Comments on: Carbohydrate Intake Benefits

By: Ginger Hodge

Ginger Hodge — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:58:01 +0000

Leigh, wasn’t there another carb post after this? I can’t find it…

By: Sabrina

Sabrina — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:49:12 +0000

Thank you, finally someone who is not against Carbs. This article cleared up a lot of confusion for me. Thanks.

By: Carbohydrate Intake-recommendations-for-sensitivity | Leigh Peele

Carbohydrate Intake-recommendations-for-sensitivity | Leigh Peele — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:34:57 +0000

[...] You watched the video on how insulin and fat loss works. 2. You gained a basic understanding of the dietary importance of carbohydrates. 3. You received a general understanding of the different steps in insulin process. 4. You took a [...]

By: Ry

Ry — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:37:51 +0000

Leigh I am excited about the next part. I have questions but am going to hold them until I see what you post. Will it be up this week?

By: Ry

Ry — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:37:03 +0000

Erik I think you are missing Leigh’s point. She wasn’t being rude, she was asking you a question that you are avoiding. All you (and everyone else) is doing is quoting Taubes and his work or presentations. Leigh asked you if you you read the studies yourself? Did you looked at the research yourself or did you just watched or read this material of someone else reading it? You are arguing based on a passing down of information. Doesn’t that worry you about your stance?

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:39:18 +0000

The Pima are discussed 5 minutes into the video and Banting is the first page or two of the book. Is that as far as you got before you knew the story and moved on? You took the Pima out of context, he was simply using it as a an example of how the prosperity theory does not explain the data. If you are not going to address the biochemistry that he presents in a well considered manner, then you are going to have a hard time being taken seriously. BTW, it’s not going to help your readership to question whether they are blind followers or actually read the research. Good luck.

By: Leigh Peele

Leigh Peele — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:34:45 +0000

Erik I think you meant to reply in a different area.

The issue is that Taubes would use an outlier group like this is the first place to make any stance on obesity. There is no monitoring of intake and no gauging of activity level beyond some general travelers. It shouldn’t even be brought up at all, it has no relevance. So, if you use that as an argument in anyway or as an sacerdotal story it actually does speak to your credibility.

This is a general issue with Taubes. Go ahead and add up the calories Banting was eating. Banting being the whole intro starting point for Taubes and his book, the fat man who couldn’t lose weight until he cut his carbs. No, he was eating, if I am being generous, 1500 calories a day.

Do you even understand the formula Taubes is talking about in that presentation? Have you looked at any of those studies on your own? Again,if you are going to come on here and argue the research, read the research. If you just want to pick a guru and stand by them fine, but don’t go around arguing with people and not doing the leg work expecting them to do it for you.

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:19:53 +0000

Wow. To suggest that Taubes can be discredited somehow for his example of the Pima or that his argument in any way hinges on that one example, well it is ludacris.

By: Leigh Peele

Leigh Peele — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:55:12 +0000

Erik I have to agree with Cindy on this one. This issue has been discussed on this blog and elsewhere are hundred times. Do your research on my blog if you wish to see my few and responses. That presentation is about the saddest thing I ever forced myself to sit through. If you take any of the Pima Indian information as life changing stats you have much bigger problems than not understanding energy balance in the body.

By: Leigh Peele

Leigh Peele — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:52:11 +0000

I will be discussing PWO.