Next up in the list of stubborn myths people grew up with and find hard to set down: obesity is caused by excessive caloric intake.
Of course, the definition of excessive probably varies from person to person based on many factors...
b) even diet soda can cause insulin spikes, causing rats and calves to gain more weight on the same # of calories as rats/calves not consuming diet soda
There are links off the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_soda
There have also been lots of books written about the insulin response and weight gain, all citing studies, all pointing out that insulin resistance/syndrome x play roles in making some people fatter even if they do not overeat. Gary Taubes' is especially good.
I don't know why nerds seem to want to persist in believing that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, despite all the evidence.
In my mind, it's like a nasty twist on "tough love" -- people want to believe it because they want to believe that fat people are bad and weak, and therefore deserve what they get. By taking a hard line approach, they can feel... virtuous.
But the body is extremely complex, and a tightly-coupled system at that, with so many variables that it is vanishingly unlikely that we can categorically say that there is one simple, clear, clean fact that rules it all.
The type of food is what makes a difference. Fatty foods are worse than the same caloric-quantity of fibrous foods (i.e., fruits and veggies).
And there's plenty of research to suggest that food in - food burned by activity (inc. exercise) - undigestable food = food stored as fat.
You should read the things I've referenced.
Do you know how the magical "1g protein = 4kcal, 1g carbohydrate = 4kcal, 1g fat = 9kcal" numbers were reached? Hint: They were never measured in vivo, or in vitro cells -- the follow from a very fragile theory, which breaks in every way you look at it -- and yet, it's considered "science.
I thought his theory was about tricking the body with taste-free calories in order to dampen hunger pangs. If so it fits neatly within that theory since less hunger means less eating means less calories.
In fact since it's billed as an "eat anything" diet, doesn't it contradict Taubes who targets refined carbs as the real villain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diet_Delusion
Probably best to go straight to the source. I'm hoping it's a bit more naunced than the "biology is hard, nutrition is complex, therefore theories proposed by science journalists from outwith the field are more likely to be true" type stuff that you see bandied about online.
In theory, sure, we're with you. But in practice, Atkins is a diet for fat people. If you're 250 pounds and you want to get down to 230 and stay there, Atkins is your huckleberry. We all know plenty of fat people who are noticeably less fat thanks to low-carb diets, but I can't think of anybody I know who used to be fat and is now thin because of one.
If you're 250 pounds and you want to get down to 170 and stay there, it seems that "eat less and exercise" is still your best bet.
Also, Atkins is just one type of low-carb diet, and a rather strict one at that. It is because of how strict it is that people tend to fail a little ways in
Atkins is a diet for people who insist on eating the wrong foods. It attempts to minimize the harm of eating crap without actually encouraging the dieter to eat healthy stuff.
You could sit down and eat a jar of sugar if you wanted, you'd just have to be burning that many calories.