MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
It's Not The Carbs!
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

southbeach

Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

southbeach wrote:
Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."


==Scott==
What about this more serious problem called fat obsession that some people, like you, seem to have? That's definitely a challenge we have no answer for.Maybe shock treatment??
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."

==Scott==
What about this more serious problem called fat obsession that some people, like you, seem to have? That's definitely a challenge we have no answer for.Maybe shock treatment??


What "fat obsession"..bodyfat or dietary fat "obsession".

I don't think that trying to eat healthy based on known science or trying to keep bodyfat levels low and fitness up is a bad thing , do you??
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."

==Scott==
What about this more serious problem called fat obsession that some people, like you, seem to have? That's definitely a challenge we have no answer for.Maybe shock treatment??

What "fat obsession"..bodyfat or dietary fat "obsession".

I don't think that trying to eat healthy based on known science or trying to keep bodyfat levels low and fitness up is a bad thing , do you??


==Scott==
You know I think you're right! Just because just about every other post of yours concerns fat and eating to prevent fat that's not an obsession, it's a sickness..
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."

==Scott==
What about this more serious problem called fat obsession that some people, like you, seem to have? That's definitely a challenge we have no answer for.Maybe shock treatment??

What "fat obsession"..bodyfat or dietary fat "obsession".

I don't think that trying to eat healthy based on known science or trying to keep bodyfat levels low and fitness up is a bad thing , do you??

==Scott==
You know I think you're right! Just because just about every other post of yours concerns fat and eating to prevent fat that's not an obsession, it's a sickness..


Scott, eating healthy is probably the most important thing anyone can do for health and longevity, even more important than voluntary exercise.

Do you disagree?
Open User Options Menu

kurtvf

southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."

==Scott==
What about this more serious problem called fat obsession that some people, like you, seem to have? That's definitely a challenge we have no answer for.Maybe shock treatment??

What "fat obsession"..bodyfat or dietary fat "obsession".

I don't think that trying to eat healthy based on known science or trying to keep bodyfat levels low and fitness up is a bad thing , do you??

==Scott==
You know I think you're right! Just because just about every other post of yours concerns fat and eating to prevent fat that's not an obsession, it's a sickness..

Scott, eating healthy is probably the most important thing anyone can do for health and longevity, even more important than voluntary exercise.

Do you disagree?


This is a training forum, not a "let's convert everyone to be vegans" forum. It's getting old.

Scott, you are correct, an obsession to eat healthy (and to convert everyone else to do the same) is called orthorexia AKA Southpark's Disease.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
entsminger wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."

==Scott==
What about this more serious problem called fat obsession that some people, like you, seem to have? That's definitely a challenge we have no answer for.Maybe shock treatment??

What "fat obsession"..bodyfat or dietary fat "obsession".

I don't think that trying to eat healthy based on known science or trying to keep bodyfat levels low and fitness up is a bad thing , do you??

==Scott==
You know I think you're right! Just because just about every other post of yours concerns fat and eating to prevent fat that's not an obsession, it's a sickness..

Scott, eating healthy is probably the most important thing anyone can do for health and longevity, even more important than voluntary exercise.

Do you disagree?


==Scott==
I agree but like most on here I don't come here to this forum to read about fat intake or calories counting or what I should and should not eat. I come here to hopefully learn how to build bigger and stronger muscles or talk about the machines and techniques involved.If it's politics, or knitting techniques, best kitty litter or even ways to live an extra 10 years and ain't about building muscles I don't want to read about it on here! Leave the plant food and the body fat preoccupation with the ladies home journal crowd.
Open User Options Menu

Ellington Darden

Yes. This article is now on my recommended reading list.

Thanks,

Ellington
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Spain

southbeach wrote:
Scott, eating healthy is probably the most important thing anyone can do for health and longevity, even more important than voluntary exercise.

Do you disagree?


The problem lies in YOUR definition of eating healthy! Eating healthy is not defined by eating vegetables only to the exclusion of animal proteins and fats. Many vegetarians are not balanced in their viewpoint on this matter. I do not look with disdain on vegans because of how and what they choose to eat, and would appreciate the same in return, as this is a personal choice. Eating meat does not include any morality issue, which is what vegans seem to always be trying to push on others conscience.

Food is for enjoyment.....ALL types of food. Without a doubt, by using balance and moderation, all may enjoy the benefits of delicious and nutritious foods of all types, with none of the restrictions that are imposed by extreme views of certain segments of the population.
Open User Options Menu

garethit

southbeach wrote:
Taubes is wrong!

http://wholehealthsource.blogs...

"I hope you can see by now that the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is not only incorrect on a number of levels, but may even be backward. The reason why obesity and metabolism researchers don't take Taubes's idea seriously is that it is contradicted by a large body of evidence from multiple fields.

I understand that people like ideas that "challenge conventional wisdom" as the GCBC book cover states, but the fact is that obesity is a complex problem and it will not be shoehorned into simplistic hypotheses."


Great find. I can't believe anyone could take Taubes' ideas seriously. His theories are so full of holes (as this article points out so well)it's not even funny.

Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

Guys, I think this forum is turning into some kind of a soap opera!

I mean, what the heck? High estrogen anyone in here?
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

Why do we need to cure SB's obssession?
Open User Options Menu

dhitquinn

kulitsa wrote:
Guys, I think this forum is turning into some kind of a soap opera!

I mean, what the heck? High estrogen anyone in here?


Its unfair to have high estrogen, if we all had a nice set the female race would become obsolete!
Open User Options Menu

kulitsa

New York, USA

ddhitquinn wrote:
kulitsa wrote:
Guys, I think this forum is turning into some kind of a soap opera!

I mean, what the heck? High estrogen anyone in here?

Its unfair to have high estrogen, if we all had a nice set the female race would become obsolete!


lol

Open User Options Menu

Not Sure

I've been low-carbing for 12 years.

I love it that it's turned around so that the carbophiliacs are defending themselves instead of attacking us.

Taubes' extreme claims are wrong but he did a lot to correct the other side's extreme claims.
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

Not Sure wrote:
I've been low-carbing for 12 years.

I love it that it's turned around so that the carbophiliacs are defending themselves instead of attacking us.

Taubes' extreme claims are wrong but he did a lot to correct the other side's extreme claims.


well said
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

IMO carbs do effect different people differently, some will need a lower carb diet to be lean, the alternative is extremely low calories which has its downside.

I love eating carbs and I believe they are very beneficial in bodybuilding.

So luckily for me I discovered intermittent fasting which allows me to have my cake and eat it to; at least to the point I can and do eat carbs with each meal and keep my leaness.
Open User Options Menu

Uncaused138

Stephan's a tremendous blogger, one of the best on the 'net.

Unfortunately it seems that many here are only going to cite this particular piece with no regard to the rest of Stephan's work, or to his areas of agreement with Taubes.

He actually agrees with Taubes that low fat diets are generally not a good idea, and has written extensively on the fraudulent saturated fat theory of disease, which of course is a major component of Taubes' book. Those are his areas of agreement with Taubes, and the reason why he prefaced this article with an acknowledgment that Taubes' book does contain some good information.

He disagrees with Taubes that carbs are the culprit. I believe his saying is, "there is no one macronutrient that is trying to kill you." Unfortunately many here are just selectively quoting his work in aocordance with their own confirmation bias. You cannot learn anything if you only seek validation of what you already believe to be true.
Open User Options Menu

Uncaused138

I'll further add that while Stephan has written that he does believe in calories in vs. calories out, he also feels that overeating is not a simple matter of gluttony. His professional work involves the neuroregulation of obesity. I wonder how many people who are linking to this article are actually going to read the rest of his site and learn some new things.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Uncaused138 wrote:
Stephan's a tremendous blogger, one of the best on the 'net.

Unfortunately it seems that many here are only going to cite this particular piece with no regard to the rest of Stephan's work, or to his areas of agreement with Taubes.

He actually agrees with Taubes that low fat diets are generally not a good idea, and has written extensively on the fraudulent saturated fat theory of disease, which of course is a major component of Taubes' book. Those are his areas of agreement with Taubes, and the reason why he prefaced this article with an acknowledgment that Taubes' book does contain some good information.

He disagrees with Taubes that carbs are the culprit. I believe his saying is, "there is no one macronutrient that is trying to kill you." Unfortunately many here are just selectively quoting his work in aocordance with their own confirmation bias. You cannot learn anything if you only seek validation of what you already believe to be true.


Taubes main thesis is falsified. But still the need to defend it and throw in a disparaging comment about "low fat" out of the blue. You need to get over it.
Open User Options Menu

Elaikases

Acerimmer1 wrote:
Why do we need to cure SB's obssession?


I don't know. After all, a blog post is far superior to the book and other material Taubes has provided.

Not to mention the blog post seems to miss the point.

e.g. <i>that Taubes uses them as an example in GCBC, when they are at odds with his hypothesis. The Pima were first contacted in 1539 by the Spanish, who apparently found them to be lean and healthy. At the time, they were eating a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet based on corn, beans, starchy squash, and a modest amount of gathered animal and plant foods from the forest and rivers in the area</i>

He then goes on to note:

<i>ey subsequently became obese and have remained that way ever since. Their diet consisted mostly of bread cooked in lard, sweetened beverages and canned goods, and they also received salt. More recently, their diet has modernized but still relies heavily on processed food</i>

Ok. Taubes thesis is that processed foods -> obesity.

The argument is not carb restriction, though the blogger notes:

<i>However, once overweight or obesity is established, carbohydrate restriction can aid fat loss in some people.</i>

Ok ... so, from this we learn?

Taubes is right about processed food -> obesity, and the additional point come sup that carb restriction can aid fat loss.

And the end point is?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

With regard to saturated fat, the evidence is actually pretty consistent when looking at prospective studies, long-term for health outcomes and in people that are young at the start of the study. It's pretty clear that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are BAD FOR YOU. Certainly, it's not NECESSARY to consume either, so why risk it??!!
Open User Options Menu

WesH

southbeach wrote:
Taubes main thesis is falsified. But still the need to defend it and throw in a disparaging comment about "low fat" out of the blue. You need to get over it.


Not really, doofus. His main discussion in GCBC is about the bogus, fraudulent claims of Ancel Keys' lipid hypothesis about cardiovascular disease, although he does spend about 40% of the book discussing obesity. Stephan pretty much agrees with Taubes on the cholesterol issue, as I recall. Since you were sent the link to his blog by one of your fellow fanatics, you've never read there before, have you? Go back and read into his archives. You won't, because you are incapable of rational consideration of facts that fall outside of your religion.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

southbeach wrote:
With regard to saturated fat, the evidence is actually pretty consistent when looking at prospective studies, long-term for health outcomes and in people that are young at the start of the study. It's pretty clear that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are BAD FOR YOU. Certainly, it's not NECESSARY to consume either, so why risk it??!!


At one time it was said ALL fats were bad, period. That was complete, utter BS although I know your simple little mind still thinks that's the case. I know you believe protein is bad too.

The problem with these CVD studies is, people were typically consuming excessive calories along with processed sugars and white flour. Those are likely the real culprits.

It's no different than how most studies show 3 sets are better than 1 set per exercise. These studies are typically flawed for a number of reasons.

Open User Options Menu

WesH

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
At one time it was said ALL fats were bad, period.


Yeah, I remember. That was back when SB's puppet masters were actually telling people to avoid avocados and olive oil.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy