Okay, so you tried to get your Aunt Martha to read Good Calories, Bad Calories before she joined Weight Watchers for the 13th time, but she handed it back after two weeks and said she couldn’t get through it. That’s no knock on Aunt Martha. GCBC is a ground-breaking book, but heavy on science and therefore not an easy read. I remember reading some sections three times before I felt I’d fully grasped them.
A lot of us who did enjoy the book were nonetheless hoping Gary Taubes would write a follow-up that would essentially be Good Calories, Bad Calories Lite: reads great, less taxing. Apparently Taubes had the same idea, because eventually he announced he was working on a consumer-level book that would focus mostly on weight gain and loss — which, like it or not, is probably the topic that most motivates people to read up on nutrition. (Cancer? Yeah, yeah. Diabetes? Whatever. Just tell me how to get rid of all this flab, already!)
The new book, Why We Get Fat And What to Do About It, was in the box of mail waiting for us when we returned from Christmas vacation, and I read the whole thing in a couple of weekend afternoons. That is, of course, exactly what I was hoping for: a book I can recommend to people who want to learn some of the science behind weight loss, but whose eyes glaze over if you hand them a 500-page heavyweight.
Why We Get Fat is just over 200 pages. But reading 200 pages of this book isn’t like reading 200 pages of Good Calories, Bad Calories. A lot of the same science is there, but Taubes went to great lengths to explain it as simply as possible. He uses more examples and analogies than in GCBC, and the writing style is less academic and more conversational. Here’s a sample paragraph:
The correct way to think about fat tissue is that it’s more like a wallet than a savings or retirement account. You’re always putting fat into it, and you’re always taking fat out. You get a tiny bit fatter (more fat goes into our fat cells than comes out) during and after every meal, and then you get a tiny bit leaner again (the opposite occurs) after the meal is digested. And you get leaner still while sleeping.
Even when it’s necessary to delve into a bit of biochemistry to explain a concept, the language is simple and direct:
The fact that fat is flowing into and out of our fat cells all day long, though, doesn’t explain how the cells decide what fat gets to come and go, and what fat has no choice and is locked away inside. This decision is made very simply, based on the form of the fat. The fat in our bodies exists in two different forms that serve entirely different purposes. Fat flows in and out of cells in the form of molecules called “fatty acids”; this is also the form we burn for fuel. We store fat in the form of molecules called “triglycerides,” which are composed of three fatty acids (“tri-“) bound together by a molecule of glycerol (“glyceride”).
The reason for this role distribution is again surprisingly simple: triglycerides are too big to flow through the membranes that surround every cell, whereas fatty acids are small enough to slip through cell membranes with relative ease, and so they do. Flowing back and forth, in and out of fat cells all day long, they can be burned for fuel whenever needed. Triglycerides are the form in which fat is fixed inside fat cells, stashed away for future use. For this reason, the triglycerides first have to be constructed inside a fat cell (the technical term is “esterification”) from their component fatty acids, which is what happens.
There’s even a drawing accompanying that paragraph to clarify the process further.
Since the book focuses on weight gain and loss, many of the topics covered in Good Calories, Bad Calories — cancer, dietary fiber, Ancel Keys, the McGovern committee, Alzheimer’s, diabetes — either don’t make an appearance or are discussed only briefly. Taubes does cover the Lipid Hypothesis, but mostly for the sake of assuring readers it isn’t supported by the scientific evidence, which means we can swap fat for carbohydrates in our diets without inducing heart disease.
After the introduction, Why We Get Fat explains what didn’t make us fat: prosperity leading to gluttony and sloth. Obesity has been common among populations who were poor beyond our imaginations, even among those who worked long hours at manual-labor jobs. The scientific research shows that exercise may be good for our overall health, but does little to help us shed excess body fat. And of course, low-calorie diets have an abysmal track record — even the obesity “experts” who promote them admit as much in private. In other words, after 200 years of our existence as a nation we didn’t — in one generation, mind you — become fatter because we decided that since we’re well-off now, we should start eating too much and moving too little.
For those who never bothered to read Good Calories, Bad Calories and believe Taubes failed to consider the laws of physics when writing it (which would be pretty strange, since he has a degree in physics and a master’s in aerospace engineering), there’s a section titled Thermodynamics For Dummies, broken into two chapters. Considering that he’s been lectured on the laws of thermodynamics by jocks with certificates as “personal trainers,” I’m guessing he smiled when he named those chapters. There’s nothing in the hypothesis he presented in Good Calories, Bad Calories (or in this book) that would require energy to magically disappear. I’ll write about that in an upcoming post.
From there, Taubes moves on to explain what he calls the alternative hypothesis: hormones tell our bodies to store more fat, and our bodies listen, whether we like it or not. Most of what he covers here was included in Good Calories, Bad Calories, but now it’s presented in an easy-to-understand section titled Adiposity 101, which makes up the majority of the book. You already know the basics — the wrong quantity or quality of carbohydrates drives up insulin, which drives fat storage — so I won’t go into detail here. For the details, buy the book.
I was pleased to discover a fair amount of new information in Why We Get Fat as well. Taubes includes some recent studies, and writes quite a bit more about the biological effects of consuming too much fructose. He also takes a bit of a paleo perspective in one chapter, discussing what we can learn from the diets of the 229 hunter-gatherer societies anthropologists were able to examine before civilization moved in. (Bottom line: heavy on meats and organ foods, and the fattier, the better.)
I was also pleased to see that throughout the book, Taubes pounds home a message that needs to find its way into the brains of public-health activists, doctors, and government busybodies: Obesity isn’t about character. It’s about biochemistry. We aren’t going turn fat people into thin people by shaming them, shoving calorie counts in their faces, or building more bike paths near their homes.
Most obese people hate being fat and have tried many times to lose weight. As Taubes points out, if shedding excess body fat were really as simple as cutting 100 calories per day, pretty much every fat person would do it. The trouble is, most of them have done it, only to find it didn’t work. Meanwhile, people who’ve never been fat and regularly eat until they’re full expect obese people to spend the rest of lives feeling half-starved so they can become lean.
But of course, the message of Why We Get Fat is that we don’t have to spend our lives feeling starved or horsewhip ourselves into jogging every day to fix the biochemical imbalances that make us fat:
We’ve been told for so long, and believed for so long, that a fundamental requirement for weight loss is to eat less than we’d like, and for weight maintenance that we eat in moderation, that it’s natural to assume the same is true when we restrict carbohydrates …
It’s true that people who restrict carbohydrates often eat less than they otherwise might. A common experience is to give up fattening carbohydrates and find that you’re not as hungry as you used to be, that mid-morning snacks are no longer necessary. But that’s because you’re now burning your fat stores for fuel, which you didn’t do before. Your fat cells are now working properly as short-term energy buffers, not long-term lockups for the calories they’ve sequestered.
Note to the celebrity personal-trainers who never got around to tackling the chapter in Good Calories, Bad Calories about energy balance and thermodynamics: read the paragraph above again. Nothing in it says calories magically disappear on a low-carb diet.
Although Why We Get Fat is mostly a consumer-level look at the science of weight gain and loss and not a diet book per se, the appendix does spell out a low-carb diet that was originally designed by the Lifestyle Medicine Clinic at Duke University. It so happens that clinic is run by Dr. Eric Westman, one of the three doctors who wrote the latest Atkins diet book.
So in fact, you could read this book to understand why you may need to change your diet, then refer to the appendix for ideas on how to implement those changes (although I still think you’ll want to pick up a good low-carb cookbook). But just as importantly, this is the book you can give to people who want to understand the science of why you’re finally losing weight … without being hungry and miserable doing it.
If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.
I just began reading the new book yesterday, and am enjoying it. Of course a lot is familiar since I’ve read GCBC three times. Unfortunately I think this new book is *still* way too technical for the people I’d most like to reach with the message. I don’t think any of them would get past chapter one.
I suppose there’s a limit to how much you can simplify the science, but I found this version much easier to read.
Y’know what kinda sucks? (This is totally off topic.) But I love the Penn and Teller BS show. They talk about major issues and debunk them with science and government bias and all that. When it comes to diets, he asks a doctor about atkins and he says ketosis is a dangerous state of starvation. =/ Hello?!
Yeah, I had that same reaction. Love the show, love their libertarian take on issues, but they’re a little too trusting of conventional medical advice.
I’ve just finished reading WWGF and think it’s a masterpiece. It should be compulsory reading for all Doctors, nutritionists, dietitians, health authorities, and, most of all, politicians. Hell, everyone should read it!!
DS
Amen to that.
I just began reading the new book yesterday, and am enjoying it. Of course a lot is familiar since I’ve read GCBC three times. Unfortunately I think this new book is *still* way too technical for the people I’d most like to reach with the message. I don’t think any of them would get past chapter one.
I suppose there’s a limit to how much you can simplify the science, but I found this version much easier to read.
Y’know what kinda sucks? (This is totally off topic.) But I love the Penn and Teller BS show. They talk about major issues and debunk them with science and government bias and all that. When it comes to diets, he asks a doctor about atkins and he says ketosis is a dangerous state of starvation. =/ Hello?!
Yeah, I had that same reaction. Love the show, love their libertarian take on issues, but they’re a little too trusting of conventional medical advice.
I’ve just finished reading WWGF and think it’s a masterpiece. It should be compulsory reading for all Doctors, nutritionists, dietitians, health authorities, and, most of all, politicians. Hell, everyone should read it!!
DS
Amen to that.
I’ve now bought/read/watched:
GCBC
WWGF
The Primal Blueprint
The Paleo Diet
The Paleo Solution
The New Evolution Diet
FatHead
All I need now is my own cave, some stone-age tools, and an internet connection and I’ll be set….
DS
Warning: those paleo computers were way slow.
I’ve now bought/read/watched:
GCBC
WWGF
The Primal Blueprint
The Paleo Diet
The Paleo Solution
The New Evolution Diet
FatHead
All I need now is my own cave, some stone-age tools, and an internet connection and I’ll be set….
DS
Warning: those paleo computers were way slow.
Well I did read GCBC a while back and although it was excellent, it did take me a month to get through. This past weekend I finished reading WWGF and loved it !! Now I just need to figure out how many copies to order to hand out. Taubes new book is like a neat, straight forward culmination of a whole bunch of books I’ve read over the past two years. And I did enjoy the information from the newest studies.
I believe that’s the reason this book stands a good chance of catching on with a much wider audience: you can read it in a weekend.
Well I did read GCBC a while back and although it was excellent, it did take me a month to get through. This past weekend I finished reading WWGF and loved it !! Now I just need to figure out how many copies to order to hand out. Taubes new book is like a neat, straight forward culmination of a whole bunch of books I’ve read over the past two years. And I did enjoy the information from the newest studies.
I believe that’s the reason this book stands a good chance of catching on with a much wider audience: you can read it in a weekend.
Hey Tom, I just want to share something awesome. I was at the dentist this morning, and they had the latest issue of Reader’s Digest on the rack. On the cover was a smiling plate of bacon and eggs (remember the frowning bacon and eggs on the cover of Newsweek?) I though, “Wow, this looks like something positive.” And it was – an interview with Gary Taubes! The entire article was in support of him and his book, and in the interview he made all of his usual points – about how fat is essential, carbs especially sugar make you fat, how dieting and exercise are futile – the works! It absolutely made my day.
Outstanding!
Just an F.M.I. Have you seen “Edwardian Supersize Me” with Restaurant critic Giles Coren and comedian Sue Perkins? It was broadcast in Great Britian in June 2007. I’d be interested in reading your take on it, if you have.
Never heard of it.
^ Alright Reader’s digest!! I’m gonna have to get my hands on that article.
i don’t understand how people find gcbc hard to read and complicated!!! I was 21 when i read that and I finished the book in about 5 days! yes, my friends, you read correctly. 5 DAYS. Now if a 21-year old can finish a book like that in such a short span of time, and most of the poeple commenting here are over 30, i’m sure you can finish it too.
I’m guess you’re either more curious than most people, more comfortable with scientific topics, or both.
Tom, I really love Fat Head (picked up and recently finished GCBC but need to reread) and have been on a nutrition mission since then. I’ve been curious about potential side-effects of elevated NEFA/FFA and how that might have longer-time health consequences when going to a low-carb diet. Have you looked into this area, is there any information you can glean from the Eades or other doctors you trust?
Plenty of books out there that would put your mind at ease. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price, any of the books by Uffe Ravnskov, GCBC of course, the newest Atkins book, Primal Body/Primal Mind by Nora Gedgaudas, Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson.
Hey Tom, I just want to share something awesome. I was at the dentist this morning, and they had the latest issue of Reader’s Digest on the rack. On the cover was a smiling plate of bacon and eggs (remember the frowning bacon and eggs on the cover of Newsweek?) I though, “Wow, this looks like something positive.” And it was – an interview with Gary Taubes! The entire article was in support of him and his book, and in the interview he made all of his usual points – about how fat is essential, carbs especially sugar make you fat, how dieting and exercise are futile – the works! It absolutely made my day.
Outstanding!
Just an F.M.I. Have you seen “Edwardian Supersize Me” with Restaurant critic Giles Coren and comedian Sue Perkins? It was broadcast in Great Britian in June 2007. I’d be interested in reading your take on it, if you have.
Never heard of it.
^ Alright Reader’s digest!! I’m gonna have to get my hands on that article.
i don’t understand how people find gcbc hard to read and complicated!!! I was 21 when i read that and I finished the book in about 5 days! yes, my friends, you read correctly. 5 DAYS. Now if a 21-year old can finish a book like that in such a short span of time, and most of the poeple commenting here are over 30, i’m sure you can finish it too.
I’m guess you’re either more curious than most people, more comfortable with scientific topics, or both.
Tom, I really love Fat Head (picked up and recently finished GCBC but need to reread) and have been on a nutrition mission since then. I’ve been curious about potential side-effects of elevated NEFA/FFA and how that might have longer-time health consequences when going to a low-carb diet. Have you looked into this area, is there any information you can glean from the Eades or other doctors you trust?
Plenty of books out there that would put your mind at ease. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price, any of the books by Uffe Ravnskov, GCBC of course, the newest Atkins book, Primal Body/Primal Mind by Nora Gedgaudas, Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson.
Tom, are you aware of any studies, and the like, where people lost weight/fat without reducing the calorie intake? For example, a person goes from eating 2500cals a day of crap (ie lots of fattening carbs) to 2500cals of “healthy” food (ie no fattening carbs) yet loses weight/fat. This would surely put to bed the calories-in/calories-out debate.
DS
Not specifically, but there have been some clinical studies in which people on low-carb diets who didn’t count calories lost more weight than people on low-calorie diets who did. As Gary points out in his current book, it’s not uncommon for people on low-carb diets to spontaneously eat less because they’re able to mobilize body fat for fuel. To me, that’s really the point of giving up the carbs: you don’t have to feel hungry all the time to lose weight.
Tom, are you aware of any studies, and the like, where people lost weight/fat without reducing the calorie intake? For example, a person goes from eating 2500cals a day of crap (ie lots of fattening carbs) to 2500cals of “healthy” food (ie no fattening carbs) yet loses weight/fat. This would surely put to bed the calories-in/calories-out debate.
DS
Not specifically, but there have been some clinical studies in which people on low-carb diets who didn’t count calories lost more weight than people on low-calorie diets who did. As Gary points out in his current book, it’s not uncommon for people on low-carb diets to spontaneously eat less because they’re able to mobilize body fat for fuel. To me, that’s really the point of giving up the carbs: you don’t have to feel hungry all the time to lose weight.
Actually, the “In the face of contradictory evidence” piece that was featured here a while back does touch upon that. Quoting from page 917:
“The NEL contains evidence that is not consistent with this
conclusion; several included studies show that a low carbohydrate
diet can produce significantly greater weight loss
than a low-fat diet, even when caloric intake is held constant
between diets [15–18].
[15] Volek JS, Phinney SD, Forsythe CE, Quann EE, Wood RJ, Puglisi MJ, et al.
Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable impact on the metabolic
syndrome than a low fat diet. Lipids 2009;44:297–309.
[16] Buscemi S, Verga S, Tranchina MR, Cottone S, Cerasola G. Effects of hypocaloric
very-low-carbohydrate diet vs. Mediterranean diet on endothelial
function in obese women. Eur J Clin Invest 2009;39:339–47.
[17] Halyburton AK, Brinkworth GD, Wilson CJ, Noakes M, Buckley JD, Keogh JB,
et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on
mood but not cognitive performance. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;86:580–7.
[18] Keogh JB, Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Belobrajdic DP, Buckley JD, Clifton PM.
Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial
function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with
abdominal obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:567–76.
Thanks for the references.
Actually, the “In the face of contradictory evidence” piece that was featured here a while back does touch upon that. Quoting from page 917:
“The NEL contains evidence that is not consistent with this
conclusion; several included studies show that a low carbohydrate
diet can produce significantly greater weight loss
than a low-fat diet, even when caloric intake is held constant
between diets [15–18].
[15] Volek JS, Phinney SD, Forsythe CE, Quann EE, Wood RJ, Puglisi MJ, et al.
Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable impact on the metabolic
syndrome than a low fat diet. Lipids 2009;44:297–309.
[16] Buscemi S, Verga S, Tranchina MR, Cottone S, Cerasola G. Effects of hypocaloric
very-low-carbohydrate diet vs. Mediterranean diet on endothelial
function in obese women. Eur J Clin Invest 2009;39:339–47.
[17] Halyburton AK, Brinkworth GD, Wilson CJ, Noakes M, Buckley JD, Keogh JB,
et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on
mood but not cognitive performance. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;86:580–7.
[18] Keogh JB, Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Belobrajdic DP, Buckley JD, Clifton PM.
Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial
function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with
abdominal obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:567–76.
Thanks for the references.
Hi Tom,
I’ve looked more into Dr. Ravnskov’s work and started an email exchange with him, his replies (to my NEFA/FFA/markers-to-look-for questions) are below:
“High serum levels of NEFA/FFA are most of all seen in people who eat much carbohydrates. All carbs are converted to glucose in the body and if you do not use the excess glucose, for instance by exercizing, glucose is either converted to glycogen, or, if the glycogen depots are full, to FFA”
but then further conversation stopped after these questions:
“Ok. Is there some recommended maximum level of serum NEFA/FFA?
So in the case of dietary fat, does it not raise nefa/ffa levels as severely as carbs? How would I know if it’s too high?
Can you suggest what proportion of PUFA , Sat FA, MUFA, etc to have as total fat in the diet or does it matter?
What testable markers can I rely on to determine my overall health? C-reactive protein, HDL/triglyceride ratio?”
I’m trying to get a bit more quantitative than simply saying ‘less carb, more fat is healthier.’
Hi Tom,
I’ve looked more into Dr. Ravnskov’s work and started an email exchange with him, his replies (to my NEFA/FFA/markers-to-look-for questions) are below:
“High serum levels of NEFA/FFA are most of all seen in people who eat much carbohydrates. All carbs are converted to glucose in the body and if you do not use the excess glucose, for instance by exercizing, glucose is either converted to glycogen, or, if the glycogen depots are full, to FFA”
but then further conversation stopped after these questions:
“Ok. Is there some recommended maximum level of serum NEFA/FFA?
So in the case of dietary fat, does it not raise nefa/ffa levels as severely as carbs? How would I know if it’s too high?
Can you suggest what proportion of PUFA , Sat FA, MUFA, etc to have as total fat in the diet or does it matter?
What testable markers can I rely on to determine my overall health? C-reactive protein, HDL/triglyceride ratio?”
I’m trying to get a bit more quantitative than simply saying ‘less carb, more fat is healthier.’
To Debbie:
I could relate to you post myself. My weight loss followed the same pattern with at list 2 years long plateau. I moved from it by 1. going into ketosis all the time(use the strips), 2. limiting frequency of my meals to 2 or 3 a day by eliminating snacking, breakfast and eating after 6 p.m.(in order to limit) When I feel hungry, green jasmine tee with thin slice of lemon without sweetener does the trick. For me it is the magic combination. My guess is that black unsweetened coffee with lemon is the thing that may do the same.
Sorry, I unintentionally hit the SUBMIT. I understated how annoying it is. But I believe that staying in ketosis all the time may prevent the weight regain. Just in case,if you want to try my food regimen, my breakfast consist of 3 soft boiled eggs + bacon, dinner is the palm sized stake with 1 – 2 cups of very low carb vegetable. Nowadays I am newer hungry between meals, but it took time and couple migraines to readjust.
To Debbie:
I could relate to you post myself. My weight loss followed the same pattern with at list 2 years long plateau. I moved from it by 1. going into ketosis all the time(use the strips), 2. limiting frequency of my meals to 2 or 3 a day by eliminating snacking, breakfast and eating after 6 p.m.(in order to limit) When I feel hungry, green jasmine tee with thin slice of lemon without sweetener does the trick. For me it is the magic combination. My guess is that black unsweetened coffee with lemon is the thing that may do the same.
Sorry, I unintentionally hit the SUBMIT. I understated how annoying it is. But I believe that staying in ketosis all the time may prevent the weight regain. Just in case,if you want to try my food regimen, my breakfast consist of 3 soft boiled eggs + bacon, dinner is the palm sized stake with 1 – 2 cups of very low carb vegetable. Nowadays I am newer hungry between meals, but it took time and couple migraines to readjust.
Check out new mouse study that proves all calories are not equal. Mice forced to eat at times that are not their biorhythm
gained more weight that those eating at natural biorhythm times, (the exact same food of course.) Science News either Nov or Dec 2010.
Interesting, and I’m pretty sure the mice weren’t capable of violating the laws of physics.
Check out new mouse study that proves all calories are not equal. Mice forced to eat at times that are not their biorhythm
gained more weight that those eating at natural biorhythm times, (the exact same food of course.) Science News either Nov or Dec 2010.
Interesting, and I’m pretty sure the mice weren’t capable of violating the laws of physics.
Hi Tom,
Great review. I just recently read this book and it made soooo much sense. I am trying to get everyone I know to read this book; I am definitely sharing your review on fb/twitter!
Thanks a lot!
Jocey
Hi Tom,
Great review. I just recently read this book and it made soooo much sense. I am trying to get everyone I know to read this book; I am definitely sharing your review on fb/twitter!
Thanks a lot!
Jocey
I did read gcbc, but i dont think many medical professionals would have that kind of time available to get through it. Im looking forward to the shorter version wwgf,
for myself, my husband, but especially doctors who might actually take the time to read the short version.
One criticism of low carb eating i find amusing is when people say they could never
Eat that way long term ( as if they have been able to eat low fat low calorie long term and stay thin – it hasnt happened). I think we all agree that the middle aisles of the grocery store are junk. Why is it so difficult to convince people that bread and pasta and sweets are fattening – mother knew it years ago!
I’ve been eating this way long-term. It’s easy.
I did read gcbc, but i dont think many medical professionals would have that kind of time available to get through it. Im looking forward to the shorter version wwgf,
for myself, my husband, but especially doctors who might actually take the time to read the short version.
One criticism of low carb eating i find amusing is when people say they could never
Eat that way long term ( as if they have been able to eat low fat low calorie long term and stay thin – it hasnt happened). I think we all agree that the middle aisles of the grocery store are junk. Why is it so difficult to convince people that bread and pasta and sweets are fattening – mother knew it years ago!
I’ve been eating this way long-term. It’s easy.