<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1)</title>
	<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/</link>
	<description>Self-Experimentation, Scientific Method, the Shangri-La Diet, etc.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:42:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Lauren Schiller</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-131316</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-131316</guid>
					<description>So Ron, 

Very interesting, where can I find this information? I've been reducing my carb intake but it still seems like I fluctuate between good days and foggy days. I'd love to have a better understanding of what to do to reduce the brain fog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So Ron, </p>
<p>Very interesting, where can I find this information? I&#8217;ve been reducing my carb intake but it still seems like I fluctuate between good days and foggy days. I&#8217;d love to have a better understanding of what to do to reduce the brain fog.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ron Burk</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-130997</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:01:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-130997</guid>
					<description>"may be that when you reduce the carbohydrate in your diet, your brain starts working better."

I gotta dollar that says that all mental effects of low-carb diets are the result of increased serotonin getting into the brain. I have (ahem) self-experimented on this extensively because I was experiencing circadian dizzyness (falling-down dizzy if I got up at 4am to go to the bathroom) and mental fogginess that seemed to correlate with sugar intake. After the doctor ruled out the good stuff (tumor, diabetes, etc.) I realized that a) when you get circadian symptoms, you look at circadian hormones and b) dizziness and mental fogginess are well-known symptoms for people using drugs that try to tinker with serotonin levels in the brain. They are often circadian symptoms, but for some reason doctors are real likely to ignore the fact that symptoms occur only at a certain time of day.

A good scan of the literature helped me form the hypothesis: eat too much sugar, get sugar malabsorption, excess sugar binds with tryptophan, increased carbs in blood competes with tryptophan at brain-blood barrier, and you get seriously lowered ability to make serotonin in the brain. If you have any interest, ya gotta read this grotesque experiment they did on athletes where they put a catheter in the jugular so they can directly measure how much tryptophan is getting sucked in to the brain when athletes do endurance exercise with or without drinking carbs. I swear, you can do experiments on athletes that prisoners would never sign up for.

The experiment to test the hypothesis on myself was easy: pop a tryptophan pill and do extended aerobic exercise on an empty stomach at peak serum tryptophan time (say, 6-8pm). The result was stunning. Boom -- the mental fogginess I had had for unknown months or years disappeared. It was like the feeling you get when you get new prescription glasses and you suddenly realize that you had been unable to see clearly for who-knows-how-long. I can reproduce the symptoms at will and make them disappear at will.

When you cut those carbs drastically or eliminate them, yer gonna get more tryptophan in the brain, so more serotonin can be produced from it. More serotonin in the brain may also help decrease cravings and increase satiety.

I believe it's impossible really understand the Atkins diet without understanding how carbs can compete with tryptophan, and without understanding the Harvard work on using protein to help raise brain serotonin levels. The Atkins diet tinkers with brain serotonin, but since it does so unconsciously, it doesn't always produce the desired result (and certainly isn't the only way to elevate brain serotonin).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;may be that when you reduce the carbohydrate in your diet, your brain starts working better.&#8221;</p>
<p>I gotta dollar that says that all mental effects of low-carb diets are the result of increased serotonin getting into the brain. I have (ahem) self-experimented on this extensively because I was experiencing circadian dizzyness (falling-down dizzy if I got up at 4am to go to the bathroom) and mental fogginess that seemed to correlate with sugar intake. After the doctor ruled out the good stuff (tumor, diabetes, etc.) I realized that a) when you get circadian symptoms, you look at circadian hormones and b) dizziness and mental fogginess are well-known symptoms for people using drugs that try to tinker with serotonin levels in the brain. They are often circadian symptoms, but for some reason doctors are real likely to ignore the fact that symptoms occur only at a certain time of day.</p>
<p>A good scan of the literature helped me form the hypothesis: eat too much sugar, get sugar malabsorption, excess sugar binds with tryptophan, increased carbs in blood competes with tryptophan at brain-blood barrier, and you get seriously lowered ability to make serotonin in the brain. If you have any interest, ya gotta read this grotesque experiment they did on athletes where they put a catheter in the jugular so they can directly measure how much tryptophan is getting sucked in to the brain when athletes do endurance exercise with or without drinking carbs. I swear, you can do experiments on athletes that prisoners would never sign up for.</p>
<p>The experiment to test the hypothesis on myself was easy: pop a tryptophan pill and do extended aerobic exercise on an empty stomach at peak serum tryptophan time (say, 6-8pm). The result was stunning. Boom &#8212; the mental fogginess I had had for unknown months or years disappeared. It was like the feeling you get when you get new prescription glasses and you suddenly realize that you had been unable to see clearly for who-knows-how-long. I can reproduce the symptoms at will and make them disappear at will.</p>
<p>When you cut those carbs drastically or eliminate them, yer gonna get more tryptophan in the brain, so more serotonin can be produced from it. More serotonin in the brain may also help decrease cravings and increase satiety.</p>
<p>I believe it&#8217;s impossible really understand the Atkins diet without understanding how carbs can compete with tryptophan, and without understanding the Harvard work on using protein to help raise brain serotonin levels. The Atkins diet tinkers with brain serotonin, but since it does so unconsciously, it doesn&#8217;t always produce the desired result (and certainly isn&#8217;t the only way to elevate brain serotonin).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: tiara.org &#187; links for 2008-01-11</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-130475</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-130475</guid>
					<description>[...] Seth’s blog » Blog Archive » Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) First part of a lengthy interview with Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories which indicts many nutritional studies from the last 60 years and concludes again: it&#8217;s carbs, not fat, to watch out for. (tags: foodscience diet health) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Seth’s blog » Blog Archive » Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) First part of a lengthy interview with Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories which indicts many nutritional studies from the last 60 years and concludes again: it&#8217;s carbs, not fat, to watch out for. (tags: foodscience diet health) [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Allen Oelschlaeger</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-100463</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-100463</guid>
					<description>I recently read Gary Taube's new book and believe he got a lot of things right (e.g., overstated role of salt and fat to health) However, I'm less convinced that the obesity epidemic has been caused by a decrease in fat consumption and that a low-carbohydrate diet is the best way to lose weight for everyone.

Instead, I think there is equally strong evidence (if not stronger) that the increased incidence of obesity is due to an increase in dieting (one indicator -- $11 billion was spent on dieting in the early 1980s and over $60 billion is spent today). In fact, there is a strong argument that the global obesity epidemic is due to the broader issue of an increase in food insecurity (for which dieting is just one example).

To read a paper on this topic, you can download a PDF at this URL:
http://www.truthspublishing.com/Obesity_Epidemic_Public_Policy.pdf

Allen Oelschlaeger
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness (learn more at http://www.truthspublishing.com).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently read Gary Taube&#8217;s new book and believe he got a lot of things right (e.g., overstated role of salt and fat to health) However, I&#8217;m less convinced that the obesity epidemic has been caused by a decrease in fat consumption and that a low-carbohydrate diet is the best way to lose weight for everyone.</p>
<p>Instead, I think there is equally strong evidence (if not stronger) that the increased incidence of obesity is due to an increase in dieting (one indicator &#8212; $11 billion was spent on dieting in the early 1980s and over $60 billion is spent today). In fact, there is a strong argument that the global obesity epidemic is due to the broader issue of an increase in food insecurity (for which dieting is just one example).</p>
<p>To read a paper on this topic, you can download a PDF at this URL:<br />
<a href="http://www.truthspublishing.com/Obesity_Epidemic_Public_Policy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.truthspublishing.com/Obesity_Epidemic_Public_Policy.pdf</a></p>
<p>Allen Oelschlaeger<br />
Author of Finally, the Straight Scoop About Weight, Nutrition, and Fitness (learn more at <a href="http://www.truthspublishing.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.truthspublishing.com</a>).
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Seth&#8217;s blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Interview with Gary Taubes (directory)</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99692</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99692</guid>
					<description>[...] Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Quantum Theory Man</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99493</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99493</guid>
					<description>I would have to agree, having been involved in various "hard" science projects over the years. When a new idea or discovery is thought up by the scientists, they often do put on blinders to any conflicting data or confounding hypotheses. This is what peer review is supposed to solve, but sadly since most of the peer reviewers also have their own set of blinders, things don't work out as they should. 

Paradigms change offly slow...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would have to agree, having been involved in various &#8220;hard&#8221; science projects over the years. When a new idea or discovery is thought up by the scientists, they often do put on blinders to any conflicting data or confounding hypotheses. This is what peer review is supposed to solve, but sadly since most of the peer reviewers also have their own set of blinders, things don&#8217;t work out as they should. </p>
<p>Paradigms change offly slow&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Seth&#8217;s blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Interview with Gary Taubes (part 3)</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99478</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99478</guid>
					<description>[...] Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bix</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99372</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 18:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99372</guid>
					<description>Taubes' response to the question, "What did that scientist say that made you rank him so low?", was, in my humble opinion, excellent.  (I thought the asking of that question was also on target.)  I especially liked, and agree with, his discussion about "proof."  I was curious to see if Taubes would respond with an emotional argument.  He didn't.  In my eyes, this elevates his credibility. 

Just for a moment I'd like to come to the defense of scientists.  I've worked with some, and I see that when someone becomes very excited about a finding, they, as if it was human nature, start to erect blinders to the alternative hypothesis.  I think that's ok, as long as they can be reigned back in.  Excitement is ok.  But there are others who  become progressively cemented to their idea.  It's difficult to work with someone who has stopped listening, who can't see beyond their selected path.

That's all!  Nice job on the interview!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Taubes&#8217; response to the question, &#8220;What did that scientist say that made you rank him so low?&#8221;, was, in my humble opinion, excellent.  (I thought the asking of that question was also on target.)  I especially liked, and agree with, his discussion about &#8220;proof.&#8221;  I was curious to see if Taubes would respond with an emotional argument.  He didn&#8217;t.  In my eyes, this elevates his credibility. </p>
<p>Just for a moment I&#8217;d like to come to the defense of scientists.  I&#8217;ve worked with some, and I see that when someone becomes very excited about a finding, they, as if it was human nature, start to erect blinders to the alternative hypothesis.  I think that&#8217;s ok, as long as they can be reigned back in.  Excitement is ok.  But there are others who  become progressively cemented to their idea.  It&#8217;s difficult to work with someone who has stopped listening, who can&#8217;t see beyond their selected path.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s all!  Nice job on the interview!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Seth&#8217;s blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Interview with Gary Taubes (part 2)</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99245</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 12:36:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99245</guid>
					<description>[...] Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Interview with Gary Taubes (part 1) [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: sidereal</title>
		<link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99017</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:29:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/03/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-1/#comment-99017</guid>
					<description>Indeed.  sidereal simply read the exchange about Rubbia, in the context of the impeachability of Nobel Prize winners, as being about the work &lt;i&gt;for which&lt;/i&gt; he won the Prize.  sidereal apologizes for the assumption and will, as a fan of scientific controversies, read the book if he gets a chance.  Regarding idiocy, he's surprised Taubes though it was implied.  Lack of scientific rigor in approaching claims is unfortunately the human condition, and hardly qualifies as idiocy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Indeed.  sidereal simply read the exchange about Rubbia, in the context of the impeachability of Nobel Prize winners, as being about the work <i>for which</i> he won the Prize.  sidereal apologizes for the assumption and will, as a fan of scientific controversies, read the book if he gets a chance.  Regarding idiocy, he&#8217;s surprised Taubes though it was implied.  Lack of scientific rigor in approaching claims is unfortunately the human condition, and hardly qualifies as idiocy.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
