# "Exercising Does Not Cause Weight Loss"



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the author/journalist *Gary Taubes* who wrote the infamous book* Good Calories, Bad Calories* - and more recently *Why We Get Fat, and What to do About It* (A summary of Good Calories, Bad Calories). I have been watching a couple of his lectures and he says some very controversial things but backs it up with hard evidence when available.

The most confusing thing to me is that exercising doesn't cause weight loss, and in fact it increases weight gain because exercising works up an appetite. This goes against everything I know, or thought I knew but then it's people like Mr. Taubes who showed us that a diet in saturated fat isn't harmful to us, quite the opposite in fact. He sources the American College of Sports Medicine as a place where they say that there is no compelling evidence that exercise increases weight loss (I can't seem to find the article), yet I have just read on their site in a February 2012 article that they support a low fat diet http://www.acsm.org/access-public-information/articles/2012/02/02/improving-your-nutrition-in-four-simple-steps so I am confused as to why Taubes would use them as a reliable source of information when they're promoting the diet Taubes has been fighting against.

Here is a quote from August 2011 which states the opposite of Gary's claims:



> Janet Rankin, Ph.D., FACSM, an expert in nutrition and exercise, supplemented the bountiful scientific evidence with a simple observation: "A practical response to the claim that exercise makes you eat more and gain weight is to look around. If this were the case, wouldn't those who regularly exercise be the fattest? Obviously that isn't the case."


source: http://www.acsm.org/about-acsm/media-room/acsm-in-the-news/2011/08/01/experts-debunk-myth-about-exercise-weight-loss

I would love to hear your views on this, and please keep moronic comments to a minimum.

Thank you for reading


----------



## Fat (Jan 2, 2010)

Exercise also increases insulin sensitivity so the nutrients you do consume will be used more efficiently.


----------



## LNH (Jun 23, 2008)

surely its a case of calories in v calories used = weight loss or gain ?

training + cals = weight gain

training - cals = weight loss


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

You could probably demonstrate whichever result you want depending on how you design your study.

If you just take a group of overweight people & give them exercise to do without controlling their diet in any way, then they probably won't lose any weight, because they will work up more of an appetite & gain a bit of muscle tissue.

But control for calories, give them a meaningful calorie deficit & measure their bodyfat instead of just sticking them on the scales and they will lose fat. Exercise burns calories - it's simple thermodynamics


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

Doesn't exercising raise your metabolism?


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

LNH said:


> surely its a case of calories in v calories used = weight loss or gain ?
> 
> training + cals = weight gain
> 
> training - cals = weight loss


That's exactly what it isn't, according to Taubes. He is quite adamant that the classic calorie equation is incorrect.


----------



## LNH (Jun 23, 2008)

rectus said:


> That's exactly what it isn't, according to Taubes. He is quite adamant that the classic calorie equation is incorrect.


err..... ok

think ill leave those with bigger intellects than mine to worry about it, wheres my kebab gone :confused1:


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

LNH said:


> err..... ok
> 
> think ill leave those with bigger intellects than mine to worry about it, wheres my kebab gone :confused1:


Watch this and educate yourself:


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

yannyboy said:


> Doesn't exercising raise your metabolism?


It does, but not by much, and your body will compensate by giving you the urge to eat more.

This is why you need to control your calorie intake to lose weight. You can't leave it to your appetite control, because your body is programmed by millions of years of evolution to maintain it's fat reserves - because that's what will keep you alive longest if food gets short.


----------



## Malibu (May 13, 2010)

Eating 2500 Cals and burning 500 cals = 2000 cals

Eating 2000 Cals and burning 0 = 2000 cals


----------



## El Toro Mr UK98 (Nov 11, 2011)

Its seems prety obvious to me unless im missing something.

So he says you gain weight cos excersise works up an apitite so you have to eat, but wait you dont *HAVE* to eat though do you, If your goal is fat loss you just simply resist.

imo if your hungry its cos your metabolism is ramped up and your body is aking for food = for energy = dont give it food for that point till your next meal and what will your body use for energy = fat.

thats just my thoughts but hey i never went on to get my phd in bollockology


----------



## JusNoGood (Apr 4, 2011)

El Toro Mr UK98 said:


> Its seems prety obvious to me unless im missing something.
> 
> So he says you gain weight cos excersise works up an apitite so you have to eat, but wait you dont *HAVE* to eat though do you, If your goal is fat loss you just simply resist.
> 
> ...


X 2

I exercise before breakfast...if I didn't exercise I'd still eat breakfast. I don't eat more after exercising.


----------



## cub (Jul 14, 2011)

rectus said:


> The most confusing thing to me is that exercising doesn't cause weight loss, and in fact it increases weight gain because exercising works up an appetite.


I've found this to be true actually. When I went gym July to December last year and April onwards this year I've put on weight because I feel really hungry a lot of the time and eat everything in sight. However when I stopped going to the gym December to April I lost nearly 40 pounds without any exercise because controlling my diet was easier as I wasn't feeling so hungry all the time.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Malibu said:


> Eating 2500 Cals and burning 500 cals = 2000 cals
> 
> Eating 2000 Cals and burning 0 = 2000 cals





> What Taubes has tried to explain is that the bank-account analogy doesn't work because in human biology, calories-in and calories-out are dependent variables - that is, when we change one of them, our bodies make compensating adjustments that affect the other. He's also tried to explain that hormones - chronically elevated insulin in particular - can cause our bodies to store more calories as fat, which in turns affects our appetites (calories in), metabolisms (calories out) and activity levels (calories out).
> 
> Nothing he wrote in either book disputes or ignores the laws of thermodynamics - Tom Naughton


Read for more detail:http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2011/01/25/fat-accounts-and-the-laws-of-fiscaldynamics/


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Technically he is correct (the best kind of correct).

However when it comes to diet and exercise it is simply too difficult to control the mass of variables to actually measure the response of an individual component effectively.

The medical industry accepts this as do the majority of biologists. It is where common sense prevails.

We all know the theory calories in > calories out will equate to weight gain and visa versa - but can you prove it? No, yet I am sure we have all seen countless examples of such things in practice.


----------



## LNH (Jun 23, 2008)

If you watch the entire 1 and a half hour vid what he basically says is :

no carbs before marbs.............


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

LNH said:


> If you watch the entire 1 and a half hour vid what he basically says is :
> 
> no carbs before marbs.............


I specifically requested no moronic comments in this thread. I had to look that up and I found it was sourced from complete morons.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

I read his 'Why we get fat etc.' and it makes perfect sense..Ive stopped eating sugar cos I drink a savage amt of T a day with 2 sugars and I can see the stomach shrinking...as for his arguments about the evolution of human diet,lifestyles, digestive and metabolic process..its hard to disagree with him but in saying that he uses a lot of generalisations that are reckoned to cover all people and all body types...and thats a big ask...the amount of variation between people is just too great to be covered by this one book. To be fair to him, even though some of his statements seem or sound daft...it is true that the diet the majority of humans eat now and might have done say 200 yrs ago are markedly different and the results are there and becomig more common for all to see....obesity..diabetes and heart problems.


----------



## alprod (Jun 11, 2012)

I read his book, what makes us fat recently and it was an excellent read. I wouldn't say he pushes his view, but he gives you all the evidence which makes so much sense that it will change your view on the whole calories in vs calories out theory and why it is a load of rubbish. There is a series which has just started on bbc, "the men that made us fat" i think it's called, which follows the same evidence and pretty much comes to the same conclusion as Taubes.

I think the main thing to take from it, is that weight loss gain is about controlling your insulin sensitivity and certain other hormones, and if you can control this then you can control your weight.


----------



## Loveleelady (Jan 3, 2012)

so to lose weight what does he say we have to do?


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Gary Taubes - the world's number one study cherry picker.

None of the weight of research backs up the majority of his claims. He suffers from what we call cognitive dissonance: he goes looking for the studies that support his theory and discounts those that don't. Rather than looking at the balance of the whole research.

This is one of a large number of criticisms of Taubes' theories:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

Loveleelady said:


> so to lose weight what does he say we have to do?


Avoid carbs!


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

alprod said:


> I read his book, what makes us fat recently and it was an excellent read. I wouldn't say he pushes his view, but he gives you all the evidence which makes so much sense that it will change your view on the whole calories in vs calories out theory and why it is a load of rubbish. There is a series which has just started on bbc, "the men that made us fat" i think it's called, which follows the same evidence and pretty much comes to the same conclusion as Taubes.
> 
> I think the main thing to take from it, is that weight loss gain is about controlling your insulin sensitivity and certain other hormones, and if you can control this then you can control your weight.


They both completely ignore the fact that insulin isn't the only fat storage hormone.


----------



## latblaster (Oct 26, 2013)

Another theory, another study. It'll all change again, when someone else has sufficient resources to make yet another study, & gain credence in a Journal.

It may well be true what he says, but some bright Phd student will come along, & 'disprove' it. Is it truely unbiased?

But, an interesting read.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I normally don't like to say negative things about people, but Taubes is one of the most dishonest manipulators of scientific information I've ever seen... the guy is either a deliberate liar trying to create publicity for himself or is utterly stupid and actually believes it, but either way he's not presenting all the info out there accurately, and has a deliberate and intentional .

He does make a compelling case seemingly at times... but only if you don't look further, and realise that the science he presents doesn't at all represent the whole body of all the scientific information carefully validated and replicated in studies... as bayman says he is one of the worst cherry pickers of information, as many of the anti carb (and anti dietary fat) people are.

The dangerous thing is that an argument based upon highly selected information can look well argued and fairly conclusive if you haven't looked far enough at other info out there - and it stops people looking any further themselves because they think these guys have 'found the ultimate secret'.

The guy isn't worth reading IMO, but if you do read just remember that he's ignored and chosen not to acknowledge a lot of evidence that contradicts his personal view so the info he presents isn't complete.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

Dtlv74 said:


> I normally don't like to say negative things about people, but Taubes is one of the most dishonest manipulators of scientific information I've ever seen... the guy is either a deliberate liar trying to create publicity for himself or is utterly stupid and actually believes it, but either way he's not presenting all the info out there accurately, and has a deliberate and intentional .
> 
> He does make a compelling case seemingly at times... but only if you don't look further, and realise that the science he presents doesn't at all represent the whole body of all the scientific information carefully validated and replicated in studies... as bayman says he is one of the worst cherry pickers of information, as many of the anti carb (and anti dietary fat) people are.
> 
> ...


Good post, good thread. Though I hoped not to find anybody really opposing Taubes but as you said, I felt I had found the ultimate secret. I have not been thinking critically enough it seems, or maybe you are part of the problem. I really don't know and it's frustrating that there isn't a black and white answer in something that seems like it should be simple. Taubes seems a no nonsense kind of guy who is trying to solve our obesity issues.

So where does your opinion lie with saturated fat being bad for you? He's not the only one to show compelling evidence that saturated fat is indeed good for you, for example Tom Naughton in his film Fathead and his lectures which go into much more detail.


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

bayman said:


> Gary Taubes - the world's number one study cherry picker.
> 
> None of the weight of research backs up the majority of his claims. He suffers from what we call cognitive dissonance: he goes looking for the studies that support his theory and discounts those that don't. Rather than looking at the balance of the whole research.


but that's exactly what he accuses Ancel Keys (the lipid hypothesis - low fat diet) of, wouldn't that be rather hypocritical?


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

rectus said:


> but that's exactly what he accuses Ancel Keys (the lipid hypothesis - low fat diet) of, wouldn't that be rather hypocritical?


When you read stuff by the likes of Alan Aragon & Lyle McDonald - sports nutritionists who research the science properly rather than cherry-picking stuff to support their own pet theories, you see a consensus emerging - base your diet on good quality wholefood, eat appropriate & sensible amounts of protein, fat & carbs, and use simple calorie surplus & deficit to bulk & cut.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

rectus said:


> but that's exactly what he accuses Ancel Keys (the lipid hypothesis - low fat diet) of, wouldn't that be rather hypocritical?


Preaching moderation doesn't sell books. People want a bad guy, in this instance: Carbs.


----------



## Andy 67 (May 2, 2012)

bayman said:


> Preaching moderation doesn't sell books. People want a bad guy, in this instance: Carbs.


This is exactly why we have so many crackpot theories about diet.

What works for weight management is really simple & quite boring. Exercise more, eat less & make sure that what you do eat is good stuff & not processed crap. This method works brilliantly, but people aren't interested because it takes effort & self control, and you can't dress it up in a load of pseudo-scientific woo.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

yannyboy said:


> Doesn't exercising raise your metabolism?


I was under that impression as well mate


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

klach79 said:


> Taubes and his pseudo-science bullcrap has been ripped apart by industry experts so many times I am surprised anyone takes him seriously any more!


Is he not an expert himself? He talks like one, he clearly is a very smart man (Harvard educated) and he has a following from other so called experts in the field. There is always going to be opposition, it's healthy, but just because there is doesn't mean the ideas are incorrect.

What part of Taubes's theories do you think are wrong? Saturated fat intake? Cals in/cals out formula? etc


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

BONE said:


> Retucs are you have problems losing weight and your trying to avoid the reason as to why and looking to hide behind the bollox this man writes? Just eat high protein and low carbs and fats and do cardio and weights you will lose weight its simple! I find the best method is cardio in the morning on an empty stomach with some caffiene then throughout the day keep the protein intake high and eat low carbs! Train heavy weights 3-4 times a week! It really is that simple just take abit of self control and dedication!


No no no. This is not about me, and I am bulking anyway. I am just interested in the science, I want to know how to lead the healthiest life by following the correct advice. Not just for the aesthetics, but for heart health and the like.


----------



## Bamse (Feb 5, 2011)

Andy 67 said:


> What works for weight management is really simple & quite boring. Exercise more, eat less & make sure that what you do eat is good stuff & not processed crap. This method works brilliantly, but people aren't interested because it takes effort & self control, and you can't dress it up in a load of pseudo-scientific woo.


The same thing could, incidentally, be said about training.


----------



## infernal0988 (Jun 16, 2011)

Ok then what do we know ? We know that consuming the right kind of nutrients along with weight training has a positive increase on metabolism , cause of the higher amount of required nutrients that has to be consumed, to build and sustain new muscle mass and rebuild broken down muscle tissue, that comes with hard physical training such as lifting weights. The result of this is higher capability of fat burn IE and the bodies usage of nutrients, This can be explained by for example one person lowering ones cals in order to, take advantage of ones raised metabolism from consuming larger amounts of food. And by that method reducing visible fat.


----------



## Bamse (Feb 5, 2011)

I know that if I lift heavy weights I become stronger and more powerful. And I know I need to eat in order to keep getting stronger. I also know that if I eat too much of the kind of stuff that I've known pretty much since I was a child is bad for me, I will put on a bit of unwanted weight around my waist. That's what I know. I also know that even though I don't know much about what goes on under the hood of my car, I'm still able to drive to where I need to go.

What I don't know is whether or not this was the kind of moronic comment that is unwanted in this thread.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

rectus said:


> Is he not an expert himself? He talks like one, he clearly is a very smart man (Harvard educated) and he has a following from other so called experts in the field. There is always going to be opposition, it's healthy, but just because there is doesn't mean the ideas are incorrect.
> 
> What part of Taubes's theories do you think are wrong? Saturated fat intake? Cals in/cals out formula? etc


Ok, I'll indulge you being as you're not willing to use Google to search for critiques of Taubes' "science". I feel I'm in a good place to do this given I have his book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (prequel to what makes us fat) sitting on my bookshelf.

Taubes apparently researched the above book for 5years. During this time he found a paper from 1980 indicating that obese people eat less than normal weight people. So he went looking for a theory to support why the obese could be getting fat even though they were eating less than normal people, he came back with Carbs (especially refined ones) drive insulin, which drive fat storage:

Carbs > Insulin > Fat Storage.

So regardless of calorie balance, his premise is that if you raise insulin via refined carbs, then you drive fat storage.

Except this theory ignores two critical factors:

1. Insulin isn't the only Fat Storage hormone in the body. A hormone known as acylation stimulating protein (ASP) will store dietary fat in the absence of insulin. ASP responds directly to levels of fat detected in the blood stream. If you don't believe me on this, go eat 5000kcals of just fat and protein per day, and see how fat you get. His theory also ignores the fact that proteins trigger an insulin response.

2. More recent papers have disproved that the obese eat less than the lean - what they actually do is under report when quizzed about intake. This phenomenon disappears completely when obese people are put in metabolic wards (closed wards when food intake and activity levels are monitored directly), they lose and gain weight just as expected when under / over fed. There's been plenty of research on this since 1980, but in his 5yrs worth of "research" Taubes conveniently ignores it...

George Bray did a review of Good Calories, Bad Calories for obesity reviews. Which is summarised as:



> Good Calories, Bad Calories has much useful information and is well worth reading. Gary Taubes's tenets related to obesity can be summarized in four statements (i) He believes that you can gain weight and become obese without a positive energy balance; (ii) He also believes that dietary fat is unimportant for the development of obesity; (iii) Carbohydrate, in his view, is what produces obesity and (iv) Insulin secreted by the carbohydrate is the problem in obesity. However, some of the conclusions that the author reaches are not consistent with current concepts about obesity. There are many kinds of obesity, and only some depend on diet composition. Two dietary manipulations produce obesity in susceptible people: eating a high-fat diet and drinking sugar- or high-fructose corn syrupsweetened beverages. Insulin is necessary but not suf?cient in the diet-dependent obesities. When diet is important, it may be the combination of fat and fructose (the deadly duo) that is most important. Regardless of diet, it is a positive energy balance over months to years that is the sine qua non for obesity. Obese people clearly eat more than do lean ones, and food-intake records are notoriously unreliable, as documented by use of doubly labelled water. Underreporting of food intake is greater in obese than in normal-weight people and is worse for fat than for other macronutrient groups. Accepting the concept that obesity results from a positive energy balance does not tell us why energy balance is positive. This depends on a variety of environmental factors interacting with the genetic susceptibility of certain individuals. Weight loss is related to adherence to the diet, not to its macronutrient composition.


Full paper is linked to above.

His theories on exercise are equally as bad science as those on carbs. But like I said previously preaching "Eat Less, Move More" doesn't sell books or give papers sensationalist headlines.

To be fair to Taubes, his research on Saturated Fats and the Cholesterol Hypothesis of Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) are sound. In so much that there is no statistically significant link between the intake of either, and incidence of CHD.

Further critiques of his work worth reading:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/insulin-levels-and-fat-loss-qa.html

http://weightology.net/?p=265

http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=1302

There's loads more where that came from^^^


----------



## andyparry123 (Jul 22, 2005)

To me you sometimes can't beat a bit of common sense as below, couldn't put it better:



El Toro Mr UK98 said:


> Its seems prety obvious to me unless im missing something.
> 
> So he says you gain weight cos excersise works up an apitite so you have to eat, but wait you dont *HAVE* to eat though do you, If your goal is fat loss you just simply resist.
> 
> ...


----------



## rectus (Jan 18, 2012)

bayman said:


> Ok, I'll indulge you being as you're not willing to use Google to search for critiques of Taubes' "science". I feel I'm in a good place to do this given I have his book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (prequel to what makes us fat) sitting on my bookshelf.
> 
> Taubes apparently researched the above book for 5years. During this time he found a paper from 1980 indicating that obese people eat less than normal weight people. So he went looking for a theory to support why the obese could be getting fat even though they were eating less than normal people, he came back with Carbs (especially refined ones) drive insulin, which drive fat storage:
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to write that, I have a lot more reading to do now  It's good to know the whole book isn't a complete waste of time and I will come away with a better understanding, but educate myself enough to know what things to ignore.

So do you personally follow a diet which is high in saturated fats now due to his findings? As mentioned earlier in the thread, the BBC has a documentary series currently airing *The Men Who Made Us Fat* which talks about these findings (very good documentary) on fats and the BBC are usually a trust worthy source, well as trust worthy as you can get with the media.


----------



## bayman (Feb 27, 2010)

rectus said:


> So do you personally follow a diet which is high in saturated fats now due to his findings? As mentioned earlier in the thread, the BBC has a documentary series currently airing *The Men Who Made Us Fat* which talks about these findings (very good documentary) on fats and the BBC are usually a trust worthy source, well as trust worthy as you can get with the media.


I don't go out of my way to consume saturated fats, neither do I avoid them. If you eat a diet based on wholefoods, then fat percentages will take care of themselves. I do avoid excess consumption of Hydrogenated and Trans fats, plus refined vegetable and seed oils mind. These are the bad guys in my eyes as they promote imflammation and screw your balance of Omega 3 > Omega 6 fats. Any saturated fat from animal sources are good, as are things like coconut oil. I supp with Omega 3 (fish oil) for it's anti-inflammatory and other health benefits.

BBC a trustworthy source? Come now mate, you can't really believe that? Whilst I'm sure the documentary series is interesting (can't say i've seen it), it'll no doubt have either conflicting or misleading information in it. Obesity and health are so complex that you can't pin them down to individual factors like diet alone, although it does form a big part of the picture.

If you're concerned with eating purely for health reasons, then I suggest you check out the like of





 and Mark Sissons. Optimal health and bodybuilding are not always mutually exclusive, but eating for health might not get you ripped / jacked.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

rectus said:


> Good post, good thread. Though I hoped not to find anybody really opposing Taubes but as you said, I felt I had found the ultimate secret. I have not been thinking critically enough it seems, or maybe you are part of the problem. I really don't know and it's frustrating that there isn't a black and white answer in something that seems like it should be simple. Taubes seems a no nonsense kind of guy who is trying to solve our obesity issues.
> 
> So where does your opinion lie with saturated fat being bad for you? He's not the only one to show compelling evidence that saturated fat is indeed good for you, for example Tom Naughton in his film Fathead and his lectures which go into much more detail.


It is a frustrating subject for sure. I think the main problems in respect of the 'causes of obesity' argument is that while the medical and scientific community recognise it clearly as a multifactoral issue, the celebrity-author-bloggers on the topic on the other hand generally tend to focus on only limited aspects of the whole body of knowledge and base theories around only one of the potential issues or risk factors.

I think the main points often forgotten are:

a) obesity is a condition that has multiple pathologies - i.e. two equally obese people can have gotten into that state through very different diets, and when in that obese state will therefore have very different physiological markers and different physiological issues despite outwardly appearing identical - http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n11/abs/0803017a.html

B) when it comes to selecting optimal diet to either avoid gaining body fat or to maximise efficiency at losing body fat, genetics play an often far greater role in making the correct choice than is often recognised - http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/food-diet-nutrition-info/161198-fat-loss-diets-your-genes.html

c) one thing often forgotten in the 'battle of macro war theories' is the actual real life results - you can argue the theoretical relevance of carbs all day long, and people like Taubes can blame them much as they like and champion high fat/protein diets instead, but when you actually look at what happens in the real world people still get fat eating low carb, people still have heart attacks eating low carb, and people still die of CVD eating low carbs... and the numbers aren't really any different to those who do eat carbs. Here's a link to preview of a study just publicised that observes that as carbs in the diets of 140,000 people reduced over the last twenty years, obesity and CVD risk are not reduced by the dietary change - http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-11-40.pdf

In respect of saturated fats, well here's the thing - not all sat fats are equal. the longer the number of carbon's in the chain, the greater effect that particular saturated fatty acid has upon increasing LDL cholesterol. Short and medium chain saturated fats (less than 12 carbons in the chain) certainly have no obvious CVD health risk association at all, however those with more than 12 carbons in the chain have an ever increasing risk for cholesterol.

it gets more complex than this though, and there are interactions between groups of fatty acids - if you maintain an optimal balance between your omega 3 and omega 6 polyunsaturated fats for example then your body will be less inflammatory and so elevated LDL cholesterol a lesser risk factor for CVD independent of LDL particle size... likewise elevated Triglyceride's are a risk factor for CVD similar to lipoproteins, but the actual level of risk when they are elevated varies according to other factors such as the omega 3/6 ratio.

Hormonal balance also affects the risk factors (CVD risk factors based upon specific physiological markers vary between gender due to oestrogen levels etc)... and this is also further effected by genetic elements!

Activity levels too also influence the whole equation due to changes in energy regulating enzymes such as cAMP and AMPK (and others)... these affect carbohydrate, protein and fatty acid metabolism markedly, and can contribute to differences for example as to whether you burn glucose, fat or protein when your body needs extra energy for movement, and both are significantly different between someone who exercises and a person who is sedentary.

With all these interactions it should be obvious that anyone presenting a physiological of obesity as a 'single nutrient issue' is missing out a lot of the actual observed information and understanding out there... what people like Taubes say about carbs being such a problem may well be effectively absolutely true to one specific sub group of the population with one specific genetic profile and pathology of obesity, but to other people with different pathologies the same advice is far less relevant.

This leads me to one last point about why this whole topic tends to get so heated - the danger of thinking 'what worked best for me automatically will work best for everyone'... and then getting all angry reading someone else type exactly the opposite advice with enthusiasm equal to your own belief. most people have gotten heated and stupid about it at one point or another, myself included, but there's really no need.

Everyone wants to be right and doesn't like it when someone challenges a favoured theory, but in this particular subject area that whole level fo heat would disappear if people just recognised what i hope I've tried to put forward above - that obesity/fat gain/fat loss is a multi factoral problem that can result from differing diets and also be treated by different diets... so where there are multiple theories rather than it being a case of right vs wrong, is more often a case of 'partly right vs different bit partly right'.

Probably the only generalisation that is true is that if you consume less energy (from any macro/combination of macros) than you burn for a long period of time you will gradually lose fat, and if you consume excess energy (from any macro/combination of macros) compared to how much your burn for a long period of time you will gain fat. It may not be totally clear-cut kcals in vs kcals out because of some of the factors mentioned above, but once those factors are accounted for energy balance is still what it boils down to.


----------

