I haven’t read Taubes’ books, but I have read some of his blog posts and here’s how I understand this position. I’m not very certain that my understanding is correct, but maybe this will help.
He agrees the “simple thermodynamic” calories in—calories out = weight gain model is (necessarily) true. But he thinks it’s misleading and isn’t helpful, because it focuses on the (high) calories in and (low) calories out as the causes of weight gain, as if they were solely and directly influenced by deliberate behavioral choice. He says they are proximate, not ultimate causes, and are mostly determined by various complex metabolic states. And these states are in turn influenced, among other things, by the makeup of the diet—rather than just by its caloric value.
So if not conscious behavior, what determines calories in and out? For instance, various metabolic and hormonal states determine the level of hunger, food cravings, etc.
What his epiphenomenal claim means, if true, is that the causal graph doesn’t look like this:
Decide what and how much to eat ⇒ Eat as decided ⇒ Lose or gain weight
But like this:
Eat something ⇒ Metabolic state changes depending on diet ⇒ Hunger levels and specific cravings change in response to metabolic state ⇒ Eating behavior changes in response to hunger.
And in particular:
Eat refined carbs ⇒ hunger levels rise, more food cravings ⇒ end up eating more ⇒ weight gain, sometimes in a runaway positive feedback loop leading to obesity.
On his blog he goes into a lot of detail about the biochemistry of hormonal signals relating to hunger, and to fat storage and release; I can’t really follow those discussions.
I think in general mainstream diet advice, by the time it is filtered down to nurses comments and PSA’s, ends up being on the order of “choose to eat less food and burn more calories through exercise” and virtually none of “did you know that what you eat can determine how hungry you are?”
Actually, a lot of people do. They might not be the “nutritional experts”, but it is a common enough position (here for example) that it needs to be addressed.
Eat something ⇒ Metabolic state changes depending on diet ⇒ Hunger levels and specific cravings change in response to metabolic state ⇒ Eating behavior changes in response to hunger.
Looks reasonable. Are you sure you’re not steelmanning his position?
I’m giving my best understanding of his position. And I didn’t read his book, only some (admittedly very detailed and technical) blog posts. So I might well be filling in some gaps and misremembering what exactly he wrote. But that’s useful too surely—if the evidence he presents in his book and elsewhere works as evidence for this steelmanned argument.
I think he may be clarifying or simplfying his position, but this is the same impression I have from sources that reference Taubes, such as the movie Fathead.
I haven’t read Taubes’ books, but I have read some of his blog posts and here’s how I understand this position. I’m not very certain that my understanding is correct, but maybe this will help.
He agrees the “simple thermodynamic” calories in—calories out = weight gain model is (necessarily) true. But he thinks it’s misleading and isn’t helpful, because it focuses on the (high) calories in and (low) calories out as the causes of weight gain, as if they were solely and directly influenced by deliberate behavioral choice. He says they are proximate, not ultimate causes, and are mostly determined by various complex metabolic states. And these states are in turn influenced, among other things, by the makeup of the diet—rather than just by its caloric value.
So if not conscious behavior, what determines calories in and out? For instance, various metabolic and hormonal states determine the level of hunger, food cravings, etc.
What his epiphenomenal claim means, if true, is that the causal graph doesn’t look like this:
Decide what and how much to eat ⇒ Eat as decided ⇒ Lose or gain weight
But like this:
Eat something ⇒ Metabolic state changes depending on diet ⇒ Hunger levels and specific cravings change in response to metabolic state ⇒ Eating behavior changes in response to hunger.
And in particular:
Eat refined carbs ⇒ hunger levels rise, more food cravings ⇒ end up eating more ⇒ weight gain, sometimes in a runaway positive feedback loop leading to obesity.
On his blog he goes into a lot of detail about the biochemistry of hormonal signals relating to hunger, and to fat storage and release; I can’t really follow those discussions.
The problem is that nobody in mainstream nutrition science actually thinks that.
I think in general mainstream diet advice, by the time it is filtered down to nurses comments and PSA’s, ends up being on the order of “choose to eat less food and burn more calories through exercise” and virtually none of “did you know that what you eat can determine how hungry you are?”
Actually, a lot of people do. They might not be the “nutritional experts”, but it is a common enough position (here for example) that it needs to be addressed.
Sure it’s worth addressing. But in a way that doesn’t imply it’s what the experts think, which Taubes does.
That linked comment doesn’t actually seem to say what you think it says.
Looks reasonable. Are you sure you’re not steelmanning his position?
I’m giving my best understanding of his position. And I didn’t read his book, only some (admittedly very detailed and technical) blog posts. So I might well be filling in some gaps and misremembering what exactly he wrote. But that’s useful too surely—if the evidence he presents in his book and elsewhere works as evidence for this steelmanned argument.
I think he may be clarifying or simplfying his position, but this is the same impression I have from sources that reference Taubes, such as the movie Fathead.