Get access to over seven years of past research reviews, video content, and Q&As on training and nutrition
Get access to the Weightology Archives of over 400 video and written research reviews, evidence-based guides, and Q&As. A total of 7.5 years of content! A huge variety of topics related to muscle building, fat loss, nutrition, and fitness are covered. Click here to obtain lifetime access.
So glad you took the time to really clarify the scientific method of prediction>evidence>falsification/confirmation. There’s plenty of pseudo-scientific crap out there, but without explaining why a theory is flawed, the arguments against it just sound like bluster and venom. This article was very interesting and beneficial for someone like myself with little background in the sciences.
This is biochemistry, so while I follow the argument (well done James), I am afraid you will have to forgive me if I tend to ignore the detail! I was a scientist for 15 years (fisheries) and often came across the fine line between good science and bad science. The former follows the basic principles of finding the right question to ask, and then uses scientific methodology to find the answer – ensuring at each step of the process that objectivity is maintained as much as is humanly possible. The latter is does not adhere to sound scientific methodology, but… Read more »
Hello, when I am fed up with internet broscience, what advice should I follow regarding diet and weight training? I know what’s wrong, but is there a book that would include real world advice on what to eat for your goals and how to realistically, sustainably weight train? It would be refreshing to understand what is important for non-professional “bodybuilder” and leave, because even though the debate is interesting, I suspect the real-life plans of what to do didn’t change very much over the last 30 years, we just understand the underlying biochemistry and physiology better. The rest is endless… Read more »
It is intensely interesting that the Taubes critics invariably focus upon his Carb-Insulin thinking and not the first part of his thesis- his historically rooted criticism of the reigning Energy Balance paradigm. Just because his Carb-Insulin idea may be invalid does not invalidate his criticisms. The reigning paradigm is riddled with problems– the discovery of irisin, the role of the microbiome, the overwhelming evidence of setpoints as clear proof homeostasis in energy balance. Krieger’s piece is at best interesting linkbait, at worst pandering marketing. Taubes is not a scientist, he is journalist. Krieger’s thesis is a straw man. And Taubes… Read more »
his historically rooted criticism of the reigning Energy Balance paradigm Taubes’s criticism of the energy balance paradigm is based on a strawman caricature of it. This is why these criticisms have no validity. Just because his Carb-Insulin idea may be invalid does not invalidate his criticisms. When your criticisms are based on strawmen, yes, it does invalidate them. the discovery of irisin, the role of the microbiome, the overwhelming evidence of setpoints as clear proof homeostasis in energy balance. Obesity researchers are very well aware of all these factors, and more that Taubes never talks about. It is Taubes who… Read more »
Taubes turned down a researcher friend of mine who’s an expert in cognitive science & has access to 2 separate labs designed to investigate environmental factors that drive eating behaviors (like Brian Wansink’s work). This would have been awesome for Taubes since we know from a half-century of experiments that a caloric deficit takes weight off, every–single–time. What we don’t have a grip on is the full range of behavioral factors driving chronic overeating & weight re-gain. Apparently, the purpose of Taubes’ project is not investigation, but rather confirmation of his pre-existent beliefs. That’s hugely ignorant of you to insult… Read more »
When you get into a knife fight, best to bring a knife. The one who brings their buddy instead quickly finds they will either run or serve to delay the impending truth. Research is that knife and relying on expert opinion is a dangerous game. Guerin although i understand where your trying to come from, it will serve you better to be more objective of any evidence put in front of you. By the way good article James, i always greatly enjoy your stuff and will shortly subscribe. As for Alan, maybe a topic for your next AARR, the effects… Read more »
Can we be careful with the “every-single-time” sort of rhetoric? That isn’t true, and it isn’t what the data shows. In a “Healthy Person”…sure. However, when talking about energy balance what we are saying is that “the average person” at Bodyweight X, with a certain amount of activity will lose weight. I’ll offer up my wife who has a tumor in her hypothalamus. She will go from weight stable at a fair caloric range to unable to function to the point of not being able to get out of bed. However she will be incapacitated long before she starts losing… Read more »
Funny how you call that rhetoric, then attempt to counter it using someone with a hypothalamic tumor. Well, guess what – that rule still applies to her, and I did not make any specification about reducing energy in; I said a CALORIC DEFICIT.
So glad you took the time to really clarify the scientific method of prediction>evidence>falsification/confirmation. There’s plenty of pseudo-scientific crap out there, but without explaining why a theory is flawed, the arguments against it just sound like bluster and venom. This article was very interesting and beneficial for someone like myself with little background in the sciences.
This is biochemistry, so while I follow the argument (well done James), I am afraid you will have to forgive me if I tend to ignore the detail! I was a scientist for 15 years (fisheries) and often came across the fine line between good science and bad science. The former follows the basic principles of finding the right question to ask, and then uses scientific methodology to find the answer – ensuring at each step of the process that objectivity is maintained as much as is humanly possible. The latter is does not adhere to sound scientific methodology, but… Read more »
Thanks, Jo! Outstanding comment, and so true!
Hello, when I am fed up with internet broscience, what advice should I follow regarding diet and weight training? I know what’s wrong, but is there a book that would include real world advice on what to eat for your goals and how to realistically, sustainably weight train? It would be refreshing to understand what is important for non-professional “bodybuilder” and leave, because even though the debate is interesting, I suspect the real-life plans of what to do didn’t change very much over the last 30 years, we just understand the underlying biochemistry and physiology better. The rest is endless… Read more »
*Dr. Stephan Guyenet.
Good article.
Thanks Nigel! Also corrected the misspelled name.
As always well done James!
To Guerin I would simply say you gotta be kidding me! For Taubes it is always been about insulin and carbs = insulin = obesity. Have you read GCBC??
Thank you Evelyn!
It is intensely interesting that the Taubes critics invariably focus upon his Carb-Insulin thinking and not the first part of his thesis- his historically rooted criticism of the reigning Energy Balance paradigm. Just because his Carb-Insulin idea may be invalid does not invalidate his criticisms. The reigning paradigm is riddled with problems– the discovery of irisin, the role of the microbiome, the overwhelming evidence of setpoints as clear proof homeostasis in energy balance. Krieger’s piece is at best interesting linkbait, at worst pandering marketing. Taubes is not a scientist, he is journalist. Krieger’s thesis is a straw man. And Taubes… Read more »
> Krieger’s piece is at best interesting linkbait, at worst pandering marketing
That is rich. Really. Who’s the one offering “eat infinite calories of the food you love most and lose weight easily”?
Yet JAMES is pandering … riiiiight.
your comment is so error riddled it leaves me speechl
his historically rooted criticism of the reigning Energy Balance paradigm Taubes’s criticism of the energy balance paradigm is based on a strawman caricature of it. This is why these criticisms have no validity. Just because his Carb-Insulin idea may be invalid does not invalidate his criticisms. When your criticisms are based on strawmen, yes, it does invalidate them. the discovery of irisin, the role of the microbiome, the overwhelming evidence of setpoints as clear proof homeostasis in energy balance. Obesity researchers are very well aware of all these factors, and more that Taubes never talks about. It is Taubes who… Read more »
Taubes turned down a researcher friend of mine who’s an expert in cognitive science & has access to 2 separate labs designed to investigate environmental factors that drive eating behaviors (like Brian Wansink’s work). This would have been awesome for Taubes since we know from a half-century of experiments that a caloric deficit takes weight off, every–single–time. What we don’t have a grip on is the full range of behavioral factors driving chronic overeating & weight re-gain. Apparently, the purpose of Taubes’ project is not investigation, but rather confirmation of his pre-existent beliefs. That’s hugely ignorant of you to insult… Read more »
When you get into a knife fight, best to bring a knife. The one who brings their buddy instead quickly finds they will either run or serve to delay the impending truth. Research is that knife and relying on expert opinion is a dangerous game. Guerin although i understand where your trying to come from, it will serve you better to be more objective of any evidence put in front of you. By the way good article James, i always greatly enjoy your stuff and will shortly subscribe. As for Alan, maybe a topic for your next AARR, the effects… Read more »
Thank you Jared!
Can we be careful with the “every-single-time” sort of rhetoric? That isn’t true, and it isn’t what the data shows. In a “Healthy Person”…sure. However, when talking about energy balance what we are saying is that “the average person” at Bodyweight X, with a certain amount of activity will lose weight. I’ll offer up my wife who has a tumor in her hypothalamus. She will go from weight stable at a fair caloric range to unable to function to the point of not being able to get out of bed. However she will be incapacitated long before she starts losing… Read more »
Funny how you call that rhetoric, then attempt to counter it using someone with a hypothalamic tumor. Well, guess what – that rule still applies to her, and I did not make any specification about reducing energy in; I said a CALORIC DEFICIT.