This series is well worth a read, dissenting as it may be in this community - it's important to look at the entire weight of evidence and consider that many people may have overshot the significance of insulin as an obesigenic agent.
This is the final installment . All 4 parts are very intriguing though and well worth a read.

I was about to write a comprehensive post about how wrong that guy was. Then I realized it was James Krieger. I can't begin to explain how wrong this guy is. His logic is so flawed it makes no sense. For example, he points to a study that looks at alcohol vs carbs then tries to show that calories was the problem. What he doesn't realize is that alcohol acts exactly like fructose in the liver. Which is to say, the study looked at carbs, not calories.

James Krieger. Pfft.

Well, I think James is dead on.

And Martin, you know I read GCBC and fully understood it. But still, I now think that James is right and Taubes is wrong (at least about the Carbs hypothesis).

Patrick

Here's what the study shows. Since alcohol acts exactly like fructose, then we can safely say they could have used fructose to produce the same result. Since the study would have produced the same result by changing the amount of carbs, then we can safely conclude that the study showed that eating more carbs makes us fat. This means that the study James gave in support of his argument actually opposes his argument. Finally, considering that the only evidence James presented to support this last installment is this study that opposes his argument, then we can safely dismiss this last installment without doing too much harm in the grand scheme of things.

Look at some of his replies. He says the removal of insulin in type 1 diabetics causes hyperphagia in support of his argument that insulin causes satiety. If that were true, then the addition of insulin in type 1 diabetics wouldn't make them grow fatter. But it does. So how then can insulin make them grow fatter and make them eat less, while it makes them eat more and makes them leaner? It makes no sense. He's too wrong to be credible.

I think he's guilty of cherry picking studies that suit his point of view, and also cherry picking graphs from studies that were looking at something somewhat different. I didn't see him mention the effects of fats, and as a good low carb diet should be high fat then that effect on insulin production should also be looked at. I eat 20% protein, 77% fat, I eat protein with plenty of fat at each meal. Yes, protein has an insulin response, its widely known on this board, the difference between protein and carbs, is that we need protein to live, we don't need carbs. Eat your protein with a good amount of fat and the insulin response is much reduced. This is why milk has a higher insulin response than heavy cream. His articles seemed to suggest that low carbers were eating loads of protein, a few carbs and little else. If your diet consists of 20% protein, 60% carbs, 20% fat, I think its logical to assume that the insulin response will be far greater than 20% protein, 77% fat, 3% carbs.

He also makes very little mention of insulin resistance or its effects.

He also did not explain the fact that undiagnosed diabetics lose weight - often lots of weight. When they start on insulin or other meds that control insulin production their weight will stabilise and many will start gaining. I have seen this time and time again. He just mentions one diabetic drug that also has an effect on something else - as if this explains away the experiences of all the rest of the diabetics.

There's no argument that insulin isn't the only factor in weight gain/loss, but its one of the factors. The human body is complex and everything that influences weight gain and appetite is still not understood. There undoubtedly are other factors, but I believe insulin is one important factor.

Lee

Yes, especially by ignoring the effects of high fat in a low carb diet.

Lee

Here is the link to the first article of this series.

http://weightology.net/weightologyw..._id=319&cpage=1

He did not cherry picked, he actually comes from the same background as we do.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=459

It ain't the first time I catch these internet gurus in the act of irrational behavior. Here's the latest of his arguments:


James wrote this obviously to establish the rule by which we should determine cause and effect where hyperphagia is concerned. So, here we conclude that the cause is the removal of insulin. And we conclude that the effect is hyperphagia. Accordingly, he wins a point about whether or not insulin suppresses hunger or not. I agree with this assessment.

But then I ask him a question regarding cause and effect here:

And here's what he replied:

Somehow, the removal of insulin ceases to be a valid cause when glucagon enters the picture.

It's an excellent series of articles. I still admire Taubes for his work, but this Taubes cult is pathetic, and also contrary to the scepticism that Taubes himself displayed in his book. Maybe seven years of research is not enough to develop a mature view of a field, and Taubes didn't read widely enough. Insulin is just a hormone, one we can't live without.

It's an incoherent series of articles. I don't admire Krieger whatsoever for his ramblings, and this Krieger cult is pathetic, and also contrary to the science that Taubes pointed out in his book. Maybe a few blog posts is not enough to develop a mature view of a field, and Krieger didn't read widely enough. Insulin is just a hormone, but it's the single most important hormone in fat metabolism, and for this reason alone we can't live without it for very long.

See? I can be judgmental too and still be completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I thought Krieger oversimplified the other way. I don't inject insulin; I eat food and am interested in the effects. I couldn't tell what hypothesis Krieger was forwarding, as opposed to the insulin-carb one. Is it the excess-calorie idea?

It's the science-based one.