Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra - Hi friends Health Information, In the article that you read this time with the title Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra, We have prepared this article well for you to read and retrieve information from it. hopefully fill the posts Article diet, Article Food reward, Article overweight, Article research bloopers, we write this you can understand. Alright, happy reading.

Title : Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra
link : Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra

Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra

It appears Gary Taubes has completed his serial critiquing the nutrient payoff hypothesis of obesity (1).  I lead hold to manus it to him, it takes roughly cojones to critique an entire champaign of research, particularly when y'all lead hold no scientific background inwards it, as well as lead hold apparently non read whatever of the scientific literature on it.  As of 2012, a Google Scholar search for the price “food reward” as well as “obesity” turned upwardly 2,790 papers.

The nutrient payoff hypothesis of obesity states that the payoff as well as palatability value of nutrient influence trunk fatness, as well as excess reward/palatability tin promote trunk fatty accumulation.  If nosotros desire to bear witness the hypothesis, the most direct way is to uncovering experiments inwards which 1) the nutritional qualities of the experimental diet groups are kept the same or at to the lowest degree really similar, 2) roughly human face of diet reward/palatability differs, as well as 3) changes inwards trunk fat/weight are measured (for example, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).  In these experiments the hypothesis has both arms as well as i leg tied behind its back, because the most strong payoff factors (energy density, sugar, fat) lead hold nutritional value as well as thence experiments that modify these cannot survive tightly controlled for nutritional differences.  Yet fifty-fifty amongst this severe disadvantage, the hypothesis is consistently supported past times the scientific evidence.  Taubes repeatedly stated inwards his serial that controlled studies similar these lead hold non been conducted, apparently basing this belief on a 22-year-old review newspaper past times Dr. State of Israel Ramirez as well as colleagues that does non incorporate the intelligence 'reward' (10).

Another way to bear witness the hypothesis is to run across if people amongst higher nutrient payoff sensitivity (due to genetics or other factors) tend to gain to a greater extent than fatty over fourth dimension (for example, 23).  Even if non all of the studies are perfect, at roughly point, i has to admit that at that spot are a lot of mutually buttressing lines of evidence here.  It is notable that virtually none of these studies appeared inwards Taubes's posts, as well as he appeared unaware of them. 

I'd similar to briefly hash out 3 studies Taubes brought up, because I holler upwardly they encapsulate the nature of this debate nicely.  The outset report is the alone refined saccharify consumption report Taubes cited inwards which 1) palatability was somewhat controlled for, as well as 2) body fatty changes were genuinely measured (although none of the refined saccharify studies cited were designed to investigate the effects of reward/palatability on trunk fatty accumulation).  Taubes suggests inwards his serial that a to a greater extent than compelling hypothesis is that dietary fructose promotes fatty gain, as well as I suppose the relevance is that if this thought is true, it weakens the nutrient payoff hypothesis (the reasoning hither eludes me).  Dr. Peter Havel’s grouping fed volunteers fructose or glucose-sweetened beverages equally 25% of their total calorie intake, for 10 weeks (24).  If fructose has roughly special mightiness to increment trunk fatness that glucose does non have, so the fructose grouping should lead hold gained to a greater extent than fat.  Here’s what they observed:

Body fatty volume increased past times almost 3% inwards both groups (slightly only non significantly higher inwards the glucose group), despite the fact that fasting insulin increased past times 10.2% inwards the fructose grouping as well as alone 2.9% inwards the glucose group.  It is puzzling that this slice of data did non seem inwards Taubes's intelligence of the paper, when it is the alone chemical factor of the report that is relevant to the query at hand.  The fructose grouping gained to a greater extent than fatty inwards the abdominal (belly) region, as well as less inwards other places, as well as experienced negative metabolic changes, which is why I discussed this newspaper inwards 2009 (25).  But if we’re trying to figure out what causes obesity, aren’t nosotros talking almost trunk fatty accumulation?  This report shows that sweetened beverages, regardless of fructose content, as well as regardless of effects on circulating insulin, displace trunk fatty accumulation inwards humans when added to a typical diet.  I'm non sure how that argues against the nutrient payoff hypothesis of obesity, only it for sure poses a challenge for the fructose as well as insulin hypotheses of obesity. 

The instant article I'd similar to hash out is a newspaper reviewing the effects of nutrient palatability/variety on appetite as well as nutrient intake (26).  Taubes took number amongst my contention that "Many human studies lead hold shown that people consume to a greater extent than nutrient at a sitting if the nutrient is higher palatability than if it is lower palatability", claiming that the review I cited did non back upwardly that determination (The Case for the Food Reward Hypothesis of Obesity, Part I
The Case for the Food Reward Hypothesis of Obesity, Part II
Food Palatability as well as Body Fatness: Clues from Alliesthesia
Food Reward, a Dominant Factor inwards Obesity, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII
Humans on a Cafeteria Diet
Losing Fat With Simple Food-- Two Reader Anecdotes

The evidence arguing against the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity also continues to speak for itself:

The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination
Hyperinsulinemia: Cause or Effect of Obesity?
Does High Circulating Insulin Drive Body Fat Accumulation?  Answers from Genetically Modified Mice 
Fat Tissue Insulin Sensitivity as well as Obesity
Clarifications About Carbohydrate as well as Insulin

The "Energy Balance Paradigm" Argument: Poor Logic as well as Revisionist History

Rather than compose a total rebuttal to Taubes's recent posts, I thought it would survive to a greater extent than productive to hash out i of the gist elements of his position, which has arguably been i of his greatest influences on the public.  This is the "paradigm shift" he promotes, away from thinking almost obesity equally a employment of release energy imbalance (energy inwards vs. out), as well as toward thinking almost it equally a "disorder of excess fatty accumulation" where release energy imbalance is the termination rather than the displace of fatty tissue expansion (59).

To summarize the fundamental points of this post:

• Energy residuum tightly determines fatty mass
• Energy residuum is an extremely useful logical framework for obesity research
• This does non necessarily imply that "eat less, displace more" is an effective fatty loss strategy in practice
• The command betoken for release energy residuum appears to reside inwards the brain
• It is thence probable that the causes of obesity influence this command organisation inwards the brain

Taubes likes to quote pre-WWII obesity researchers such equally the Vienna physician Dr. Julius Bauer, to lend acceptance to his hypothesis that trunk fatty tissue is regulated past times factors acting locally on fatty tissue, non past times the brain.  According to Taubes's revisionist history of obesity research, this was dorsum inwards the practiced former days, supposedly earlier neuroscientists as well as the nefarious release energy residuum epitome mucked everything up.  Here's a quote from i of Taubes's recent posts (60), describing his "body rules" idea:

Here, the trunk is running things.  Indeed the organ inwards command may survive the fatty tissue itself inwards concert amongst the liver.  The University of Vienna endocrinologist/geneticist Julius Bauer described this fat-rules concept dorsum inwards 1929 past times maxim that  the fatty tissue of person who’s obese (what he called “abnormal lipophilic tissue) “maintains its stock, as well as may increment it independent of the requirements of the organism.  A kind of anarchy exists; the adipose tissue lives for itself as well as does non tally into the exactly regulated administration of the whole organism.”

In this scenario, the encephalon plays no to a greater extent than role inwards regulating the growth of the fatty tissue than it would regulating the growth of whatever tissue.

I thought Taubes's thought is that insulin regulates fatty tissue size?  That way the pancreas would survive inwards accuse ("pancreas rules"), non the fatty tissue itself.  Why create I larn the feeling no i has told Taubes the encephalon regulates insulin secretion past times the pancreas?  I'm pretty sure Dr. Bauer didn't sign upwardly for "pancreas rules".  But let's pose all that aside for now.  Taubes left out a instant quote past times Dr. Bauer that is relevant here:

“The genes responsible for obesity deed upon the local vogue of the adipose tissue to accumulate fatty (lipophilia) equally good equally upon the endocrine glands and those nervous centers which regulate lipophilia as well as dominate metabolic functions as well as the full general feelings ruling the intake of food and the expenditure of energy. Only a broader excogitation such equally this tin satisfactorily explicate the facts.”

Dr. Bauer was speculating here, because this was long earlier nosotros had the tools to response these questions directly-- today nosotros know that the bold part of his contention has received the most consistent scientific back upwardly (discussed inwards 61).  It appears that fifty-fifty during those golden years of pre-WWII obesity research, earlier nosotros had discovered leptin, earlier nosotros understood inwards especial how the encephalon regulates trunk fatness, when obesity inquiry was yet taking its outset babe steps-- fifty-fifty then, it was clear that the encephalon regulates trunk fatty volume past times controlling nutrient intake as well as release energy expenditure.  Where did I larn that quote?  H5N1 volume called Good Calories, Bad Calories, page 362 (thanks Evelyn).

At this point, I experience I've already spent equally good much fourth dimension engaging Taubes, so I won't occur to create so.  But I promise I've been able to pick out roughly interesting obesity inquiry to readers during this process.

Thus the article Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra

That's all the article Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra this time, hopefully can benefit you all. okay, see you in another article posting.

You are now reading the article Tips Today A Brief Reply To Taubes's Nutrient Vantage Critique, Together With A Fiddling Something Extra with the link address https://makehelathyday.blogspot.com/2014/01/tips-today-brief-reply-to-taubess.html

Share this post