As of the success of Taubes’s diet, this works too . The question which diet is the best for not making you want to over-eat or the easiest to stick with has very little to do with the question of which diet is the most healthy. And the answers to this question are likely to have more to do with culture, sociology, and psychology, than with metabolism.
In particular, I’d expect the Twinkie diet to work wonders if the main reason you eat a lot is out of boredom or nervousness, rather than actual hunger.
The thing about Taubes, is that he’s writing for the mainstream audience—i.e. people who have no independent knowledge of the topic besides what Taubes chooses to tell them.
It doesn’t seem to me they’ve tried to distinguish different types of carbs—as far as I can tell they didn’t rule out (e.g.) starch being more satiating than fats but fats being more satiating than sugar.
That’s the wrong nitpick, but you shouldn’t dismiss it as just a nitpick. One interpretation is that the issue is fiber, not starch vs sugar. The abstract does mention that glycemic index is a useful axis to consider, but it also generalizes to all carbs, which is silly.
Nah, I was genuinely wondering. I’m not in the US, I don’t know if you guys have had a mainstream opinion that excessive drinking of coca cola is absolutely fine, or some other ridiculous heresy like that. (I suspect not, but then Taubes acts as if yes. I don’t think even regular people ever thought that sugars were totally ok and couldn’t make you fat)
I don’t know if you guys have had a mainstream opinion that excessive drinking of coca cola is absolutely fine, or some other ridiculous heresy like that. (I suspect not, but then Taubes acts as if yes. I don’t think even regular people ever thought that sugars were totally ok and couldn’t make you fat)
In particular, I’d expect the Twinkie diet to work wonders if the main reason you eat a lot is out of boredom or nervousness, rather than actual hunger.
Or simply because carbohydrates are generally more satiating than fats .
The thing about Taubes, is that he’s writing for the mainstream audience—i.e. people who have no independent knowledge of the topic besides what Taubes chooses to tell them.
That’s the wrong nitpick, but you shouldn’t dismiss it as just a nitpick. One interpretation is that the issue is fiber, not starch vs sugar. The abstract does mention that glycemic index is a useful axis to consider, but it also generalizes to all carbs, which is silly.
Well, it’s part of the mainstream that you shouldn’t be getting significant fraction of your dietary intake from sugar, right?
I was just nitpicking, not defending Taubes. I’m editing the grandparent to make it clearer.
Nah, I was genuinely wondering. I’m not in the US, I don’t know if you guys have had a mainstream opinion that excessive drinking of coca cola is absolutely fine, or some other ridiculous heresy like that. (I suspect not, but then Taubes acts as if yes. I don’t think even regular people ever thought that sugars were totally ok and couldn’t make you fat)
Neither am I.
The OP asked the same question here.