Teresa…

Hace año y medio publiqué la entrevista que le hice mi cuñada, que acababa de perder el peso que le sobraba. También publiqué sus fotos “antes-después” (ver).

La evolución de Teresa desde aquel entonces no ha sido buena: ha recuperado gran parte de lo que perdió. ¿Cuánto ha recuperado? No lo sé, pero vuelve a tener exceso de peso. Y no le puedo pedir detalles ni sus opiniones porque ningún momento va a ser bueno para ahondar en su herida resaltando lo que ya sabe y no le gusta. A nadie le gusta tener exceso de peso. Y, además, no me extrañaría que se culpe de su mal resultado. Pero, como digo, sólo es una intuición pues no puedo preguntar.

Por lo que yo sé, volvió a “comer de todo”.

¿Fallo del método? ¿Fallo de ella? No lo sé.

Todos somos diferentes y tenemos diferentes prioridades en la vida. Para mí lo prioritario en el tema de mi peso es:

  1. No recuperarlo.
  2. En caso de recuperarlo tener claro que he hecho todo lo que estaba en mi mano para mantenerme delgado.

Para mí sería inconcebible haber conseguido adelgazar y abandonar la dieta recuperándolo todo o casi todo, entre otras cosas porque no sabría identificar la causa del fracaso y a buen seguro me culparía. Si haces todo lo que está en tu mano, digo yo que algo se reducirá la tendencia a culparse del fracaso. Y eso no es poco.

Pero no todo el mundo tiene estas mismas prioridades. Hay quien prioriza la cervecita con los amigos, su bocadillo para almorzar o no destacar como el raro que no come ciertas cosas. En ciertos entornos creo que es más fácil presumir ante los amigos o familiares de no cuidarnos que decir “no puedo comer de eso”. O también puede que busquemos en la mala comida un alivio a problemas laborales o personales.

No lo juzgo. Sencillamente yo veo las cosas de otra forma y tengo otros objetivos.

Leer más:

 

 

Importan…

Andrés pregunta en twitter qué significa que las calorías “importan”, y, curiosamente, la única respuesta que obtiene es “importan”.

— ¿Puedes definir qué significa “importan”?
— Importan.

Yo diría que la pregunta está bien clara, pero sólo es mi opinión, claro…

La charlatanería caloréxica se defiende con múltiples falacias, como he explicado de forma bastante insistente en el blog. El uso del lenguaje ambiguo, impreciso o con doble significado es una de las características de las pseudociencias. Pero toda la intransigencia que se tiene con otras pseudociencias, como por ejemplo la homeopatía, se vuelve manga ancha con la hipótesis CICO.

— La medicina tradicional funciona, pero la memoria del agua también importa.

— ¿Qué significa importa?

— Importa.

Seguro que el diálogo anterior nos parece muy normal.

Al margen de que los caloréxicos entiendan o no por qué su ideología es estúpida pseudociencia, parece complicado que no se den cuenta de que si los únicos argumentos que encuentran son falacias o el uso de términos que no saben definir con precisión, difícilmente pueden estar defendiendo conocimiento científico. La triste realidad es que el gurú de gimnasio dice “importan”, y los gym-bros repiten “importan”. Ése es todo su razonamiento. Los obesos merecemos algo más que esto.

Leer más:

Taubes-Guyenet debate. My analysis (V)

(Versión en español: hacer click aquí)

My notes on the fifth and last segment of the debate and my comments below them:

  • [GT 2h6m] The purpose of NuSI was to stop using these garbage poorly-designed studies, and design studies that asked the right questions. The pilot study was not randomized, and, therefore, you can’t infer causality.
  • [GT 2h7m] Sugar may be the something that you need to add to other carbohydrates to make them fattening. If you want to test this hypothesis, you have to do the experiments right.
  • [GT 2h8m] There is a new version of the Ludwig’s study being done. Whatever that study finds, Kevin Hall will probably look at it and find a reason to question it. This is how science works. There is counterevidence to everything. If there wasn’t, a journalist would not be required.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h9m] Why are sugary carbohydrates the most fattening?
  • [GT 2h9m] Stephan would say that they trigger food reward, I would say that they create a hormonal milieu in the body that overresponds to insulin. If you have a look in a textbook for what causes fat storage, insulin is the hormone that primarily regulates fat storage in your fat cells. Fructose is mostly metabolized in the liver and it may cause insulin resistance and, if it does, you overrespond to insulin.
  • [SG 2h10m] Sugar is the factor that makes us want to eat foods. It causes dopamine release in the brain and this sets our motivational levels to do some behaviors. Drugs act via dopamine.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h10m] But you’re saying that the same amount of carbohydrates, sugary carbohydrates versus vegetable carbohydrates, sugary carbohydrates are going to be more fattening.
  • [SG 2h10m] No, no, I didn’t say it was independently of calories. It is entirely dependent on calories. We have RCTs demonstrating this.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h11m] These RCTs, are they short-term?
  • SG 2h11m] Depends on how you define short-term. They are not lasting years and years.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h11m] Isn’t the issue long-term chronic effects?
  • [SG 2h11m] Possibly, but if you believe insulin is the cause, the effect of insulin on fat cells happens almost immediately. I am not aware of any mechanism that takes more than a few hours to occur. You shouldn’t have to wait months and months for this to occur.
  • [GT 2h11m] That doesn’t make any sense at all to me. He is kind of making this up as he goes along.
  • [SG 2h11m] Oh, Jesus!
  • [SG 2h14m] Insulin has effects on enzimes that cause fat cells to take up more fat and release less fat. That’s what that textbook talks about. That does not imply that insulin causes fat accumulation from day to day.
  • [SG 2h14m] When you eat a diet that is high in carbohydrates and low in fat, insulin goes up and your body restricts the fat from going out of fat cells, turns that down, not off, and then your body is burning carbs. If you eat a diet that is high in fat and low in carbohydrates, you secrete less insulin, those effects don’t occur on your fat cells, and that allows your body to burn the fat that you just ate. But at the end of the day, the amount of fat that you have on your body is the amount that you ate minus the amount that you burned. If you eat a low fat diet, you are not eating much and you are not burning much, but you’re in the same place as if you’re eating a lot of fat and burning a lot of fat. We know that this is true because varying the amount of carbohydrates makes no difference on RCTs. That’s how we know that what I just said is correct.
  • [GT 2h16m] One of the problems with modern nutritional science is that you do crappy studies, generate garbage, and then put together a lot of garbage and say we can find the truth in there. The answer is do better studies.
  • [GT 2h16m] The difference between fat ingested and fat expended has to be 10 kcal/d. No study was ever done that measured people ingesting 1500 kcal/d and expending 1490 kcal/d. For example, in the Kevin Hall study they didn’t measure ketones lost or energy in feces.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h18m] [He reads the effects of insulin in fat cells from a textbook]
  • [GT 2h20m] Keith Frayn, the author of the textbook explained to me for 20 minutes how insulin traps, determines, fatty acid trafficking accross the fat cell membrane, but when we talked about obesity he said it is because people eat too much. I told him he switched mechanisms: one mechanism for fat cells, a different mechanism for why people get fat. He said: “I never thought of that”. I asked him to come up with a hypothesis for obesity from the fat cell perspective, and he said “I can’t put energy balance aside”.
  • [GT 2h23m] All these people, including Stephan, they are so locked into this thinking, they can’t get away from it. Even when he says he is using a lot of studies, I can guarantee that if we have a look at all these studies, they assumed energy balance was the cause and they started with the wrong hypothesis.
  • [SG 2h24m] Gary, I preordered your book. I was so persuaded 10 years ago that I ate a low-carb diet for 6 months. I was fully convinced by your perspective. The thing that caused me to go away from that perspective is when I started to actually investigate evidence on my own. And evidence didn’t line up with what you were saying in your book. Your arguments in GCBC rely on historical narrative and speculation. And others who have looked at the same historical events have come to different conclusions than you have. And that includes me.
  • [SG 2h26m] I am post-Taubes. [He laughs]
  • [GT 2h27m] There are different ways to look at the evidence. Maybe you eat less on a low-carb diet because your insulin is low.
  • [SG 2h27m] Can you give me evidence that that is the reason?
  • [GT 2h27m] No.
  • [SG 2h28m] When you feed people, whether it is overfeeding or underfeeding, the carb to fat ratio of the diet makes almost no difference.
  • [GT 2h29m] In overfeeding experiments, they could make people overeat 10000 kcal/d of carbohydrate calories, but they couldn’t make people overeat more than 1000 kcal of fat. Is it because the carbs are doing something in the brain or is it that the carbs are doing something in the body? There are always two ways to look at it.
  • [GT 2h31m] Even if I am wrong, I assume that telling people to eat less sugar is a good thing.
  • [SG 2h32m] Not entirely, because you are telling people that only carbohydrate matters…
  • [GT 2h32m] I am not.
  • [SG 2h32m] You are telling people that caloric intake, and dietary fat intake and physical activity do not influence body fatness and are not important.
  • [GT 2h32m] I refuse to believe that someone who is obese got that way because they are sedentary.
  • [SG 2h32m] There is harm in what you’re saying because you are saying that other important factors are irrelevant.
  • [GT 2h32m] No. No. No. What I am saying about calories is that it is the wrong way to think about it. They are a way to measure the amount of food. You could use grams.
  • [GT 2h33m] [He reads a text]
  • [GT 2h34m] One of my problems with the whole overeating hypothesis is that it’s tautological. You don’t know if someone is overeating unless they’re fat, right?
  • [SG 2h34m] Incorrect. You can measure his calorie intake and you can know. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
  • [GT 2h34m] How do you know if I overeat?
  • [SG 2h35m] It depends on how you define that. But looking at your body composition I can tell you whether you’re overeating relatively to a lean person.
  • [GT 2h35m] Because I have excess body fat.
  • [SG 2h35m] Correct.
  • [GT 2h35m] Without knowing if I have body fat you cannot know if I am overeating, right?
  • [SG 2h35m] Uhhhh
  • [GT 2h35m] Doesn’t it strike you as circular?
  • [SG 2h35m] Theres is nothing circular about it. If you take somebody and increase their food intake they gain body fat. There is nothing circular about it. And if you reduce their calorie intake, they lose body fat. It’s so simple and direct.

Guyenet’s beliefs are contrary to scientific evidence

We can no longer doubt that Guyenet defends that calories determine if we gain body fat or we don’t:

  • [Joe Rogan 2h10m] But you’re saying that the same amount of carbohydrates, sugary carbohydrates versus vegetable carbohydrates, sugary carbohydrates are going to be more fattening.
  • [SG 2h10m] No, no, I did not say it was independently of calories. It is entirely dependent on calories. We have RCTs demonstrating this.

And, as he says in that fragment and he repeats later, he does not say that it is because of the laws of thermodynamics: he says that scientific experiments are what supports his claims. This is very important:

[SG 2h14m] We know that this is true because varying the amount of carbohydrates makes no difference on RCTs. That’s how we know that what I just said is correct.

Why is this relevant? Because Guyenet is unable to defend his pseudoscience arguing that it derives from the First Law of Thermodynamics. He says that what proves that he is right in his beliefs is that experimental evidence proves him right. Or, in other words, the real value of his ideology is conditioned by the lucidity of his interpretations of scientific evidence. And the scientific evidence he provides is:

  1. Very short-term experiments for which Guyenet ignores their duration and also ignores that there are differences between diets. His conclusion that there are no differences is just a lie.
  2. Absolute lack of long-term controlled experiments.

I do not say that it is his fault not to provide long-term evidence, but that the fact that it is not his fault doesn’t make relevant the short-term evidence he provides. In addition to that, he makes a simplistic and biased interpretation of those studies.

Morover, Guyenet is ignoring the abundant scientific evidence that shows that body fat accumulation is not determined by calories. The scientific evidence that refutes his hypothesis is endless. Two years ago I created a list with all the blog entries that presented scientific experiments that demonstrated this. The list includes almost 100 articles: see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see, see. And it’s been more than two years since I created the list, so we can find much more scientific articles in this blog that show the same results.

Why can’t Guyenet see the scientific evidence that refutes his hypothesis and instead of that he holds on to short-term experiments that do not show what he says? Faith is not scientific evidence. Although the controlled experiments that can be carried out in humans are short-term, that does not make those studies relevant nor does it allow us to make what happens in the long term up. The fact that Kevin Hall deduces from those short-term studies that for any practical purpose the composition of the diet does not matter is simply bad science. My bolds:

In other words, for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat. Kevin Hall, PhD

The effects of insulin are immediate

Another facepalm moment thanks to Guyenet. But this is typical Guyenet. Are there no long-term changes in the action of insulin? Is there a physiological process called “insulin resistance” that can make the effects of insulin change in the long term? Is Guyenet really saying what he is saying?

Another example. As we have seen in this blog (see), in people who have lost weight, the effect of insulin on LPL can be clearly altered, and the same happens with lipolysis, something that may be explained by the size of the adipocytes (see)

The composition of the diet is not relevant

[SG 2h14m] When you eat a diet that is high in carbohydrates and low in fat, insulin goes up and your body restricts the fat from going out of fat cells, turns that down, not off, and then your body is burning carbs. If you eat a diet that is high in fat and low in carbohydrates, you secrete less insulin, those effects do not occur on your fat cells, and that allows your body to burn the fat that you just ate. But at the end of the day, the amount of fat that you have on your body is the amount that you have minus the amount that you burned. If you eat a low fat diet, you are not eating much and you are not burning much, but you’re in the same place as if you’re eating a lot of fat and burning a lot of fat. We know that this is true because varying the amount of carbohydrates makes no difference on RCT. That’s how we know that what I just said is correct.

When insulin is high it is not necessary to get fat from the adipose tissue because we already have dietary carbohydrates to burn. OK. When insulin levesl are low (a diet high in fat and low in carbohydrates) Guyenet says that that does not happen, that is, low insulin does let the fat out of the fat tissue. But that is not really necessary because we already have dietary fat to burn, right? Does that really make sense in his narrative? I think he is right, but his message is inconsistent. You’d say he’s got into a muddle.

In any case, the interesting thing about this narrative is that, as he recognizes at the end of the quote above, it doesn’t have to be that way. He justifies his beliefs by saying that, in his opinion, this is what scientific experiments say.

That’s how we know that what I just said is correct.

Well, since well-controlled scientific experiments do not say that, neither those that exist, which are short-term, nor those that don’t exist, which would be long-term, the story that he is telling is worthless. What happened with the First Law of Thermodynamics as a justification for his pseudoscience?

The insulin hypothesis is not consistent with basic thermodynamics. Stephan Guyenet, PhD

Oh, yes, it is consistent. And Guyenet has not dared to say the opposite to Taubes.

Guyenet is in a post-Taubes phase

Guyenet claims that he has put behind him his belief in Taubes’ hypothesis. This is such a good argument because a long time ago Taubes also believed that Guyenet’s pseudoscience was correct. Taubes can also say that he is in a post-Guyenet phase. Why is Guyenet laughing?

We store the difference between what we eat and what we burn

[SG 2h14m] at the end of the day, the amount of fat that you have on your body is the amount that you ate minus the amount that you burned

Is there something wrong with Guyenet’s claim? In a summarized form, let’s say that expressing it like that is the first step for the deception to happen, which is to make people believe that the difference between our energy intake and our energy expenditure determines how much body fat we accumulate. Morover, notice that Guyenet’s expression only mentions two terms from the energy balance equation: by isolating those terms he is making them the relevant terms.

We could also say that every day we store as body fat what is stored in our adipose tissue. There is no information in this claim, in exactly the same way as there is no information in Guyenet’s sentence, but at least we focus our attention on the main character involved in fat accumulation. I refer to this entry of the blog for detailed comments on where the problem with Guyenet’s sentence lies.

Taubes’ ideas harm

That’s what Guyenet says. Or perhaps the ideas that have harmed the health of the population in the last century are those defended by Guyenet. There is zero self-criticism in Guyenet. He never questions his pseudoscience. But when someone explains the errors that are the foundation of his beliefs, instead of recognizing the grave error that is his ideology, he says that the critic damages the health of the population. No, it is not the critic: it is Guyenet who harms.

The circular thinking of “overeating”

The final part of the debate is very interesting. “Good Calories Bad Calories”, the book by Taubes, was published in 2007, i.e. 11 years ago. Guyenet has had plenty of time to understand the tautology on which his pseudoscience is based.

I do not know what you’re talking about.

Moreover, Guyenet has changed his message from the one he had a few years ago (see). As we have seen, he doesn’t dare to justify his beliefs by mentioning the First Law of Thermodynamics. Has he rectified his error without understanding Taubes’ explanations about tautologies and circular thinking? Does he really not know what Taubes is talking about? I don’t believe him. I can’t believe him.

About circular arguments, Taubes is absolutely right, and his explanations are impeccable. As he also explained in this debate, in the energy balance pseudoscience overeating is another way of saying body fat accumulation. In that paradigm, if you are not accumulating body fat, you are not overeating. And if you accumulate body fat, then you are overeating. Guyenet even acknowledges that to know if you have overeaten he would check your fat mass. In the energetic paradigm, a tautology is incomprehensibly mistaken for an explanation. The circular thinking is evident.

And the final explanation from Guyenet is very enlightening: he says that if you increase your intake or you reduce it, that makes you gain or lose body fat. It is the single cause fallacy, as I have already commented in this analysis. And we must take into account under what conditions it has been verified what Guyenet says: in the short term and with huge variations in the caloric intake. Or, in other words, it has never been proven in the circumstances in which the energy balance pseudoscience proposes that fattening happens in real life, which are long-term and with a very small increase in the caloric intake. Nor, as Taubes correctly points out, have alternative options been considered in the long term. What Guyenet claims that is “simple and direct”, is an undoubtedly erroneous belief born from fallacies and paralogisms. And Taubes explains this perfectly.

NOTE: I insist that the terminology of the energy balance paradigm can be used only if that pseudoscience is first proved correct. Caloric excess, caloric deficit, overeating, etc. are terms that belong to this paradigm. Before using these terms, it must be justified that they can be used.

Go to the conclusions
Go to the fifth part
Go to the fourth part
Go to the third part
Go to the second part
Go to the first part

Debate Taubes-Guyenet. Mi análisis (V)

(English version: click here)

Mis notas sobre el último segmento del debate y tras ellas mis comentarios:

  • [GT 2h6m] El propósito de NuSI era dejar de usar estos estudios-basura mal diseñados, y diseñar estudios que hicieran las preguntas correctas. El estudio piloto no fue aleatorizado y, por lo tanto, no se puede inferir una causalidad.
  • [GT 2h7m] El azúcar puede ser algo que necesitas agregar a otros carbohidratos para hacerlos engordantes. Si quieres testear esta hipótesis, tienes que hacer los experimentos correctamente.
  • [GT 2h8m] Se está realizando una nueva versión del estudio de Ludwig. Independientemente de lo que encuentre ese estudio, Kevin Hall probablemente lo mirará y encontrará una razón para cuestionarlo. Así es cómo funciona la ciencia. Hay contra-evidencia para todo. Si no fuera así, no se haría falta un periodista.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h9m] ¿Por qué los carbohidratos azucarados son los que más engordan?
  • [GT 2h9m] Stephan diría que activan la recompensa de alimentos, yo diría que crean un medio hormonal en el cuerpo que responde en exceso a la insulina. Si busca en un libro de texto qué causa el almacenamiento de grasa, la insulina es la hormona que principalmente regula el almacenamiento de grasa en las células grasas. La fructosa se metaboliza principalmente en el hígado y puede causar resistencia a la insulina y, si lo hace, usted responde en exceso a la insulina.
  • [SG 2h10m] El azúcar es el factor que nos hace querer comer alimentos. Provoca la liberación de dopamina en el cerebro y esto establece nuestros niveles de motivación para realizar algunas conductas. Las drogas actúan a través de la dopamina.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h10m] Pero estás diciendo que con la misma cantidad de carbohidratos, carbohidratos azucarados versus carbohidratos vegetales, los carbohidratos azucarados engordarán más.
  • [SG 2h10m] No, no, no dije que fuera independientemente de las calorías. Es totalmente dependiente de las calorías. Tenemos RCTs que demuestran esto.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h11m] Estos RCTs, ¿son a corto plazo?
  • [SG 2h11m] Depende de cómo se defina a corto plazo. No duran años y años.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h11m] ¿No es el problema los efectos crónicos a largo plazo?
  • [SG 2h11m] Posiblemente, pero si crees que la insulina es la causa, el efecto de la insulina en las células grasas ocurre casi de inmediato. No tengo conocimiento de ningún mecanismo que tarde más de unas pocas horas en producirse. No debería tener que esperar meses y meses para que esto ocurra.
  • [GT 2h11m] Eso no tiene ningún sentido para mí. Se lo inventa sobre la marcha.
  • [SG 2h11m] ¡Oh, Jesús!
  • [SG 2h14m] La insulina tiene efectos sobre las enzimas que hacen que las células grasas cojan más grasa y liberen menos grasa. De eso trata el libro de texto. Eso no significa que la insulina cause la acumulación de grasa de día a día.
  • [SG 2h14m] Cuando consumes una dieta alta en carbohidratos y baja en grasas, la insulina aumenta y tu cuerpo restringe la salida de grasa de las células grasas, lo reduce, no lo elimina y así tu cuerpo quema carbohidratos. Si consume una dieta alta en grasas y baja en carbohidratos, secreta menos insulina, esos efectos no se producen en las células grasas y eso le permite a su cuerpo quemar la grasa que acaba de ingerir. Pero al final del día, la cantidad de grasa que queda en tu cuerpo es la cantidad ingerida menos la cantidad quemada. Si comes una dieta baja en grasas, no estás comiendo mucha y no estás quemando mucha, pero obtienes el mismo resultado que si estuvieras comiendo mucha grasa y quemando mucha grasa. Sabemos que esto es cierto porque variar la cantidad de carbohidratos no produce ninguna diferencia en los RCTs. Así es como sabemos que lo que acabo de decir es correcto.
  • [GT 2h16m] Uno de los problemas con la ciencia nutricional moderna es que haces estudios de mierda, generas basura y luego juntas mucha basura y dices que podemos encontrar la verdad ahí. La respuesta es hacer mejores estudios.
  • [GT 2h16m] La diferencia entre la grasa ingerida y la grasa gastada debe ser de 10 kcal/d. No se ha hecho ningún estudio que midiera a las personas una ingesta de 1500 kcal/d y un gasto de 1490 kcal/d. Por ejemplo, en el estudio de Kevin Hall no midieron las cetonas perdidas o la energía en las heces.
  • [Joe Rogan 2h18m] [Lee los efectos de la insulina en las células de grasa de un libro de texto] 
  • [GT 2h20m] Keith Frayn, el autor del libro de texto, me explicó durante 20 minutos cómo la insulina atrapa —determina el tráfico de— ácidos grasos a través de la membrana de las células grasas, pero cuando hablamos de obesidad, dijo que es porque la gente come demasiado. Le dije que me había cambiado los mecanismos: me daba un mecanismo para los adipocitos y un mecanismo diferente por el cuál las personas engordan. Dijo: “Nunca pensé en eso”. Le pedí que formulara una hipótesis para la obesidad desde la perspectiva de las células grasas y dijo: “No puedo dejar de lado el equilibrio energético”.
  • [GT 2h23m] Todas estas personas, incluido Stephan, están tan atrapados en este pensamiento que no pueden escapar de él. Incluso cuando dice que está utilizando muchos estudios, puedo garantizar que si analizamos todos estos estudios, todos asumieron que la causa era el equilibrio de energía y comenzaron con la hipótesis incorrecta.
  • [SG 2h24m] Gary, preordené tu libro. Estaba tan convencido hace 10 años que seguí una dieta baja en carbohidratos durante 6 meses. Estaba completamente convencido por tu perspectiva. Lo que me hizo alejarme de esa perspectiva fue cuando comencé a investigar las pruebas por mi cuenta. Y la evidencia no se alineó con lo que estabas diciendo en tu libro. Tus argumentos en GCBC se basan en la narrativa histórica y la especulación. Y otros que han analizado los mismos acontecimientos históricos han llegado a conclusiones diferentes a las tuyas. Y eso me incluye.
  • [SG 2h26m] Soy post-Taubes. [Ríe]
  • [GT 2h27m] Hay diferentes maneras de ver la evidencia. Puede ser que coma menos en una dieta baja en carbohidratos porque su insulina es baja.
  • [SG 2h27m] ¿Puedes darme evidencia de que ésa es la razón?
  • [GT 2h27m] No.
  • [SG 2h28m] Cuando se alimenta a las personas, ya sea sobrealimentación o subalimentación, la proporción de carbohidratos y grasas de la dieta casi no tiene ninguna relevancia.
  • [GT 2h29m] En experimentos de sobrealimentación, podrían hacer que las personas comieran en exceso 10000 kcal/d de carbohidratos, pero no podían hacer que las personas comieran en exceso más de 1000 kcal de grasa. ¿Es porque los carbohidratos están haciendo algo en el cerebro o es porque los carbohidratos están haciendo algo en el cuerpo? Siempre hay dos formas de verlo.
  • [GT 2h31m] Incluso si estoy equivocado, asumo que decirle a la gente que coma menos azúcar es algo bueno.
  • [SG 2h32m] No del todo, porque le estás diciendo a la gente que solo los carbohidratos son importantes …
  • [GT 2h32m] No lo hago.
  • [SG 2h32m] Le estás diciendo a la gente que la ingesta calórica y la ingesta de grasas en la dieta y la actividad física no influyen en la grasa corporal y no son importantes.
  • [GT 2h32m] Me niego a creer que algunos de los que son obesos llegaron a serlo porque son sedentarios.
  • [SG 2h32m] Hay daño en lo que estás diciendo porque estás diciendo que otros factores importantes son irrelevantes.
  • [GT 2h32m] No. No. No. Lo que estoy diciendo acerca de las calorías es que es una manera incorrecta de pensar en este asunto. Son una forma de medir la cantidad de comida. Podrías usar gramos.
  • [GT 2h33m] [Lee un texto]
  • [GT 2h34m] Uno de mis problemas con toda la hipótesis de comer en exceso es que es tautológico. No sabes si alguien está comiendo en exceso a menos que haya engordado, ¿verdad?
  • [SG 2h34m] Incorrecto. Puedes medir su ingesta de calorías y puedes saberlo. No sé de qué estás hablando.
  • [GT 2h34m] ¿Cómo sabes si comí en exceso?
  • [SG 2h35m] Depende de cómo lo definas. Pero observando la composición de tu cuerpo, puedo decirte si estás comiendo en exceso con respecto a una persona magra.
  • [GT 2h35m] Porque tengo exceso de grasa corporal.
  • [SG 2h35m] Correcto.
  • [GT 2h35m] Sin saber si tengo grasa corporal, no puedes saber si estoy comiendo en exceso, ¿verdad?
  • [SG 2h35m] Ummm
  • [GT 2h35m] ¿No te parece circular?
  • [SG 2h35m] No hay nada circular en esto. Si coges a alguien y aumentas su ingesta de alimentos, ganan grasa corporal, no hay nada circular en ello. Y si les reduces la ingesta de calorías, pierden grasa corporal. ¡Es tan simple y directo!

Las creencias de Guyenet son contrarias a la evidencia científica

Sobre si Guyenet defiende que todo es cuestión de calorías, más claro no puede ser que sí lo hace:

  • [Joe Rogan 2h10m] Pero estás diciendo que con la misma cantidad de carbohidratos, carbohidratos azucarados versus carbohidratos vegetales, los carbohidratos azucarados engordarán más.
  • [SG 2h10m] No, no, no dije que fuera independientemente de las calorías. Es totalmente dependiente de las calorías. Tenemos RCTs que demuestran esto.

Y, como dice en ese fragmento y repite más tarde, no dice que sea por las leyes de la termodinámica : dice que es lo que se deduce de los experimentos científicos. Esto es importantísimo:

  • [SG 2h14m] Sabemos que esto es cierto porque variar la cantidad de carbohidratos no produce ninguna diferencia en los RCTs. Así es como sabemos que lo que acabo de decir es correcto.

¿Por qué es importante? Pues porque Guyenet es incapaz de defender su pseudociencia argumentando que deriva de la Primera Ley de la Termodinámica: dice que lo que demuestra que él tiene razón en sus creencias es que se comprueba que es así en los experimentos científicos. O, en otras palabras, la validez de su ideología está condicionada por la lucidez de su interpretación de la evidencia científica. Y la evidencia científica que aporta es:

  1. Experimentos a cortísimo plazo para los que Guyenet ignora la duración de los experimentos e ignora que sí se encuentran diferencias entre dietas. Su conclusión de que no hay diferencias es simplemente mentira.
  2. Carencia de experimentos controlados a largo plazo.

No digo que sea culpa suya no tener evidencia de calidad a largo plazo, pero que no sea culpa suya no hace buena la evidencia a corto plazo que aporta, para la que, además, hace una interpretación simplista y sesgada.

Y Guyenet está ignorando la abundantísima evidencia científica que demuestra que la acumulación de grasa corporal no viene determinada por las calorías. La evidencia científica que demuestra incorrecta su hipótesis es interminable. Hace dos años creé un listado con todas las entradas del blog que presentaban experimentos cientificos que demostraban esto. Ésta es la lista de esos casi 100 artículos del blog: ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver, ver. Y han pasado más de dos años, en los que hemos visto más artículos que demuestran lo mismo.

¿Por qué Guyenet no ve la evidencia científica que refuta su hipótesis y se agarra a experimentos a corto plazo que no demuestran lo que él dice? Su fe no es evidencia científica. Aunque los experimentos controlados que se pueden hacer en humanos son a corto plazo, eso no los hace relevantes ni le permite inventarse lo que sucede a largo plazo. El hecho de que Kevin Hall, a partir de esos experimentos a corto plazo, diga que para cualquier propósito práctico la composición de la dieta no importa es sencillamente mala ciencia. Mis negritas:

para cualquier propósito práctico “una caloría es una caloría” cuando se trata de diferencias en grasa corporal y gasto energético entre dietas isocalóricas controladas que se diferencian en el ratio de carbohidratos a grasa. Kevin Hall, PhD

Los efectos de la insulina son inmediatos

El argumento de Guyenet es para echarse las manos a la cabeza. Pero con Guyenet estamos ya curados de espanto. ¿No hay cambios a largo plazo en la acción de la insulina? ¿No hay una cosa, por ejemplo, llamada “resistencia a la insulina” que puede hacer que los efectos de la insulina cambien a largo plazo? ¿De verdad Guyenet está diciendo lo que está diciendo?

Otro ejemplo. Como hemos visto en el blog (ver), en personas que han bajado de peso, la acción de la insulina en la LPL puede estar claramente alterada, y lo mismo pasa con la lipólisis, algo que quizá se explique por el tamaño de los adipocitos (ver).

La composición de la dieta no es relevante

[SG 2h14m] When you eat a diet that is high in carbohydrates and low in fat, insulin goes up and your body restricts the fat from going out of fat cells, turns that down, not off, and then your body is burning carbs. If you eat a diet that is high in fat and low in carbohydrates, you secrete less insulin, those effects don’t occur on your fat cells, and that allows your body to burn the fat that you just ate. But at the end of the day, the amount of fat that you have on your body is the amount that you ate minus the amount that you burned. If you eat a low fat diet, you are not eating much and you are not burning much, but you’re in the same place as if you’re eating a lot of fat and burning a lot of fat. We know that this is true because varying the amount of carbohydrates makes no difference on RCT. That’s how we know that what I just said is correct.

Con la insulina alta, no es necesario sacar grasa del tejido adiposo porque tenemos carbohidratos que quemar. Vale. Con la insulina baja (dieta alta en grasa y baja en carbohidratos) dice que eso no sucede, es decir, la insulina baja sí deja que la grasa salga del tejido graso, siendo que en realidad no es necesario pues ya está la grasa dietética para ser quemada. ¿De verdad tiene eso sentido en su narrativa? Yo lo veo cierto, pero incoherente en su mensaje. Se diría que se ha liado explicándolo.

En cualquier caso, lo interesante de esta narrativa es que, como él reconoce al final de la cita, no tiene por qué ser así. Lo justifica diciendo que lo cree así porque, en su opinión, es lo que dicen los experimentos científicos.

That’s how we know that what I just said is correct.

Vale, pues como los experimentos científicos bien controlados no dicen eso, ni los que existen, a corto plazo, ni los que no existen, a largo plazo, esta historieta que nos ha contado no vale nada. ¿Dónde quedó la Primera Ley de la Termodinámica como justificación de su pseudociencia?

the insulin hypothesis is not consistent with basic thermodynamics. Stephan Guyenet, PhD

Oh, sí, sí que es consistente. Y Guyenet no se ha atrevido a decir lo contrario con Taubes delante.

Guyenet está en una fase post-Taubes

Guyenet presume de estar en una fase más avanzada que creer en la hipótesis de Taubes. Menudo argumento: también Taubes creyó en su día correcta la pseudociencia de Guyenet, y podría, por tanto, presumir de estar en una fase post-Guyenet. ¿Qué argumento es éste? ¿De qué se ríe Guyenet?

Engordamos la diferencia entre lo que ingerimos y lo que quemamos

[SG 2h14m] al final del día, la cantidad de grasa que queda en tu cuerpo es la cantidad ingerida menos la cantidad quemada.

¿Es que no es correcto lo que afirma Guyenet? Digamos que expresarlo así es el primer paso para consumar la trampa, que es hacer creer que ingesta energética y gasto energético determinan cuánta grasa acumulamos. Nótese como en la expresión de Guyenet sólo hay dos términos de la ecuación del balance de energía: aislando esos términos los está convirtiendo en los relevantes.

También podríamos decir que cada día engordamos lo que es almacenado en el tejido adiposo. Esta afirmación no aporta nada, igual que no la aporta la frase de Guyenet, pero al menos centramos la atención en el tejido protagonista en la acumulación de grasa corporal. Remito a esta entrada del blog para un comentario más detallado de dónde está el problema con la frase de Guyenet.

Las ideas de Taubes hacen daño

Eso dice Guyenet. O a lo mejor son las ideas de Guyenet las que durante el último siglo han estado dañando la salud de la población. Hay cero autocrítica en Guyenet. Su pseudociencia no la cuestiona. Pero cuando se ponen sobre la mesa los errores en su pseudociencia, este tipo en lugar de reconocer el gravísimo error que es su ideología, reacciona diciendo que el crítico daña la salud de la población. No, no es el crítico: es Guyenet el que hace daño.

El pensamiento circular del “sobreconsumo”

La parte final del debate es muy interesante. “Good Calories Bad Calories”, el libro de Taubes, se publicó en el 2007, hace ya 11 años. Tiempo ha tenido Guyenet para entender la tautología en la que se basa su pseudociencia.

I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Es más, Guyenet ha cambiado su mensaje respecto del que sostenía hace unos años (ver). Como hemos visto, no se ha atrevido a intentar justificar sus creencias mencionando la Primera Ley de la Termodinámica. ¿Ha rectificado su error pero lo ha hecho sin entender las explicaciones de Taubes sobre la tautología y el pensamiento circular? ¿De verdad no sabe de qué habla Taubes? Yo no le creo. No puedo creerle.

En el asunto del pensamiento circular, Taubes tiene toda la razón, y lo explica perfectamente. También en el debate lo ha explicado: overeating, que podemos traducir como sobreconsumo o comer de más, es equivalente en la pseudociencia del balance energético a acumular grasa corporal: son dos formas de decir lo mismo. En ese paradigma, si no estás acumulando grasa corporal, no comes “de más”. Y si acumulas grasa corporal, entonces comes “de más”. Si es que hasta Guyenet dice que para saber si has comido “de más” lo que haría es comprobar si tienes grasa corporal. En el paradigma energético, la tautología es convertida incomprensiblemente en explicación. El pensamiento circular es evidente.

Y la explicación final de Guyenet me parece muy ilustrativa: dice que si aumentas la ingesta o la reduces, eso se traduce en más o menos grasa corporal. Es la falacia de causa única, como ya he comentado. Y hay que plantearse en qué condiciones se ha comprobado lo que Guyenet dice: a corto plazo y con variaciones de ingesta enormes. O, en otras palabras, no se ha comprobado en las circunstancias en las que la pseudociencia del balance energético propone que sucede en la vida real el engorde, que es a largo plazo y con una variación mínima en la ingesta. Ni, como bien apunta Taubes, se han examinado las opciones alternativas a largo plazo. Lo que Guyenet dice que es sencillo y directo, es simplemente una creencia errónea nacida de falacias y paralogismos. Y Taubes lo explica perfectamente.

NOTA: Insisto en que la terminología del balance energético se puede emplear sólo si esa pseudociencia se demuestra primero correcta. Exceso calórico, déficit calórico, sobreconsumo, etc. son términos que pertenecen a ese paradigma. Antes de emplear esos términos, hay que justificar que pueden ser usados.

Ir a las conclusiones
Ir a la quinta entrega
Ir a la cuarta entrega
Ir a la tercera entrega
Ir a la segunda entrega
Ir a la primera entrega

Guyenet, PhD sigue desinformando sobre el azúcar

La cuestión no es complicada de entender. Y creo que está suficientemente explicado el engaño de Guyenet, PhD en estas dos entradas:

Para quien no quiera leer mucho, el resumen es que se están comparando dos magnitudes, peso corporal acumulado e ingesta diaria de azúcar, que nadie espera que guarden una relación directa, ni siquiera bajo el supuesto que se pretende refutar, que es la idea de que el azúcar es engordante per se.

Si hacemos memoria, ésta es la gráfica con la que Guyenet, PhD engaña a la gente:

pastedimage

Y ha vuelto a la carga con el mismo BS en el debate de ayer (1h27m):

No estoy diciendo ahora mismo que el azúcar sea culpable ni que sea inocente. No es ése mi argumento. Lo que digo es que el argumento de Guyenet, PhD es manifiestamente erróneo. Ni siquiera hace falta tener formación en ciencia ni en matemáticas para entender que es falso. Basta con tener un mínimo espíritu crítico y cuestionar las cosas.

imagen_3617

La falacia del francotirador (II)

[Joe Rogan] When you’re eating a sugary diet, a high-calorie diet, you will produce more fat? Your body will get fatter, right?

[Stephan Guyenet] It depends on how many calories you are eating (fuente)

[Joe Rogan] Si consumes una dieta con azúcar, una dieta alta en calorías, ¿se acumulará más grasa corporal? Tu cuerpo engordará, ¿cierto?

[Stephan Guyenet] Depende de cuántas calorías consumas

Dietary fat and adiposity: a dose-response relationship in adult male rats fed isocalorically”

Experimento en ratas de 6 semanas de duración, con cuatro grupos dietéticos que siguen dietas isocalóricas, con idéntico porcentaje de proteína:

imagen_3584

¿Acabarán todos los grupos con el mismo peso y grasa corporal? ¿Cuál es la predicción de la hipótesis CICO para este experimento? ¿Es determinada la grasa corporal acumulada por cuántas calorías se consumen? En tal caso, puesto que las dietas son isocalóricas, la predicción CICO es que no va a haber diferencia entre dietas.

Los pesos de los distintos grupos dietarios no se diferencian demasiado al final del experimento (nótese la escala vertical), si bien los dos grupos con más grasa dietética son los que acaban con más peso:

imagen_3586

Al margen del peso final, nótese la evolución entre las semanas 2-6 de la dieta de los círculos blancos (12% grasa) y la dieta de los triángulos negros (48% de grasa).

En la siguiente gráfica vemos la grasa corporal de 3 diferentes depósitos corporales de grasa (tres barras más a la izquierda en cada cuarteto). Las barras blancas de cada cuarteto representan la grasa corporal total. Los datos son en porcentaje respecto del grupo con un 12% de grasa dietética:

imagen_3583

Es decir, con las mismas calorías y el mismo porcentaje de proteína, cuanta más grasa había en la dieta, mayor era la acumulación de grasa corporal:

Experimental studies in a variety of species have clearly demonstrated that ad libitum consumption of high-fat diets promotes weight gain and obesity. Increased weight gain under such conditions is due in part to hyperphagia, which is characteristic of high-fat feeding. The present study demonstrates that dietary fat promotes increased adiposity even when fed isocalorically with carbohydrate.

Los estudios experimentales en una variedad de especies han demostrado claramente que el consumo ad libitum de dietas altas en grasa promueve el aumento de peso y la obesidad. El aumento de peso en tales condiciones se debe en parte a la hiperfagia, que es característica de la alimentación alta en grasa. El presente estudio demuestra que la grasa en la dieta promueve el aumento de la adiposidad incluso cuando se alimenta de forma isocalórica con carbohidratos.

“Incluso cuando se alimenta de forma isocalórica”. ¿Pero no dice Guyenet, PhD que la acumulación de grasa corporal depende de las calorías? ¿Entonces, no es así?

Suele recurrirse a intentar justificar resultados como éste aduciendo que la absorción de los nutrientes habrá sido diferente con las diferentes dietas. Afortunadamente en este experimento los autores midieron la energía en las heces de los animales, y llegaron a la conclusión de que no había diferencias en términos de absorción entre los distintos grupos dietarios:

Digestible energy was calculated by subtracting fecal energy from intake energy and by dividing the difference by energy intake to obtain the percent energy digested. […] Values for digestibility which did not differ significantly were as follows: 93.3 ± 0.26, 93.4 ± 0.25, 93.4 ± 0.11, and 93.0 ± 0.10 for the 12, 23, 36, and 48% fat diet groups, respectively.

La energía digerible se calculó restando la energía fecal de la energía de ingesta y dividiendo la diferencia por la ingesta de energía para obtener el porcentaje de energía digerida. […] Los valores de digestibilidad, que no difirieron significativamente, fueron los siguientes: 93.3 ± 0.26, 93.4 ± 0.25, 93.4 ± 0.11 y 93.0 ± 0.10 para los grupos de 12, 23, 36 y 48% de grasa en la dieta, respectivamente.

Como comenté en un artículo previo (ver), este tipo de argumentos ad hoc sólo buscan desacreditar resultados incómodos para las propias creencias.

Leer más:

Guyenet in his labyrinth

The CICO hypothesis says, in a nutshell, that when our energy intake is greater than our energy needs, the excess energy is accumulated as body fat (see, see).

The carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis says, in a nutshell, that an abnormal insulin secretion can directly affect the “entrapment” of fatty acids in our adipose tissue, in which case the changes in the energy expenditure and/or energy intake are not the cause of the accumulation, but just a possible (not necessary) consequence of the accumulation (see, see).

The graph below make it clear that both hypotheses propose opposite causalities:

Is it possible that sometimes our body behaves as the CICO hypothesis predicts, but sometimes its behaviour is more like what the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis predicts? I think so, but let’s not fall into a false dichotomy between these two hypotheses: sometimes the behavior resembles what CICO predicts, but it is possible that other times the loss or accumulation of body fat is caused by the changes in the adipose tissue itself, perhaps caused by insulin, but perhaps caused or affected by physiological factors different from insulin. In this second option, changes in both the energy intake and the energy expenditure are, as we have seen in the previous graph, possible consequences, not causes, of gaining or losing body fat (see).

Let’s consider the following argument:

When you eat more calories than you burn, the excess calories are primarily shunted into your adipose tissue. Your adiposity, or body fatness, increases. It really is as simple as that

“It really is as simple as that”

Would you say that the author of that argument is explaining the mechanism by which, according to him, we accumulate body fat? He is considering only one mechamism for the accumulation of body fat, right?

Let’s consider another argument:

for insulin to cause fat gain, it must either increase energy intake, decrease energy expenditure, or both

According to the argument above, the only mechanism the author allows for insulin to be fattening is to work according to the CICO hypothesis. This argument says that insulin can not make you gain body fat by acting directly on your adipose tissue, as the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis proposes. That option is not even discussed.

OK then, the two previous quotes are from Stephan Guyenet, PhD: one taken from his blog and another taken from his book. Would you say that he defends the CICO hypothesis as THE mechanism that explains why we get fat? If that is the case, you are probably mistaking him with another gentleman who is also called Stephan Guyenet, PhD, because Stephan Guyenet, PhD is against proposing hypotheses that explain why we get fat, without considering that other mechanisms may be relevant :

— Stephan, are both hypothesis 100% mutually exclusive?

— They are mutually exclusive, but only because Gary believes that his mechanism is the “primary” cause of obesity and other mechanisms are basically irrelevant.

So the gentleman who wrote a book that explains why we eat “too much”, not how insulin makes us fat by affecting directly our fat tissue, actually believes that it is inappropriate to defend hypotheses as the primary explanation for why we accumulate fat . He would never do that. As a proof that he would never do that, here we have a third argument where he does that again:

When calorie expenditure decreases and calorie intake increases, the energy balance equation leaves only one possible outcome: fat gain. We gained fat as we ate more calories than we needed to remain lean, given our physical activity level. In other words, we overate.. Stephan Guyenet, PhD

And this is the same gentleman who wrote an article arguing that the causality of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis is not possible! (see). Now he says that it is possible, and compatible with his ideology, because he is not dogmatic like others. What is your true opinion, then or now?

Let’s see another argument from Guyenet in which he makes clear that he believes insulin is irrelevant and calories are what matter:

So even though insulin temporarily suppresses fat burning and the release of fat from fat cells when you eat carbohydrate, at the end of the day if you ate the same number of calories you end up with the same amount of fat in your fat cells either way. You now know more about insulin than many popular diet gurus. Stephan Guyenet, PhD

And we know that Stephan Guyenet, PhD has always appreciated the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis:

the insulin hypothesis is not consistent with basic thermodynamics. Stephan Guyenet, PhD

Cynicism: lie and/or defense of the indefensible with absolute impudence.

What hypothesis has been used for almost a century in a hegemonic way to treat obesity, using the fraudulent argument that it is an indisputable idea that drinks from the udders of the almighty laws of physics? But Guyenet, PhD, is against hypotheses that are proposed as the “primary” explanation for why we get fat if other possible mechanisms are regarded as irrelevant. An advocate of CICO would never do that. Guyenet’s nerve redefines cynicism.

A word of warning for CICO believers: Guyenet, PhD, does not defend CICO with arguments and, instead of that, he moves the goalposts , by accusing Gary Taubes of promoting an alternative hypotheses as the “primary” explanation for obesity. Is that really all he can say to defend the hypothesis that has been imposed on all of us dogmatically accross the world for the last 80-100 years?

I already warned those who believe that CICO is a law of physics that they have run out of gurus to follow. Please, walk on the catwalk to reach phase 2 of CICO beliefs. Do not stop and do not get close to the borders.

A warning for the CICO believers: the guru has left you in the lurch!!

Let’s see more examples of people who say that the energy balance is important but the physiology of the adipose tissue is irrelevant. I am quite sure these opinions upset Stephan Guyenet, PhD. Any time soon he will criticise phase-1 CICO believers.

1. “As long as there is an energy deficit, macronutrients play a secondary role”

2. “The insulin response will NEVER supersede the overall caloric balance of a diet”
3. “THE TRICK in the scientific studies of the Ketogenic, Paleolithic, Zone, or whatever, is to create an energy deficit to make the diet work. In order to deceive people, fad diets divert attention to “metabolic distractions,” such as hormones, insulin, glycemic index, macro-nutrient proportions, etc “

4. “The balance calories ingested minus energy expenditure determines your body weight”

5. “Hormones influence hunger & energy intake. The foods you eat influence hormones”

6. “A ketogenic or low-carb approach does not work because it creates metabolic magic or the ketones give you superpowers, it often works because it decreases your appetite”

7. “for reasons that are backed up by observation, inference, logical fallacy and straw men, apparently he’s decided that living creatures are magical beings that live independently of the laws of physics and thermodynamics.” Yoni Freedhoff

Yoni Freedhoff says that to talk about causalities different from CICO’s is to pretend that we are “magical beings that live independently of the laws of physics and thermodynamics”. It seems to me that Freedhoff doesn’t consider other mechanisms different from CICO’s. For sure Guyenet is not happy about Freedhoff’s opinion.

8. “for all practical purposes “a calorie is a calorie” when it comes to body fat and energy expenditure differences between controlled isocaloric diets varying in the ratio of carbohydrate to fat.”Kevin Hall, PhD

Kevin Hall, PhD has created mathematical models of obesity that are 100% CICO. His computer models consider de facto that the physiology of the adipose tissue is irrelevant (see, see, see, see, see, see). Is this the peaceful and positive coexistence of hypotheses that Stephan Guyenet, PhD defends? Moreover, when Kevin Hall, PhD says that “regain occurs only because interventions wane over time” (see), it does not sound like Kevin Hall, PhD is open to the idea of mechanisms other than CICO being relevant. Does he?

But, uh, Guyenet says that the extremist is Taubes because he claims that his hypothesis is the hypothesis that explains everything. CICO believers like Guyenet, PhD would never do that. They would never do that for a whole century. They would never do that for a whole century defending an erroneous hypothesis that leaves no room for other hypotheses because we have been tricked into believing that CICO is an indisputable law of physics. They would never be doing that right now accross the world. What are you telling me, Guyenet? What a magnificent straw man you have created, Guyenet. What a magnificent medal of moderation you gave yourself, Guyenet. This guy is the dictator who, from his throne, claims that the opposition parties, which have never been allowed to be legal parties, what they really want is to impose a dictatorship in the country. This is impudence and cynicism.

For the most clueless people, I insist that what Stephan Guyenet, PhD is saying is that he does not believe that CICO’s causality is indisputable. He explicitly admits that behaviors that don’t follow CICO are possible. He even criticises those who only contemplate one mechanism as possible. And he does not dare to defend CICO by mentioning the First Law of Thermodynamics.

NOTE: there is a long list of BS arguments used by Stephan Guyenet, PhD to make people believe that insulin is not fattening by acting directly on the adipose tissue (example, example, example, example, example, example). But now he presumes to be an open-minded person who believes that the insulin effects that he has systematically denied are indeed possible and can be accepted and coexist with his beliefs. Can you guess who has claimed over and over again to put the “final nail in the coffin of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis” (example)? Well then, now we find out that Guyenet was all this time a fan of the carbohydrate-insulin model. I am not sure I can believe him. 

NOTE: “Accuse the other side of what you are guilty of” is a well-known disinformation strategy. It is often attributed to Joseph Goebbels, but I am not sure that this attribution is correct (source).

Further reading: