portrayal of conventional wisdom is that far off:
we have entire industries based on shaving off a few calories from our
desserts, and many people seem to believe that if the fat slobs would just
park at the far end of the parking lot and walk another 100 feet they wouldn't
be fat._

You seem to be confusing mainstream nutrition science with people hawking
their own wares. Modern medical science, in the form of an about.com
calculator, says that you burn about 2 calories by walking 100 feet.

<http://walking.about.com/library/cal/uccalc1.htm>

It might not be exactly right - maybe it's 1.5, maybe it's 2.5. But it's a
good first approximation, and so is calorie counting.

~~~
nkurz
_But then again, I never heard anyone in the nutritional mainstream claim that
Thanksgiving dinner is what is making America fat._

Well, it is the opening sentence of the Jonah Lehrer piece which Taubes is
critiquing:

"Thanksgiving has always been a day of delicious gluttony. According to the
American Council on Exercise, the average adult consumes nearly 4,500 calories
at the Thanksgiving table, which is about twice the recommended daily intake."

This, following immediately after the title "The Real Culprit in Overeating"
could cause the impression that Lehrer (one of the best science journalists
out there) is claiming that Thanksgiving dinner is what is making America fat.

 _You seem to be confusing mainstream nutrition science with people hawking
their own wares._

I don't think so, although I will request a certain artistic license. I was
thinking primarily of the signs up in my local Kaiser health facility
encouraging people to take the stairs (rather than the elevator) in the
parking garage. Mind you, I do take the stairs, and think it's a good thing.
But like Taubes (who looks quite fit and trim in his publicity photos), I'm
not sure this is an adequate solution to a national health crisis. Or at the
least, I'm concerned that this solution is not currently working that well.

Overall, I think you're selling Taubes a bit short. If he's a hack flogging
his books for sake of nothing but sales, he's at least got a better basis than
most. Time will tell, of course, but I'm betting that in the end he wins the
calorie counting argument, and the idea of counting all calories as equal
regardless of source won't last.

~~~
yummyfajitas
From Lehrer's article: "Why do we overeat? This isn't just a problem on
Thanksgiving, of course: More than a third of Americans are obese, which means
that we eat way too much every day."

Regardless, Taubes wasn't pointing out that calorie counting fails on a once a
year gorging incident, he was discussing a daily increase in intake. Calorie
counting works pretty well for such things.

 _Time will tell, of course, but I'm betting that in the end he wins the
calorie counting argument, and the idea of counting all calories as equal
regardless of source won't last._

If that's all he is arguing, then he is doing nothing but pushing mainstream
nutrition science. But if that were what he is doing, why mislead people about
what calorie counting actually claims? Why not show the actual claims of
calorie counting, and then show how they can be 10-20% off in some cases?

By the way, every single sports medicine textbook already does this.

------
msluyter
What I find odd about the level of debate on this topic is that Taubes' thesis
is easily tested empirically. Give up grains & carbs for a couple of months
and see what happens. If, like me, you lose 30 pounds and lower your
cholesterol significantly, then all the better. But if not, at least you'll be
arguing from something other than "this violates the conventional wisdom."
(Remember when the conventional wisdom promoted margarine and said eggs were
bad?)

~~~
matwood
What do you think you have shown? Did you make sure to maintain the same
caloric intake when you gave up carbs? You lost 30lbs so how do you know that
your lower cholesterol was due to no carbs and not simply weight loss?

Most people on low-carb diets end up eating less calories, thus weight loss
occurs (pretty basic, but it doesn't sell pop science books very well). I
agree that no-carb is a viable strategy to cutting calories in a not have to
calorie count way [1], but I'm willing to bet if you simply cut your calories
and kept the same macro (P/C/F) percentages as before your diet you would have
lost the same amount of weight.

[1] Going no-carb cuts out LOTS of the typical snack food that people eat and
don't realize all the extra calories they are picking up.

~~~
msluyter
I didn't go into a lot of detail in my original comment, but basically before
going low carb a) I was doing a low fat, almost vegetarian diet, b) I was
always hungry, c) I was losing weight, but very slowly. When I went low carb,
a) I stopped counting calories entirely, b) I stopped feeling hungry (in fact,
I rarely feel like snacking), c) I lost weight effortlessly (without even
exercising!), and d) there were lots of other side benefits, such as
elimination of the post lunch sleepies.

So, no, it wasn't a scientifically controlled experiment, and perhaps you
could theoretically achieve the same results via a standard calorie restricted
diet. (I'm not willing to regain 30 pounds to rerun the experiment... ;)) All
I can conclude that in my case, low carb works and is much easier to maintain
than a low fat (high carb) diet. And it's really easy to try.

------
matwood
I don't know why Taubes gets so much play on HN. His science is bad and his
studies are cherry picked [1] for whatever narrative he wants to sell. For a
large group of people who usually are critical thinkers I'm surprised at what
passes for real nutrition science on HN.

IMHO, if you want to read good diet information from someone who not only
knows what he is talking about, but also uses it in practice every day look up
Alan Aragon [2]. I particularly like him because he is a research fanatic and
understands the difference between high and low quality studies.

BTW, I am in no way affiliated with him at all, but have read his stuff for
years.

[1] <http://weightology.net/?p=265> -great read with LOTS of links to studies
that Taubes conveniently (purposely?) ignored

[2] <http://www.alanaragonblog.com/>

------
vilhelm_s
Hm, this also negates what I thought was Gary Taubes's most interesting point
-- why is it that obese people eventually maintain their weight rather than
keep gaining. But if the maintenance need increases with body weight, there is
no need to postulate any interesting regulation mechanism: just eating a
constant amount of food would do it.

~~~
mike_organon
No, in the graph, the green line is pulling the red line up - this is exactly
what Taubes says is wrong because the delta is so small. The blue line is a
red herring because that's no longer the maintenance weight.

Taubes is saying that kind of precision in calorie counting is absurd, so
can't be the explanation for other people that have constant weight over
decades. How could a person on the blue line have eaten with such a small
margin of error?

It's incredibly difficult to eat a constant amount. People generally eat to
satiety, and that changes with weight. The hypothesis Taubes puts forward in
the book is that increased weight causes one to eat more, not the other way
around (which is conventional wisdom). So the question is, what caused the
weight gain (fat storage)? Taubes argues in the book, it's carbs and insulin,
not dietary fat.

------
ajt
Rearranging the Harris-Benedict Equation the author uses, and holding height,
exercise and calorie intake constant, you get an expected increase in weight
of a bit over a pound a year -- so just "eating like you're 30" alone would
explain 20 of the 40 extra pounds the 50 years old in the original article is
carrying...

------
watt
I don't understand how author reasons that in his graph the "calories/day" for
fat guy will be increasing with age, and for "lean" guy they will be
decreasing.

OK, so if metabolic rate is slowing with age, I would guess the "fat" guy's
graph would not be so steep, or actually would be a level line (eating the
same amounts of food), while for "lean" guy the line will be somewhat downward
sloping (eating less the older he gets).

