Has anybody read Taubes's book, Good Calories, Bad Calories? Despite the unfortunate title, its actually a serious academic book about nutrition and disease. He argues that bad science is rampant in the fields of nutrition and obesity. He makes an impressive case against the lipid hypothesis ("dietary fat is unhealthy") and the caloric excess hypothesis ("obesity is caused by eating too much/exercising to little"). His conclusion is that meat and animal fat are very healthy, while sugar and carbs are the most likely cause of the diseases of civilization. You can read a comprehensive summary of the book here.
What's interesting is that Taubes's argument is very Austrian-friendly. He blames the bad science on government interventions. Specifically, the US government began making health recommendations, and then research funding was biased in favor of that position (the low-fat, anti-meat position of the USDA).
Another interesting point is that Taubes found that the Germans and Austrians had mostly worked out the science of fat metabolism (obesity) before WW2. Enter Hitler and their work disappeared and American researchers started from scratch and went wrong because they weren't aware of the German/Austrian work. Sounds familiar, huh? Seems like a good rule of thumb to always check out what pre-WW2 Germans and Austrians had to say about a topic.
Didn't read the summary sorry. Is this book related to the recent study that used a new technique to show that Americans waste about 40% of food produced?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
No, it's not related to that study. The book came out in 2007.
I only read a little bit of GCBC. Plenty of pages and quotes from it, though. From what I can tell, it's a very good read.
On January 11th, I was 240 pounds. I started a diet high in saturated fat, and with less "neolithic agents" and within days, I was losing a pound a day until I got to about 200 pounds, which I am slightly under right now. This stuff is very anti-establishment, and it's pretty solid in terms of reason and research. Other than losing weight, there's been a lot of other benefits. (better sleeping, better running, no headaches, better dental health, etc...)
I've been following this guy's advice most closely: http://www.paleonu.com/
A big critique (which is true) is that many studies will take "saturated fat is bad" as an axiom when reasoning out their conclusion. Bad statistics, ignoring biological processes, and other problems with the studies make them really flaky when you look at them with a critical eye. The only reason people aren't willing to believe that saturated fat from animals is good for you is because they think of the medical establishment as composed of gods.
Doctors are people, too. There are good ones and bad ones.
I'm a fan of people against the lipid hypothesis.
Giant_Joe: I follow Kurt Harris as well, he's the best (and he's a solid Austro-libertarian). I fully recommend reading Taubes, Harris refers to the book as "the bible"! You might also be interested in this paleo-libertarian list.
toban: Giant_Joe: I follow Kurt Harris as well, he's the best (and he's a solid Austro-libertarian). I fully recommend reading Taubes, Harris refers to the book as "the bible"! You might also be interested in this paleo-libertarian list.
Haha!! I've seen the paleo-libertarian list. People get irate when I tell them how I eat. They get irate when I tell them my political beliefs. I don't need to combine the two, I'm trying to win people over! :p
Bill Butos (an Austrian economist) has been working on 'the economics of science' and has drawn on Taubes as an example of government distorting science. Video of his lecture at FEE seminar.
More people need to know about this. I'm like 100 pages into GCBC but I read most of Dr. Harris' blog posts and blogs he links to.
I guess I started right around Easter, because I remember having a few binges on the baskets of Easter candy laying around. I've lost 5 pounds since my high point ~2 weeks ago coming back from a weekend vacation where I ate junk. I really only have like 10-15 until my ideal weight though probably. I never really felt the need to diet, but eating what our bodies were designed to just makes sense. Not feeling the need to eat more than two meals per day is pretty cool and all of the side benefits like Joe talked about are true.
More people need to know about this. I'm like 100 pages into GCBC but I read most of Dr. Harris' blog posts and blogs he links to. I guess I started right around Easter, because I remember having a few binges on the baskets of Easter candy laying around. I've lost 5 pounds since my high point ~2 weeks ago coming back from a weekend vacation where I ate junk. I really only have like 10-15 until my ideal weight though probably. I never really felt the need to diet, but eating what our bodies were designed to just makes sense. Not feeling the need to eat more than two meals per day is pretty cool and all of the side benefits like Joe talked about are true.
Not to sound cheesy, but this means a lot to me. Of all the people I've talked to in person and on the Internet, you're the first to tell me that you've actually given it a shot and have seen some decent results/positive effects.
It's almost as nice as planting a seed of doubt in a person about the legitimacy of government, and seeing them draw their own conclusions from it as that seed grows. :)
I'm down to about 190 lbs now. I'm pretty thin. That's just because I'm too lazy or have no initiative to do 15 minutes of resistance training twice a week. Making muscles is hard work. Reading, writing, thinking and conversing are all 100 times easier. :p
what aspects of the diet have you guys adapted? seems pretty intense.
also doesn't seem practical if it ever became popular on a mass scale.
I thought about that, too. But for every 50 people that expressed some interest and didn't outright oppose it, only about 1 would give it a shot. It takes discipline, and people hate practising that.
On Dr. Harris' blog, there is a section called "Get Started". Ideally, I'd like to follow all the "steps" but I've been following 1-8, 10 and 11 for the most part. From middle of January to end of March, I maybe violated any of those steps once or twice. This past month has been terrible for me, though. It's hard for me too keep it up with all the bullying by people around me to "try to eat healthy".
People are so misinformed. :(
Since I watched the movie "Fathead" about two month ago, I've also been interested in low-carb dieting. It's difficult for me to stick to a low-carb regimen right now, but I have made an honest effort to cut back on carbohydrates and sugar. The results: - I lost about 10 lbs without much of an effort (and my BMI was 27 before, so my fat reserves are not that abundant) - I'm not so tired after eating anymore. - I don't feel so insatiable anymore. Meat and vegetables will saturate me much faster than white bread and pasta. I'll need a more long-term commitment and a stricter regimen to really evaluate the quality of this diet; however, what I've seen so far pleases me, and the fact that all government-financed diet guides seem to demonize this way of eating only makes it so much more attractive.
Giant_Joe: also doesn't seem practical if it ever became popular on a mass scale. I thought about that, too. But for every 50 people that expressed some interest and didn't outright oppose it, only about 1 would give it a shot. It takes discipline, and people hate practising that. what aspects of the diet have you guys adapted? seems pretty intense. On Dr. Harris' blog, there is a section called "Get Started". Ideally, I'd like to follow all the "steps" but I've been following 1-8, 10 and 11 for the most part. From middle of January to end of March, I maybe violated any of those steps once or twice. This past month has been terrible for me, though. It's hard for me too keep it up with all the bullying by people around me to "try to eat healthy". People are so misinformed. :(
what kinds of things do you eat if your not eating all the banned foods? Do you miss the carbs? My guess is that your food costs have gone up?
I certainly don't expect this type of diet to become popular, but that is probably a good thing. I don't think that there would be enough food to go around if demand suddenly switched to this type of diet.
I thought the bit about genes was very interesting. How your genes don't really care about your health, especially later in life. It would certainly make a lot more sense from the point of view of your genes if you were able to live long enough to raise a whole bunch of children on cheap food, keeping them 'healthy enough' to be able to have and raise children of their own.
Not to sound cheesy, but this means a lot to me. Of all the people I've talked to in person and on the Internet, you're the first to tell me that you've actually given it a shot and have seen some decent results/positive effects. It's almost as nice as planting a seed of doubt in a person about the legitimacy of government, and seeing them draw their own conclusions from it as that seed grows. :)
Well, I am likewise glad that this was posted here. A large part of it probably has to do with the fact that I am already a radical libertarian. The concept of both is very simple. Humans aren't adapted to eating food that comes in boxes. Having already investigated the epistemological foundations of anti-libertarian and mainstream economist claims, the poor science behind USDA dietary guidelines is easy for me to see.
You look really different than the last avatar pic, but that could just be the beard missing. I lift weights still at least once a week, but I walk at least 1-2 miles per day and hike further or rock climb on the weekends.
-----
what kinds of things do you eat if your not eating all the banned foods?
Meat, fish, non-starchy veggies, cheese, cream, nuts, berries, butter and coconut oil instead of plant oils, cod liver oil and Vit D3 supplements. I enjoy cooking and still come up with plenty of variety. Anyhow, it isn't like I haven't cheated or plan to be orthodox.
Do you miss the carbs?
It takes the body like a week to adjust. There is no way that I would go back to eating how I did. I've read some say that after not eating sugar so long you start sensing the natural sweetness in things you wouldn't before.
My guess is that your food costs have gone up?
It isn't a concern to me. You can get by fairly well on the cheap too. Take cod liver oil to balance the omega 6:3 ratio if you eat grain fed beef.
Maybe, but there are too many statists in the world anyhow. I say let them eat cake. =)
Food costs are about the same, actually. The boxed stuff can be pricey. Cereal used to be a staple of mine. I pretty much eat all meat (except poultry because I don't like it) and vegetables. I'll drink a bit of cream at the end of meal with either omega-3 and vit-D supplements. The cream is rich in fat and helps to "top off" my stomach so to speak, as to not feel hunger for another 6-8 hours or so.
Fasting 24 hours on this diet is easy. No change in energy levels or anything. Makes a lot of sense to me why that would happen and it's quite astounding. I don't have to worry about planning my day around meals. That's a big bonus.
And yes, I miss all sorts of food. Mostly pastries and things with wheat in them. Sugary things not so much. I've been pretty bad about breaking the diet this past month, though. I think I'm going to try to be as orthodox as I can on the diet for the month of May. I'm mostly interested in seeing what happens to my body and if I'll like it.
You look really different than the last avatar pic, but that could just be the beard missing.
That and about 50 pounds. :p
I was never into watching what you eat, but some time ago this was linked to at LRC and it "blew my mind". Since then I try not to eat fructosis and if possible sugar.
It's great to see that people here are aware of this and enjoying success from applying the principles. Fat Head is a great documentary to introduce people to these ideas, and the maker is libertarian to boot!
@Marko: Lustig's lecture is a good start, but definitely check out paleonu.com, he argues that there are 3 major agents of disease: sugar, vegetable oils, and grain.
I don't think that there would be enough food to go around if demand suddenly switched to this type of diet.
Well, profits will rise, production will increase, and economies of scale will lower costs and ultimately price. So it will only be a technological problem if we run out of pasture land. I'm sure entrepreneurs will solve that problem in the face of large profits. Furthermore, Lierre Keith, author of The Vegetarian Myth, points out that agriculture is unsustainable because it destroys the soil (through plowing). She argues for pastured animals as a long-term sustainable (and healthy) food source.
Food costs are generally higher on paleo, simply because higher quality foods cost more. But it can be cheaper since everyone avoids fat, keeping the price low. Paleos eat a lot of fat and can get most of their calories from fat.
Glad I found this thread. I've been doing the Paleo thing for 2-3 years and have never looked back.
I would highly recommend http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ . Mark Sisson takes the paleo idea even further that just what you are eating. He touches on topics of diet, sleep, excercise (very interesting), exposure to sunlight, and others. His book Primal Blueprint is an excellent primer to the "primal" lifestyle.
To address a point of a previous post:
Is it expensive/sustainable to eat this way? It will certainly save you money in the long run if it prevents the medical costs associated with the many diseases of civilization. This thinking gives you a whole new outlook on why socialized medicine is so fu%#ed up: You have to pay for the consequences of other people's poor food choices.
He argues that bad science is rampant in the fields of nutrition and obesity.
Every half-wit makes that observation of his own field because it true of all.
^Taubes is actually a journalist with degrees/background in chemistry/biology. He got interested in nutrition later in his career.
I have a scan of a 1986 article Taubes wrote on string theory if anyone is interested. These are two articles related to nutrition from NYT too: link link
I was 230 pounds and got down to 155 in 5 months purely through exercise, determination and minimal dieting. Portioning food is the best way to diet, it teaches you self control and keeps you from starving yourself. I didn't eat too many sweets, but most of it is just genetics (my mother's side has a lot of obesity based health issues), poor metabolism, and occasional extra eatings. Exercise sometimes seems to be the elephant in the room to a lot of these weight loss programs. The easiest part was the initial weight loss. Losing weight for obese people is a real battle with your own head. When you start losing a lot of weight, your body sometimes demands you to eat extra to compensate.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I have not read the book, but I am glad you raised this topic as I think it is extremely relevent to the arguments in favor of freedom and Austrian economics. Like most other industries, the food and medical industries in America have been severely distorted by government intervention, and more importantly by the partnership between government and big business. For example, large phameceutical companies spend millions of dollars lobbying the government at the expense of natural and alternative medicine. Think about it: the FDA will never approve a food, plant, or other natural substance for the treatment of disease, because it's much more difficult to make a profit on something from nature. Instead, drug companies take a natural substance with health benefits, figure out how to make a synthetic replica, patent the replica, and then market the result as a "miracle pill" that will prevent heart disease, lower cholesterol, fight obesity, etc. Not only is the drug less effective than the original natural medicine, but it can cause more harm than good in the form of side effects (just listen to the end of any viagra commerical).
In the arena of food and nutrition, the partnership between government and big agriculture has equally harmful effects. For example, corn subsidies ensure that corn finds it's way into every food imaginable in the standard American diet - think of all the places you see "high fructose corn syrup." Not only does corn syrup promote weight gain more than say, sugar cane, it is also a highly allergic food. Many people develop chronic allergies to common foods like corn, wheat, dairy, soy, and eggs without even realizing it, because they eat these foods every day and are in a sense "addicted" to them as one might be addicted to nicotine. This chronic allergy promotes obesity, arthritis, chronic headaches, depression, and a myriad of other "unexplained" systems. So what happens? Doctors say "it's all in your head," and send the difficult patient to a psychiatrist, where he will be convinced to take more drugs.
I believe the answer to America's health problems is simply to take the Austrian approach: respect freedom-of-choice, let the market work, and GET GOVERNMENT OUT. If natural medicine was actually allowed to compete with "mainstream" medicine, our medical system would be turned upside down and the "quacks" would be those who think that synthetic drugs promote health and that diet and nutrition do not matter.
I agree that it's a myth that fat - animal or otherwise - is the main cause of obesity. In fact, I would argue that the lack of healthy fats, like those found in fish, nuts, and seeds contributes to obesity. The "caloric intake" hypothesis is way to general to have much meaning, so I'm glad someone is refuting it. I agree wholeheartedly that bad science is rampant in the fields of nutrition and obesity. For the good science, check out the work of Linus Pauling, the father of orthomolecular medicine. In the 1960s, he discovered that high doses of certain vitamins could correct brain imbalances and cure schizophrenia. Today, orthomolecular doctors treat everything from cancer to infectious disease by using natural substances (food, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fatty acids) to correct individual body chemistry imbalances.
Sorry for the rant, but I am very passionate about health freedom!
Orthomolecular medicine: http://www.orthomed.org/
Environmental medicine: http://www.aaemonline.org/
I have been on a Paleo-inspired diet for the last 3 months. I have lost 35 pounds!
I wonder if there are enough Paleo followers to create our own group on this site?