According to Taubes,

“Any diet that succeeds does so because
the dieter restricts fattening carbohydrates,
whether by explicit instruction or not.

…those who lose on fat on a diet
do so because of what they are not eating
-- the fattening carbohydrates –
not because of what they are eating. “

When we go on any serious weight-loss plan,
whether Diet or Exercise, we always make changes
in what we eat – no matter what instructions we get. 
 We stop eating the most fattening carbohydrates, because
they are the most obviously wrong foods for weight-loss.
We cut down on sodas, beer, fruit juice;
get rid of candy bars, desserts, donuts, cinnamon buns.
Starches like potatoes, rice, white bread, and pasta
are often replaced by green vegetables, salads,
or at least whole grains.

Taubes says,

“Even the very low-fat diet made famous by Dean Ornish
restricts all refined carbohydrates, including sugar,
white rice, and white flour.
This alone could explain any benefits that result.”

Taubes continues.

“If we try to cut any significant number of calories from our diet,
we’ll be cutting the total amount of carbohydrates we consume as well.
This is just arithmetic.

He says

“any time we try to diet by any of the conventional methods,
and any time we decide to “eat healthy” as it’s currently defined,
we will remove the most fattening carbohydrates from the diet,
and if we lose fat,
this will almost assuredly be the reason why.”

Taubes states

“when calorie-restricted diets (and exercise plans) fail,
as they typically do, the reason is that they restrict
something other than the foods that make us fat.

They restrict fat and protein,
which have no long-term effect
on insulin and fat deposition
but are required for energy
and for the rebuilding of cells and tissues.

They starve the entire body of nutrients and energy,
or semi-starve it,
rather than targeting the fat tissue specifically.

 Any weight that might be lost
can be maintained only as long as
the dieter can withstand the semi-starvation,

and even then the fat cells will be working
to recoup the fat they’re losing,
just as the muscle cells are trying to obtain protein
to rebuild and maintain their function,
and the total amount of energy the dieter expends
will be reduced to compensate.”

Taubes ends this chapter by stating

“Weight-loss regimens succeed
when they get rid of the fattening carbohydrates in the diet;
they fail when they don’t.

What the regiment must do, in essence,
is reregulate fat tissue
so that it releases the calories
it has accumulated to excess.

Any changes the dieter makes
that don’t work toward that goal…
will starve the body in other ways…
and the resultant hunger will lead to failure.”

 I find this Concept both fascinating and compelling.
Looking back on my own lifetime,
and the multitude of calorie reduced diets I’ve endured.
Is it possible that every time I lost weight 
it was actually due to carbohydrate restriction?
Even though none of them were purposely “low-carb” diets?

 An examination of two of the most drastic diets in my history
shows this could be true.
In the 1980s I did a medically-supervised liquid formula diet only,
for 6 + months which consisted of a protein shake three times a day.
Daily calories were between 300 to 500,
but when thinking about it, I realize that also,
carbs would have been under 10.

 I lost about 90 lbs, but regained it all plus about 40 lbs more
within six months of resuming a “normal balanced diet”,
During that 6 months I dieted far more than I binged,
and although I didn’t track my food, based on my recollection,
my total 6 month food intake probably didn’t average
more than 2000 calories a day during that time period. 
 I lost from 271 to 160 lbs, for a total of 111 lbs, during the first year
after my Weight-Loss-Surgery, because I was physically unable
to eat more than 500 calories a day.

At that time I ate primarily sugar-free yogurt, lean meat, poultry and fish,
eggs, cheese. My body would tolerate very little fat, and even fewer carbs.
Green Veggies were too bulky to eat very many.
Sometimes I could tolerate a few bites ofcomplex carbs.

If I ate more than a bite or two of refined carbs,
I became so sick I had to lie down.
(Milk and normal ice cream still make me feel sick).
So….during that weight-loss period, along with calories,
carbohydrates were also severely restricted.
After a few years, my body began to tolerate carbs,
and could also handle more food, and I began eating more.
I began gaining weight, and for the next 10 years or so,
I had to frequently diet to maintain my weight around 190 lbs. 
 Prior to reading Taubes,
it never occurred to me that while I was restricting calories,
I was also restricting carbs, and I find it interesting
that both of those personal examples
will fit together with Taubes’ above-stated concepts.

My own experience of this past 5 years
of maintaining my current weight makes me
completely agree with Taubes when he says

"weight-loss can be maintained
only as long as the dieter
can withstand the semi-starvation,
and even then the fat cells will be working
to recoup the fat they’re losing"

Taubes begins

“If you’re predisposed to get fat
and want to be as lean as you can be
without compromising your health,
you have to restrict carbohydrates
and so keep your blood sugar and insulin levels low.

…you don’t lose fat because you cut calories;
you lose fat because you cut out the foods
that make you fat – the carbohydrates.

 If you get down to a weight you like,
and then add those foods back into the diet,
you’ll get fat again.

That only some people get fat from eating carbohydrates 
 (just as only some get lung cancer from smoking cigarettes)

doesn’t change the fact that if you’re one of the ones who do,
you’ll only lose fat and keep it off if you avoid these foods.”

Carbohydrates make us fat and keep us fat,
and those foods are the ones we’re likely to want the most
and would never want to live without.

Taubes says this is no coincidence.

“It’s clear from animal research
that the foods animals prefer to eat in excess
are those that most quickly supply energy to the cells –
easily digestible carbohydrates.”

Another factor is how hungry we are,
because the hungrier we are, the better foods taste.
Taubes says that insulin works to increase our feelings of hunger,
and he provides details of how this works in the body.

He says

“This palatability-by-blood-sugar-and-insulin response
is …exaggerated in people who are fat or predisposed to get fat.
And the fatter they get, the more they’ll crave carbohydrate-rich foods,
because their insulin will be more effective at stashing fat
and protein in their muscles and fat tissue,
where they can’t be used for fuel.”

 Taubes says that once you are resistant to insulin,
there is insulin coursing through your veins
during most of the day, and during those periods
the only fuel you can burn is glucose from carbohydrates.

“The insulin, remember, is working to keep protein and fat
and even glycogen…safely stashed away for later.
It’s telling our cells that there is blood sugar in excess to be burned,
but there’s not.

Even if you eat fat and protein – a hamburger without the bun,
or a hunk of cheese – the insulin will work to store these nutrients
rather than allow your body to burn them for fuel.
You will have little desire to eat these,

at least without some carbohydrate-rich bread as well,
because your body, at the moment,
has little interest in burning it for fuel.”

 He says sweets are a special case.

“First, the unique metabolic effects of fructose in the liver,
combined with the insulin-stimulating effect of glucose,
might be enough to induce cravings in those predisposed to fatten.

When you eat sugar…
it triggers a response in the brain…the “reward center”…
All food does this to some extent,
because that’s what the reward system..evolved to do;
reinforce behaviors (eating and sex) that benefit the species.

But sugar seems to hijack the signal to an unnatural degree,
just as cocaine and nicotine do.
If we believe the animal research,
then sugar and HFCS are addictive in the same way that drugs are
and for much the same biochemical reasons.”

Taubes ends the chapter by saying that like smoking,

“the cigarettes that give us lung cancer
also make us crave the cigarettes that give us lung cancer
the foods that make us fat 
also make us crave precisely the foods that make us fat.”

Well, I know a lot about craving the foods that make me fat,
and I completely believe that statement.
I also like Taubes comparison of
cigarettes and lung cancer to the carb cravings.

Everything Taubes says here makes sense to me,
and yet, I have difficulty believing that it is carbohydrates
instead of calories that make me fat.
It is difficult to overcome the ”conventional wisdom”
in my mind that tells me that calories really matter.

I’ve moved to the position that perhaps restricting carbs
will help me lose and maintain weight,
but at this point,
I just am not able to believe this would allow me to
stop restricting calories as well.
My own prior knowledge and experience says otherwise.

I’m still personally thinking calories-in/calories out
is at least a partial truth that belongs somewhere in this concept,
and that maybe a practical application combining
both concepts is necessary for the bodies of some people.
There are those who believe “calories-in/calories-out”
is the simple truth,
and say that Low-Carb eating is simply:

“a way to be satisfied on a low-calorie healthy diet
by the clever use of
reduced carbs to control appetite spikes,
and increased fat to add satiety.”

 I think Taubes clearly shows that low-carb issues
are far more complicated than that,
but my response to that above-quoted statement is:
even if that’s totally how and why it works,
if it would let me maintain my current weight
without feeling so hungry,
I’d be fine with that..

 Being born with a tendency toward fat is beyond your control.

Taubes says

“It’s carbohydrates that ultimately determines insulin secretion
and insulin that drives the accumulation of body fat.

Not all of us get fat when we eat carbohydrates,
but for those of us who do get fat,
the carbohydrates are to blame;
the fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.”

He compares this with cigarettes.

“Not every longtime smoker gets lung cancer.
Only one in six men will, and one in nine women.
But for those who do get lung cancer,
cigarette smoke is …the most common cause.

In a world without cigarettes,
lung cancer would be a rare disease, as it once was.
In a world without carbohydrate-rich diets,
obesity would be a rare condition as well.”

 Taubes says a crucial point is that not all foods
containing carbohydrates are equally fattening.
The most fattening foods are the ones with the greatest effect
on our Blood Sugar. He then talks about Blood Sugar issues,
and the Glycemic Index.
Taubes thinks fruit is “worrisome” because

“it is sweet to the taste precisely because it contains a type of
sugar known as fructose, and fructose is uniquely fattening
as carbohydrates go.

Fruit doesn’t have to be processed before we eat it;
it’s fat-free and cholesterol-free; it has vitamins and antioxidants,
and so, by this logic, it must be good for us. Maybe so.
But if we’re predisposed to put on fat, it’s a good bet
that most fruit will make the problem worse, not better.”

He says 

“The very worst foods for us…are sugars – sucrose (table sugar)
and high-fructose corn syrup in particular.
I refer to both of them as sugars,
because they are effectively identical.
Sucrose—white granulated sugar—is half fructose and half glucose.
HFCS is 55 % fructose, 42% glucose, and 3% other carbohydrates."

 Taubes then talks about the way the body digests the carbohydrates
in sugars and starches, and the problems that occur in our bodies.

He says that although fructose has no immediate effect on Blood Sugar
and Insulin, that -- over time – it is a likely cause of insulin resistance.

“It is quite possible that if we never ate these sugars
we might never become fat or diabetic, even if the bulk of our diet
were still starchy carbohydrates and flour.

This would explain why some of the world’s poorest populations
live on carbohydrate-rich diets and don’t get fat and diabetic,
while others aren’t so lucky. The ones that don’t (or at least didn’t),
like the Japanese and Chinese were the ones that traditionally
ate very little sugar. Once you do start to fatten, if you want to stop
the process and reverse it, these sugars have to be the first to go.”

 I do agree that tolerances of carbohydrates differ between people.
In fact, I find all of these Concepts very believable.
Many of them I’ve experienced in my own life,
and have frequently observed in others as well.

I think it’s interesting the way that Taubes believes
that many bodies change over time
due to exposure to excessive carbohydrates.
This makes a lot of sense to me.

 Taubes begins with the question,

“Why does insulin only make some of us fat?”

He says it’s a question of Nature –our genetic pre-disposition,
and that the aspects of Diet or Lifestyle don’t trigger this difference.

He says the answer is:

“..Hormones don’t work in a vacuum, and insulin is no exception.
The effect of a hormone on any particular tissue or cell depends
on a host of factors, both inside and outside cells
-- on enzymes, for instance…

This allows hormones to differ in their effect from cell to cell,
tissue to tissue, and even at different stages of our development
and our lives. “

Insulin is a hormone that determines
how fuels are “partitioned” around the body.
When thinking about whether fuel will be burned or stored,
Picture a fuel gauge like on your car.
Except the “F” on the Right, stands for Fat
and the “E” on the left sands for Energy.

If the needle on the gauge points to the right – toward the “F”,
then insulin puts a larger share of your calories into storage for fat,
instead of use for energy by the muscles.
If you want to be active, you’ll have to eat more to
compensate for this loss of calories into fat.

“The further the needle points to “F”,
the more calories stored and the fatter you’ll be.
The morbidly obese live on the far end of this side of the gauge.

If the needle points the other way –toward the “E”,
the larger share of your calories are burned as fuel.
You’ll have plenty of energy for physical activity,
and little will be stored as fat.
You will be lean and active and you’ll eat in moderation.

What determines the direction in which the needle points?
There is more than one factor.

(1) How much insulin you secrete.

(2) How sensitive to insulin your cells are,
and how quickly they become insensitive, (insulin resistant).

(3) And also, cells respond differently to insulin.

“Fat cells, muscle cells, liver cells don’t all become resistant
to insulin at the same time, to the same extent, or in the same way,
This means the same amount of insulin
will have differing effects on different tissue.

The response of the tissues differs, as well—
from person to person, and over time in the same individual.”

As you get older, you can get more insulin resistant,
and as a result, in middle age, it’s harder to remain lean.

Taubes says that in middle age

“our muscles become increasingly resistant to insulin,
and this partitions more of the energy we consume into fat,
leaving less available for the cells of the muscles
and organs to use for fuel.

These cells now generate less energy, and this
is what we mean when we say our metabolism slows down.
Our “metabolic rate” decreases.

What appears to be a cause of fattening
--the slowing of our metabolism –
is really an effect.

You don’t get fat because your metabolism slows;
your metabolism slows because you’re getting fat.”

Taubes says

“Fat children tend to be born of fat parents,
in part because of all the ways that our genes
control our insulin secretion, the enzymes that respond to insulin,
and how and when we become resistant to insulin.

He gives further details about how fat mothers
produce babies who are also fat, or have a tendency toward fat.
He says it is a vicious cycle.

“As the obesity epidemic took off,
and we all began getting fatter,
we began to program more and more of our children
from the first few months of their existence to get fatter still.”

Taubes says that each successive generation may find
it harder to under this problem.

 This is an interesting concept,
and I think that Taubes makes it understandable.
It sounds right, and seems to make a lot of sense.

Plus, my limited medical knowledge doesn’t give me
the ability to dispute this information, even if I wanted to do so.

Due to my own observation and experience,
I do believe that there are many differences between people,
and in the personal behaviors that are required to avoid being fat.

 In this chapter Taubes talks about the Science issues
of how some hormones and enzymes work
(issues that weren’t, and still aren’t, controversial)
which were worked out between the 1920s and 1980s.

Most of the chapter is about those “Basics” physical concepts
that are connected with the issue of Why anyone Gets Fat.
There is a small part at the end about the “Implications” of those Basics.
Taubes says that fat tissue is more like a wallet than a savings account.

“You’re always putting fat into it, and you’re always taking fat out.
You get a tiny bit fatter…during and after each meal,
and then you get a tiny bit leaner again…after the meal is digested.
And you get leaner still while sleeping.

In an ideal world,
one in which you’re not getting any fatter,
the calories you store as fat immediately after meals during the day
are balanced out over time
by the calories you burn as fat after digesting those meals
and during the night. “

He says,

“Anything that works to promote the flow of fatty acids into your fat cells,
where they can be bundled together into triglycerides,
works to store fat, to make you fatter.

Anything that works to break down those triglycerides
into their component fatty acids
so that the fatty acids can escape from the fat cells
works to make you leaner.

There are dozens of hormones and enzymes
that play a role in these processes, but one hormone dominates the action.
That’s insulin, and this has never been controversial.

We secrete insulin primarily in response to the carbohydrates in our diet,
primarily to keep blood sugar under control.
But insulin also does other things including,
controlling fuel storage in our fat tissue.
Because of this, insulin is the “principle regulator of fat metabolism”.

 Taubes continues talking in technical terms about various body functions,
then says..

"In short, everything insulin does in this context
works to increase the fat we store
and decrease the fat we burn.
Insulin works to make us fatter.”

After describing in detail how insulin is activated and how it works,
ahe says,

“The bottom line is something that’s been known
(and mostly ignored) for over forty years.
The one thing we absolutely have to do if we want to get leaner
--if we want to get fat our of our fat tissue and burn it –
is to lower our insulin levels and to secrete less insulin to begin with.”

Leaving the “Basics”, Taubes goes on the “Implications”.

“When insulin levels go up,
we store fat.
When they come down,
we mobilize the fat and use it for fuel”

He states that when insulin is high, the fat from storage is not available;
that insulin also works to keep the protein stored away in muscles;
and insulin keeps the carbohydrate supply that is stored in the liver
and muscles locked up as well.

“As a result, the cells find themselves starved for fuel,
and we quite literally feel their hunger.
Either we eat sooner than we otherwise would have
or we eat more when we do eat, or both. …
Anything that makes us fatter will make us overeat in the process.
That’s what insulin does.“

 Taubes ends this chapter with

“…as we fatten, our energy demand increases,
and our appetite will increase for this reason as well
--particularly our appetite for carbohydrates,
because this is the only nutrient our cells will burn for fuel
when insulin is elevated.

If we’re predisposed to get fat,
we’ll be driven to crave precisely those
carbohydrate-rich foods that make us fat.”

The insulin issue is interesting to me personally
because all during my lifetime I’ve felt
driven to crave carbohydrate-rich foods
…..and I’ve spent much of my lifetime as a fat person.

I have discovered that for me
(and I’ve learned it is also true for many others),
I can eat sweet and starchy foods until my stomach hurts,
and just a very short time later,
I want and I’m ready to eat more of them.
The more I eat, the more I want. 
and on…and on…and on…
until I’m so full and tired that I just go to sleep. 
 This is the “binge” behavior that I’ve had to deal with my entire life,
and it comes from a very physical feeling, which is often totally unrelated
to any positive or negative emotional issues I might be having.

I have never experienced this with foods that are primarily protein and fat,
only with foods that contain a lot of sugar and/or starch.
For me, personally, even dense whole grain bread,
white and sweet potatoes, corn, as well as cooked dry beans
tend to set this “binge mechanism” off in me.
I tend to crave those foods, and have eaten massive amounts of them. 
  I am a person who has always kept my refrigerator and pantry
supplied with food that I’ve been taught are the “basic necessities”
like: eggs, milk, butter, flour, sugar, oatmeal,
oil, spices, condiments, fresh, canned and frozen vegetables;
fresh, canned and frozen meat/fish/poultry…among others.
Therefore, in my own lifetime,
that Behavioral therapy technique of eliminating all “trigger” foods
from my house…that almost every diet recommends…
…(even some Intuitive eating experts)…..
was always pretty much meaningless to me.

After I cleared my house of cookies, cake, pie, candy, chips, crackers etc.
I would still binge on bread and butter. If I didn’t have bread,
I would make some from my supply of flour, fat, and spices on hand.
If there were no “sweets” in the house, I’d sprinkle sugar on my bread and butter, 
 or I’d bake “sweets” with the flour, sugar, and oil or butter on hand.

Enough said for now,
more about that binge behavior
and how it might relate to these issues at another time.