Four Light Notes

Friday, July 30, 2010

Good Calories, Bad Calories

I started reading Gary Taubes's Good Calories, Bad Calories recently. I will only get to read this in pieces, and may not finish it for a few months, but I have been pleasantly surprised (and in more than one sense, even relieved) to have found it to be much better than I expected.

My regard for the general state of knowledge in the science of nutrition has been, to put it, in G-rated terms, extremely low, and I have not made a habit of hiding that contempt in the past. Astonishingly, the first third of the book shows that the field (or at least much of what passes as its conventional wisdom) has been even more of a mess than I suspected. Furthermore, what you don't know about this can hurt you.

In addition, this book provides a good case history of how government interference in science can cause mistaken theories to become medical orthodoxy, and provides a look at some aspects of how science is done, which is to say, more messily in some respects than many people realize.

I recommend the book, because, even without finishing it, I have realized value from it. That said, I must stress that I have not finished it, and want to be clear that this recommendation is not a comment, good or bad, on the positive arguments Taubes takes up later. I may discuss these if I find myself strongly agreeing with or strongly disagreeing with him once I am finished with the book.

I will say that even if I do find myself strongly disagreeing with some aspect of Taubes's positive argument, that this is the best work about nutrition that I have ever encountered.

I thank Monica Hughes and Diana Hsieh for bringing this book to my attention.

Old Idiom, Whole New Meaning

Reader Dismuke tips me off to an amusing story about a letter arriving by post seventy-three years after it was sent.

The likeliest explanation (though not the only one): The letter made it to Stockton's main post office, which then was in the Federal Building, 401 N. San Joaquin St.

It fell into a crack, and there, a mere two blocks south of its destination, it stayed for seven decades.

"Back then, all the letters were handled manually," Ruiz said. "If you can imagine a floor full of cases similar to what Ben Franklin used to work with, pigeonholes, that's how mail was sorted back then."

The post office moved out of the Federal Building in 2008. The building has undergone remodeling. Perhaps the letter popped out and someone dropped it in a mailbox, Ruiz theorized.
Unsurprisingly, both the sender and the recipient were already dead.

Hudson's Baked Tilapia

We enjoyed this simple recipe for baked tilapia and a sauce last week. As usual, I rewrote it as follows:
Preparation Time is 30 minutes.

Ingredients

lemon, 1
tilapia, 4 4oz. filets
pepper to taste
Tony Chachere's, 1 tbsp
mayonnaise, 1/4 cup
sour cream, 1/2 cup
garlic powder, 1/8 tsp
lemon juice, 1 tsp
dill, 2 tbsp

Directions

1. In parallel with the next two steps, preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Place tinfoil on a baking sheet and lightly grease.

2. Thinly slice lemon.

3. Season the tilapia fillets with pepper and Tony Crachere's on both sides. Arrange the seasoned fillets in a single layer in the baking dish. Place a layer of lemon slices over the fish fillets.

4. In parallel with the next step, bake uncovered for 15 to 20 minutes in the preheated oven, or until fish flakes easily with a fork.

5. Prepare the sauce by combining and mixing the mayonnaise, sour cream, garlic powder, lemon juice, and dill.

6. Serve tilapia with sauce.
I love fish, and the fact that we live a block away from the grocer means that we can enjoy it more often than we used to.

Weyerbacher Simcoe Double IPA

Some weeks ago, my wife and I visited with some of her coworkers in the South End, where I noticed a large (for my general area in Boston) beer and wine emporium. I made a mental note of it and visited yesterday on my daily walk. I was rewarded by finding a beer I had once, something like five years ago, at a brewing club meeting back in Houston.
Double Simcoe IPA, 9.0% abv, is our incredible reward for Hopheads seeking the intense hop flavor in a Double IPA, without the harshness. It is brewed untilizing only the Simcoe hop variety. This hybrid hop, developed and trademarked by Select Botanicals Group, LLC in the year 2000, was created for its high alpha acid content, maximum aromatic oils, and low cohumulone(harshness) levels so that brewers can really put a lot of 'em in a beer and not create an overly harsh taste.

Double Simcoe IPA is a full-flavored ale with hints of pineapple and citrus upfront, a good malt backbone in the middle, and a clean finish that doesn't linger too long. Check it out, and you'll soon see why everyone's talking about it. Double Simcoe is available year-round.

Named 2006 "PA Beer of the Year" by Beer Author Lew Bryson, at www.LewBryson.com.
All I'd remembered was the name "Simcoe" and the fact that the hop taste was quite distinctive. It'll be nice to be able to crack one of those open once in a while.

-- CAV

19 comments:

Burgess Laughlin said...

As you know, reading criticisms of a book -- or its author -- can add insights to one's own reading, especially if the subject is outside one's own area expertise. Your readers might appreciate a link to a partial summary of reviews.

Here is an article by a writer who is a supporter of Taubes's book, GCBC, but has the courtesy to list negative as well as positive reviews of the book:

http://www.why-low-carb-diets-work.com/good-calories-bad-calories.html

Gus Van Horn said...

Burgess,

Many thanks. Although I have training in the biological sciences, I would place myself firmly in the camp of those for whom, "the subject is outside one's own area of expertise." I will find these helpful as well.

Gus

mtnrunner2 said...

I greatly enjoyed Taubes' book. It's a real eye-opener.

Overall, I was impressed with his methodical, seemingly impartial approach, logic, and detail. I was kind of amazed that a book on dietary policy could be so engrossing.

Anonymous said...

Hi Gus,
I used to pick up the mail for a local business from their PO Box and deliver it to their physical address.

One day in 1999 I was pulling the mail out when something caught my eye - but it took another handful of mail before I realized what it was.

A piece of mail had been postmarked from a small town west of here in September of 1991. Took it 8 years to go about 40 miles. No clue as to the delay although the back of the envelope did have part of a footprint on it.

C. Andrew

Gus Van Horn said...

Jeff,

I agree that he's a good writer, and that what he writes is well-organized and logical.

I have no trouble believing how goofed up government nutritional advice is, but I'm iffy about his positive argument. Parts of it sound good, others not so much. But I'm leaving it at that for now.

C.,

40 miles divided by eight years is ... 0.2 cm/s. An actual snail travels at 1.3 cm/s, or an entire order of magnitude faster!

Thanks for sharing that one!

Gus

Steve D said...

“Astonishingly, the first third of the book shows that the field (or at least much of what passes as its conventional wisdom) has been even more of a mess than I suspected.”

Certainly, part of the problem is that nutrition is an extremely complex subject which is often treated as much less complex and therefore is not given the depth of thought that it deserves. Because of this in many cases the proper information necessary to make conclusions is simply not there. However, similar to other scientific problems at least some familiarity with primary literature will be useful, at the very least for evaluating claims made in books and reviews.

One of the most noticeable attributes of medical and nutritional studies is the very large variation in responses between individuals. This is not commonly discussed and is part and parcel of the oversimplification of a complex subject. So a drug (or a diet) which works well and/or is healthy for an individual may have a completely a different effect in another individual. This may explain why a nutrition regimen which works well for one person may simply be inappropriate for another.

The best nutritional advice I would give is that there is no substitute for experimentation. (works well in other areas of life as well). There are some principles which seem to be understood well enough that they can at least serve as good starting point.

Gus Van Horn said...

"However, similar to other scientific problems at least some familiarity with primary literature will be useful, at the very least for evaluating claims made in books and reviews."

I completely agree with that point.

I'm in excellent health and abstemious by nature already, so I am not really looking for advice so much as curious about (1) what the hubbub is about, and (2) exploring some issues related to induction, such as thresholds by which one decides a question is an issue meriting attention.

And if I eventually learn something solid about nutrition along the way, then good.

Steve D said...

“I am not really looking for advice so much as curious about (1) what the hubbub is about”

Yes, I understand and my ‘advice’ is meant only to further the point about the complexity and the individual nature of the subject.

This reminds me a lot of our conversation around AGW. We have the same fundamental issues of bad science; over interpretation of data, misinterpretation of data, poorly thought out hypotheses, the streetlight effect, problems with proxy measurements, variability of data etc. I will say though that there are major difficulties in designing and interpreting this kind of data. It is not just corruption. I am sure real complexity along with a healthy dose of incompetence is also involved.

Steve D said...

“exploring some issues related to induction, such as thresholds by which one decides a question is an issue meriting attention.”

I would like to hear your thoughts on this sometime because I think this is an important point. There are different reasons why an issue might be worthy of attention. Even if the issue by itself doesn’t merit attention, it may be useful as an example of a more general issue which is worthy of attention.

Gus Van Horn said...

Steve,

Yes. This subject IS a lot like AGW. You have the usual difficulties inherent in reaching any kind of a conclusion in a given scientific field, and yet each of these topics is also interdisciplinary, which, as this AGW primer (by a skeptic) indicates, means that you have to be pretty sure about multiple lines of argument to really get anywhere.

I'm holding off on my thoughts about induction for now, but they are quite interesting.

Gus

Monica said...

Hi Gus, interesting stuff. Did I really recommend Taubes? I don't remember it! :)

There is enormous value in this book. Ultimately, I have come to disagree with the main thrust of his work, which is that carbohydrates are a problem per se. I totally agree with your assessment that it is a very eye opening work on how nutritional science has been done, and it would be a shame if people did not read the book because they feel that the goal of it is to push one particular diet onto people. Taubes is a very honest guy who admits at the end of the book (little spoiler) that the carbohydrate hypothesis is by no means proven. He's basically simply pleading for more objectivity from the government and the research community it funds.

Personally, I haven't determined yet exactly which approach works best for me in terms of macronutrient ratios. Decreasing the refined carbohydrates and eliminating wheat has done remarkable things for my mood and overall sense of well-being, but it hasn't helped me lose much weight. I suspect that there's far more to the overall health picture than "carbs drive insulin drives fat", including the effect of specific foods (not just a macronutrient) on hormones, micronutrient status, gut microbiota, etc. I'm quite sure Taubes would be open to these ideas, however. His book is obviously restricted in scope to macronutrient ratios because it had to be. If he addressed issues of different types of carbohydrates, different types of fatty acids, micronutrient status, or gut microflora, his book would have had to be 4000 pages long and it would not yet be published. His writing on carbohydrates and fats is exceptionally well-researched, and I would love to see what Taubes could do with other aspects of nutritional science that are just as much of a mess.

Overall, I think gut dysfunction can play a major role not just in obesity but in other modern metabolic problems and diseases. Excessive gut irritating substances such as gluten are associated with a host of autoimmune diseases, lots of refined carbs throw off bacterial growth because of the lack of fiber, and omega-6:3 imbalance from refined seed oils may throw off the intestinal balance as well, I think. Around 60% of American diet comes from micronutrient deficient, refined foods (white flour, sugar, and refined seed oils), rather than whole foods such as meats, veggies, nuts, fruits, eggs, and the like, which are all micronutrient dense. None of these things Taubes mentions much but I think micronutrient status could be a big part of the health picture.

Monica said...

Overall, I think gut dysfunction can play a major role not just in obesity but in other modern metabolic problems and diseases. Excessive gut irritating substances such as gluten are associated with a host of autoimmune diseases, lots of refined carbs throw off bacterial growth because of the lack of fiber, and omega-6:3 imbalance from refined seed oils may throw off the intestinal balance as well, I think. Around 60% of American diet comes from micronutrient deficient, refined foods (white flour, sugar, and refined seed oils), rather than whole foods such as meats, veggies, nuts, fruits, eggs, and the like, which are all micronutrient dense. None of these things Taubes mentions much but I think micronutrient status could be a big part of the health picture.

One thing that does bother me about the "low carb"ers is something you have mentioned before, and that is the tendency to myopically focus on a single macronutrient. There are reasons that carbohydrate restriction works for people who are metabolically deranged, but it doesn't mean that carbohydrate per se caused the metabolic derangement, which can take so many different forms. I wonder what Taubes would say about that. Refined carbohydrates tend to be from specific food sources in the west, particularly wheat and corn. I'm not so sure that refined rice or tapioca flours would be nearly as harmful.

One big problem for Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis is the existence of a number of primitive cultures in excellent health (no tooth decay, no western diseases) on relatively high carb diets. Of course, fiber is turned into butyrate in the gut by bacteria, and butyrate helps decrease gut permeability and inflammation. It also technically increases the percentage of a person's caloric intake from fats since butyrate is a short chain saturated fat. So, these cultures are still getting around 30% of their calories from fat even though what goes into their mouth is only 20% of calories from fat.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth!, after reading a number of other good works on the matter, is that if a person can cut out refined foods (chief on the list as flours, sugars, and seed oils) that alone will get them a long way toward good health, regardless of macronutrients (especially if they are not already obese or Type II diabetic). One thing Taubes does not mention, which is an enormous health problem, is the omega 6:3 imbalance of fatty acids in the American diet. I'm confident, though, that Taubes must know this by now. The food industry and the pharmaceutical industry definitely know it! :) All their NSAIDS are designed to decrease excessive omega 6 signalling. Even better effects could be gained in patients by having them cut down on omega 6 and increasing omega 3 than by popping the NSAIDS. The fact that most docs are ignorant of this is a crime (even if patient compliance could be a big part of the problem, people should have all the options, especially when they are better than what is routinely thrown on the table).

I believe this is why people seem to be able to dramatically improve their health by cutting out "junk food", despite whether the diet is low carb or low fat. I think it's specific types of carbohydrate containing foods (and their associated proteins) and omega 6 overload that is the real problem.

If you are looking for some more reading, Food and Western Disease by Staffan Lindeberg is excellent. I don't agree with all of the conclusions in that book, either, but it's exceptionally well-referenced. There are over 2000 references.

We'd love to have you on OEvolve if you want to search the archives and do a shortcut in terms of finding good sources on this matter.

Monica said...

Overall, I think gut dysfunction can play a major role not just in obesity but in other modern metabolic problems and diseases. Excessive gut irritating substances such as gluten are associated with a host of autoimmune diseases, lots of refined carbs throw off bacterial growth because of the lack of fiber, and omega-6:3 imbalance from refined seed oils may throw off the intestinal balance as well, I think. Around 60% of American diet comes from micronutrient deficient, refined foods (white flour, sugar, and refined seed oils), rather than whole foods such as meats, veggies, nuts, fruits, eggs, and the like, which are all micronutrient dense. None of these things Taubes mentions much but I think micronutrient status could be a big part of the health picture.

One thing that does bother me about the "low carb"ers is something you have mentioned before, and that is the tendency to myopically focus on a single macronutrient. There are reasons that carbohydrate restriction works for people who are metabolically deranged, but it doesn't mean that carbohydrate per se caused the metabolic derangement, which can take so many different forms. I wonder what Taubes would say about that. Refined carbohydrates tend to be from specific food sources in the west, particularly wheat and corn. I'm not so sure that refined rice or tapioca flours would be nearly as harmful.

One big problem for Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis is the existence of a number of primitive cultures in excellent health (no tooth decay, no western diseases) on relatively high carb diets. Of course, fiber is turned into butyrate in the gut by bacteria, and butyrate helps decrease gut permeability and inflammation. It also technically increases the percentage of a person's caloric intake from fats since butyrate is a short chain saturated fat. So, these cultures are still getting around 30% of their calories from fat even though what goes into their mouth is only 20% of calories from fat.

Monica said...

Overall, I think gut dysfunction can play a major role not just in obesity but in other modern metabolic problems and diseases. Excessive gut irritating substances such as gluten are associated with a host of autoimmune diseases, lots of refined carbs throw off bacterial growth because of the lack of fiber, and omega-6:3 imbalance from refined seed oils may throw off the intestinal balance as well, I think. Around 60% of American diet comes from micronutrient deficient, refined foods (white flour, sugar, and refined seed oils), rather than whole foods such as meats, veggies, nuts, fruits, eggs, and the like, which are all micronutrient dense. None of these things Taubes mentions much but I think micronutrient status could be a big part of the health picture.

One thing that does bother me about the "low carb"ers is something you have mentioned before, and that is the tendency to myopically focus on a single macronutrient. There are reasons that carbohydrate restriction works for people who are metabolically deranged, but it doesn't mean that carbohydrate per se caused the metabolic derangement, which can take so many different forms. I wonder what Taubes would say about that. Refined carbohydrates tend to be from specific food sources in the west, particularly wheat and corn. I'm not so sure that refined rice or tapioca flours would be nearly as harmful.

Monica said...

One big problem for Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis is the existence of a number of primitive cultures in excellent health (no tooth decay, no western diseases) on relatively high carb diets. Of course, fiber is turned into butyrate in the gut by bacteria, and butyrate helps decrease gut permeability and inflammation. It also technically increases the percentage of a person's caloric intake from fats since butyrate is a short chain saturated fat. So, these cultures are still getting around 30% of their calories from fat even though what goes into their mouth is only 20% of calories from fat.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth!, after reading a number of other good works on the matter, is that if a person can cut out refined foods (chief on the list as flours, sugars, and seed oils) that alone will get them a long way toward good health, regardless of macronutrients (especially if they are not already obese or Type II diabetic). One thing Taubes does not mention, which is an enormous health problem, is the omega 6:3 imbalance of fatty acids in the American diet. I'm confident, though, that Taubes must know this by now. The food industry and the pharmaceutical industry definitely know it! :) All their NSAIDS are designed to decrease excessive omega 6 signalling. Even better effects could be gained in patients by having them cut down on omega 6 and increasing omega 3 than by popping the NSAIDS. The fact that most docs are ignorant of this is a crime (even if patient compliance could be a big part of the problem, people should have all the options, especially when they are better than what is routinely thrown on the table).

I believe this is why people seem to be able to dramatically improve their health by cutting out "junk food", despite whether the diet is low carb or low fat. I think it's specific types of carbohydrate containing foods (and their associated proteins) and omega 6 overload that is the real problem.

If you are looking for some more reading, Food and Western Disease by Staffan Lindeberg is excellent. I don't agree with all of the conclusions in that book, either, but it's exceptionally well-referenced. There are over 2000 references.

We'd love to have you on OEvolve if you want to search the archives and do a shortcut in terms of finding good sources on this matter.

Best!

Monica said...

One big problem for Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis is the existence of a number of primitive cultures in excellent health (no tooth decay, no western diseases) on relatively high carb diets. Of course, fiber is turned into butyrate in the gut by bacteria, and butyrate helps decrease gut permeability and inflammation. It also technically increases the percentage of a person's caloric intake from fats since butyrate is a short chain saturated fat. So, these cultures are still getting around 30% of their calories from fat even though what goes into their mouth is only 20% of calories from fat.

My personal opinion, for what it's worth!, after reading a number of other good works on the matter, is that if a person can cut out refined foods (chief on the list as flours, sugars, and seed oils) that alone will get them a long way toward good health, regardless of macronutrients (especially if they are not already obese or Type II diabetic). One thing Taubes does not mention, which is an enormous health problem, is the omega 6:3 imbalance of fatty acids in the American diet. I'm confident, though, that Taubes must know this by now. The food industry and the pharmaceutical industry definitely know it! :) All their NSAIDS are designed to decrease excessive omega 6 signalling. Even better effects could be gained in patients by having them cut down on omega 6 and increasing omega 3 than by popping the NSAIDS. The fact that most docs are ignorant of this is a crime (even if patient compliance could be a big part of the problem, people should have all the options, especially when they are better than what is routinely thrown on the table).

Monica said...

I believe this is why people seem to be able to dramatically improve their health by cutting out "junk food", despite whether the diet is low carb or low fat. I think it's specific types of carbohydrate containing foods (and their associated proteins) and omega 6 overload that is the real problem.

If you are looking for some more reading, Food and Western Disease by Staffan Lindeberg is excellent. I don't agree with all of the conclusions in that book, either, but it's exceptionally well-referenced. There are over 2000 references.

We'd love to have you on OEvolve if you want to search the archives and do a shortcut in terms of finding good sources on this matter.

Best!

Gus Van Horn said...

Hi Monica,

Good to hear from you. No. You didn't actually recommend this to me, now that I think of it.

It's interesting to me that you disagree with Taubes's main thrust on carbohydrates and insulin. I can see excessive amounts of refined sugars/wheat causing problems, but am far from being sold on his hypothesis. (It rubbed me the wrong way when he first presented it, but I wonder whether he'll fill in some detail on that later, so I'm waiting to see.

One thing this book has made me aware of is how much most other people gorge themselves on that stuff. I have, out of curiosity, begun to tabulate refined carbohydrates per serving in things I typically make. (Typically, it's rice.) It may or may not be as low as you would recommend (I'm assuming you're overall a low-carbohydrate person), but it's far less than most other people seem to eat.

And I'm reluctant to change anything. I feel fine, don't notice crashes or anything like I hear others reporting, and my weight is stable (and has been my entire adult life). I do wonder whether I'd be the rare bird to gain (See fifth paragraph.) on a low(er)-carbohydrate diet. This would not necessarily be good, though, given that I have an excessive curvature of my spine.

In any event, it's an interesting read in a field that, though it fascinates you, I see as a quagmire.

Thanks for stopping by.

Gus

Gus Van Horn said...

Monica,

Oh, and I found three other comments of yours in my queue this morning that should have gone up last night (rather than the one (which I think was your last). Also, it looks like this all may have been one huge comment that got badly truncated somehow, as parts of its different parts repeat each other.

Just a few BRIEF replies to a few things.

I find the idea that some foods can be implicated in molecular mimickry (I assume this is the mechanism, and that you're saying that proteins are being exposed to the immune system via a faulty or disrupted GI tract.) an attractive hypothesis, although it might be tricky to prove and might not apply to all such diseases. (e.g., I read of a woman who suspected her MS was caused by egg nog consumption since her attacks came around the holidays every year and she went into remission after cutting eggs, which she never ate otherwise, (and many other things) out of her diet. But MS is notoriously unpredictable and has been known to strike a few times, never to return. And there are many other things that could plausibly cause the same thing to happen. OTOH, if my smattering of knowledge is correct, there is no doubt that wheat's (via gluten) isinvolved in celiac disease.) I like the theory, but see it as possibly also subject to myopia (at least on the part of laymen) by focusing too much on food.

Yes. One thing that hasn't been lost on me has been the existence of various tribes that have consumed high carbohydrate diets without the various health problems Taubes associates with them. It's interesting to hear your take on that.

Okay. That's it for now.

Gus