180 Degree Errors
Read the whole thing, but his conclusion is worth repeating:
So I think we have a 180 degree error and Taubes is right: hyper caloric intake, in itself, does not cause us to be fat. Hyper insulin causes us to be fat, and that issues forth a whole cascade of problems (effects), one of which is hyper caloric intake. Repeat. And the effect of that cause is that very nearly everyone in the diet and nutrition establishment has been [conveniently] fooled.
Incidentally, Richard has arrived somewhere close to my current practice - low carb diet plus intermittent fasting.
Before anyone wades back in on this debate, take the time to watch Taubes lecture at Berkeley. You do not have to buy the book - he explains the key issues in the lecture.
Art Devany has also commented on Taubes: Energy Balance is Dynamic
This isn't really metabolic advantage, but Alwyn Cosgrove mentions also that the composition of your food is important simply due to what is called the Thermal Effect of Food (TEF):
The thermic effect of food (TEF)- or thermogenic effect - is a term used to describe the energy expended by our bodies in order to consume (bite, chew and swallow) and process (digest, transport, metabolize and store) food.Now I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of Cosgrove's conclusions with respect to diet (it looks low fat!), but it is another element to think about.
For most people this total number typically accounts for about 7-10% of calories consumed based on the Standard American Diet (SAD....)
Breaking it down ...Protein foods typically have a TEF of 25 -30%. Carbohydrate foods require about 5-10%. Fruits are around 15% Cruciferous vegetables are around 30% and fats are somewhere between 0 and 3%.
So you can see where I'm going with this ... if you just exchanged 100 calories of carbs for 100 calories of protein -- you'd actually in effect - burn off another 20-25 calories. If you swapped 100 calories of fat for 100 calories of vegetables -- you'd eat up an extra 27-30 calories.