Taubes And The Emerging CW On Refined Carbs

The NY Times Sunday Review gives more space to Gary Taubes, who explains yet again that neither all macronutrients nor all calories are created equal.

As my contribution to dietary science I have engaged in random surveys of the "Us" and "People" magzine articles about diet secrets of the Holywood stars.  In that world, low-carb diets are widely cited as the key to dietary success. (FWIW, bodybuilders are another motivated group who have known that for decades.)

Here is Taubes from Newsweek in May, and a CrossFitter talking him up.

Comments

[peter]

Oh, gosh, I never guessed there'd be a thread about this article.

[Pops]

Surefire weight loss is take up smoking.

We need a federal mandate.....errrr, no....what we need is a federal tax on people who fail to buy cgarettes. YES! Thats the ticket.

[AliceH]

Pops - you're on to something there. More smoking means less Federal imposition of rationing. Do-it-yourself Death panels!

[Pops]

AliceH,

And you don't even need to smoke them since just buying them funds healthcare for kids. Thus a lack of smokers will require a federal mandate to buy cigarettes to raise revenue!!

Its a win, win.

[AliceH]

And if there's a mandate to buy cigarettes, surely there ought to be a cigarette exchange. Also 'cigarette stamps' to supplement cigarette costs for the poor.

[Pops]

I don't get it, the media say Roberts hates 5-4 decisions...but Obamacare was a 5-4 decision. hello?

Or does the media just hate 5-4 decisions that go against their liberal views?

[MarkO]

Check out the jawbone of Taubes ancestor:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/07/01/whatta_a_set_of.html#.T_BWHwCnPTE.twitter

[Porchlight]

I don't get it, the media say Roberts hates 5-4 decisions...but Obamacare was a 5-4 decision. hello?

He supposedly doesn't like 5-4 decisions to overturn.

I don't know if he acutally believes that, but that's what I read.

[Porchlight]

Insty links this piece and asks:

Can we hold the government and medical organizations liable for this bad advice, the way would hold pharmaceutical companies liable?

Maybe we can, but we shouldn't.

[Frau Affenspaß]

Testing...

[Frau Affenspaß]

Pops and AliceH are off to a rollicking start.

I'm sure the Tetlock article does not include JOM experts who can outperform chimps any day.
Wait...that didn't come out right.

[Carol Herman]

It's not a workable menu. You're not allowed to eat bread (wheat). Nor rice. Nor potatoes. Taube claims these foods also leave you hungry. So then you'll snack. (And, if you snack "cake" then that's eating wheat.)

Plus, the first nutty thing to notice is that you're writing off all the variations in body types. And, you're accepting the camera's eye ... where you look good on a flat piece of paper.

You can't drink liquor or beers, either. Made from rice. Or potatoes. Or corn.

No grains for you.

But go ahead. "Diet."

And, if you learn to stand on your head ... you can stand on your head first. And, shovel food into yourself ... by placing the "dish" (without corn, or rice, or wheat) on the floor. Then? For everything you eat, digestion becomes an uphill battle. Victory is in sight! SIGH.

[Janet]

I've been saving this for a health/exercise thread...a Taubes thread will have to do -

[earl t]

MODERATION in all things (including "moderation") is the key!

[peter]

I don't get it, the media say Roberts hates 5-4 decisions...but Obamacare was a 5-4 decision. hello?

Or does the media just hate 5-4 decisions that go against their liberal views?

The Slimes has it both ways. Page one they praise Roberts, op ed page they slam the conservative five. I just tried to read the whole decision. It is not a great read. Link at LUN

[Carol Herman]

John Roberts approached his job as Chief Justice, KNOWING that Anthony Kennedy had wanted that designation! He knew, walking into the Supreme Court, that there were 4 conservatives. But they didn't get along with one another. (For friendship outside of the Court, Scalia went with Ruth Bader Ginsberg.)

And, Anthony Kennedy just sat and stewed.

Rehnquist? For all his years sitting there as chief justice he rarely got to assign any majority opinions. And, then? Anthony Kennedy learned from Sandra Day O'Connor, how to "trade" writing an opinion ... for head's up on "the" vote.

Sandra day O'Connor then added "tests." (And, plastic reindeer, so you'd know there was no religious intent in a Christmas display.)

This time around when the votes were taken ... it appears that the liberals went off to write their dissent. While it seems Anthony Kennedy was tasked with writing what he thought would be the majority opinion. (That's what "glued him" to the 3 other conservatives.)

Roberts now majority opinion was written by him probably beginning in March. But it was Ginsberg who was being touted as writing for the losing side.

When Roberts left the 4-conservatives ... because they were going way overboard ... Or what's called in Casino Talk "ALL IN" ... he moved away to the liberal side of the table FOREVER MORE.

Up ahead? If Obama wins. And, the senate's majority is held by the democrats ... but it's close ... You're going to see the senators from: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts being offered the moon by Harry Reid!

What kinds of replacements will you get? With the possibilities being Ginsberg's seat, and Scalia's.

It could mean that John Roberts, who wants to lead a court that does better than 5-4 ... will pick up another liberal justice. At least. And, what shrinks? The influence of conservatives.

The loss of John Roberts' vote is indeed a very big deal. Wait for the smoke to clear.

[Jane - we are not above it, we are it.]

I'm attempted to scream GET OVER IT! There is too much to do to spend your day bitching.

(as she bitches)

[Carol Herman]

Who postponed "the decision" to the last day of court? It was supposed to come out on Monday, last week.

Doesn't Roberts, himself, control which decisions get read aloud? Did Roberts pull back the "decision" to Thursday ... because he knew it was going to land with one gigantic thud?

Where there any handshakes as "colleagues" went off for their vacations?

If you had to guess whose the most pissed off, would you pick Kennedy or Scalia?

[TCO]

Calories are what really matters.

As long as you get essential vitamins/minerals, a reasonably small amount of protein, and some essential fatty acids (in small amount), then you are fine. We are omnivores. A very wide variety of macronutrient diets will keep you healthy.

Low carb is not the secret. LOW CALORIE is the secret.

And the WAY to get low calorie is cut the sweets, booze, fat and eat HUGE SALADS and veggies at every meal including brekkie.

Biking to the YMCA is killer too. You get a lift and then the transport is like cardio.

Oh...and don't listen to bodybuilder articles...they are meatheads and the magazines are frauds selling supplements and have been for at least 50 years. And the secret diets crap is crap.

Take it from me...I lost 70 pounds fat and gained strength on every lift other than calves (if you take bodyweight into account when looking at the lifts).

EAT YOUR VEGGIES!

[Frau Dick und Doof]

The information is for losing weight *not* a life diet plan. Mod-r-8 is right.

We have enough political fatheads running around ruining our lives. We don't need even more morbidly obese added to the mess. There were not many fatties back during the Depression and I don't think there were many fat Europeans even a decade after WWII. We have the AWDA to cover their right to be fat and now (C)ACA will give them life coaches whether they want them or not. Big Gov. gives and takes away, taxing to fund the programs.
Let's just open up Fort Knox and get it over with.

[TCO]

You RINOs started it with the bailout. Majority of the Republican Congress voted against it. You advocated a Democrap measure. And one that has done MAJOR long term damage to our expectations of free enterprise. You fucked the US hard. And the funny thing was you did it for political expediency and it didn't even serve that. Maybe because everyone (liberal, moderate, and conservative) can see how lame the bailouts were. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

[J. Fred Muggs]

A few predictions:

Obama loses the 2012 election but wins the 2013 Nobel Prize for Medicine

George Zimmerman will be found not guilty and will be appointed to the Human Rights and Diversity Cognizance Board of Appeals for Seminole County, Florida.

Tiger Woods will win major most likely the Austrian Open.

The New York Yankees will not win the world series this year or next but the Texas Rangers will continue to dominate the AL and win the WS this year.

[(Another) Barbara]

Tom Maguire: Gary Taubes, who explains yet again that neither all macronutrients nor all calories are created equal.

Based on the comments here, TM, I'd say that explaining "yet again," is going to require quite a few more "yet agains," and to limited gains, probably. I much admire your persistence.

The two sorts of blogs I mainly spend time on are political and nutritional. Emotions run much higher on the nutritional ones, and opinions are far more likely to be fixed and immovable.

[clarice]

Talk to me about it on a day when I haven't been sampling wine all day and devouring Madame Dromer's fabulous onion tart and now Richard's passing around some Dutch cookies.

XOXOXOXO

[narciso]

It is part of TM's Socratic technique, where the question leads to more questions, AB.

[narciso]

onion tart. clarice, explain?

[(Another) Barbara]

Talk to me about it on a day when I haven't been sampling wine all day and devouring Madame Dromer's fabulous onion tart

You're in France, Clarice, and all previous rules are null and void when visiting there. Eat! Drink! And share every detail of what you're having.

[narciso]

Oh, with gruyere, and a butter crust, carry on.

[narciso]

Anyone know what language this is in:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15499795/The-Cote-dAzur-Nice-to-Menton-Chapter

[Porchlight]

Evidently liberty is good, except the liberty to eat and drink what one pleases. That is bad, and should be curtailed, for one's own and society's good.

[daddy]

Is there a Cliff Notes on Taube?

If not, I sense a major marketing opportunity.

[(Another) Barbara]

Evidently liberty is good, except the liberty to eat and drink what one pleases.

I have no knowledge about why Tom Maguire likes to occasionally post about Taubes sightings, Porch, but I've assumed it's because TM follows the principles documented by Taubes and it has worked out well for him.

I do the same, but don't think about it as anything but sharing some good news, as I would about politics, literature, music or other enthusiasms. For me, eating Taubes's style for more than a decade has made me look better, feel more energetic and stay full and satisfied with the fat-rich foods that are and always have been my preference in any case. I view it as eating and drinking what I please, and it has nothing to do with anything that's for "society's good." It's everyone's choice still, thank the Lord, (unless you want foie gras in CA or quart-sized drinks in NY, alas.)

[Bill in AZ sez it's time for Obama/Holder murder trial in Mexico]

(Another) Barbara,
In your nutrition wanderings have you run across Denise Minger of http://rawfoodsos.com/ ?

Someone on my squad got sold on The China Study and the film Forks over Knives and started turning some of my folks to vegans. Worrying I would have to start carrying my own people out of the field, I looked for counters to that study and ran across Denise's blog. Her dissection of that study and a few other studies is absolute art.

Coming from someone who is a former raw foodist and vegan, her analysis has an interesting perspective. If you dig enouhg into her blog, she aligns pretty well with Dr Kurt Harris, Paul Jaminet, and other. Coming out with a book in early 2013.

[(Another) Barbara]

"Why We Get Fat" is the Cliffs notes, daddy. "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is the work of art.

[Porchlight]

(A)B, it's not so much TM recommending Taubes as the surprising level of statism that crops up (no pun intended), even on the right, when food is the subject. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am.

[daddy]

Thanks (A)B,

I was looking for some good reading material for the next time I enjoy a nice lunch of Musabi:)

[(Another) Barbara]

Heh. Just eat the Spam and nori, daddy, and toss the rice. xoxo

[Davod]

daddy | July 01, 2012 at 05:53 PM:

The picture shows the Hawaiian influence on Japanese cuisine.

[(Another) Barbara]

In your nutrition wanderings have you run across Denise Minger

I have, Bill. I did not realize she had a blog, though, so I'll go look now. Thank you. I saw on other websites her brilliant critiques of The China Study quoted at length. Didn't know she had a book coming out either. I may not recall correctly, but isn't she just a "civilian" who got interested in the topic? If so, amazing.

[(Another) Barbara]

the surprising level of statism that crops up (no pun intended), even on the right,

I don't follow what you mean, Porch. Do you have an example? No one on the right -- or at least not that I've run into -- has suggested regulations or laws regarding what any individual chooses to eat. It maybe becomes an evangelistic fervor (a particularly boring evangelistic fervor, for those not interested) but I think that's borne of wanting to share one's success in losing weight, feeling healthier, etc., with other who may benefit too. Maybe I have a blind spot but I don't see that as statism.

[Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA]

Saw an interesting comment by brown dog on legal insurrection. Any insight on this?

The mandate was not written in legal tax language. Therefor, there is no tax “text” to be overturned in the law via conciliation.
Harry Reid is about to make that perfectly clear

[Bill in AZ sez it's time for Obama/Holder murder trial in Mexico]

"but isn't she just a "civilian" who got interested in the topic? If so, amazing."

Yep - just a "civilian" which leads to some criticism of her work, the old "appeal to authority" to debunk in order to avoid paying attention to what she says. She has a good handle on statistical analysis, and explains in great detail what she is doing, why, and why it matters when taking apart one of these studies.

[Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA]

Another comment in the same thread. Is this factually true? Is the "tax" part of the decision Roberts on his own?

Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito did not agree with Roberts’ reasoning that the mandate was a tax. Nor did the four liberal Justices. Nor did the Obama Administration, Congressional Democrats, or supporters like liberal law professors, Hollywood and the press.
Roberts is the only one who claims the mandate is a tax – the only one.
...
Does that not disturb you – the mandate is now law because it was called a tax by just one man? With the eight other Justices in agreement that it is not a tax?

[Jim,MtnView,Ca,USA]

This is the LI post
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/07/alone-again-naturally/

[jimmyk]

Does that not disturb you – the mandate is now law because it was called a tax by just one man? With the eight other Justices in agreement that it is not a tax?

It did strike me as a bit strange that there was no majority for any one view. You might think they'd want at least five justices agreeing on the basis for constitutionality or lack thereof.

[jorod]

Yeah, so outlaw french cooking...

[Carol Herman]

Rice is a carb.

How come in Asian countries where rice is a staple, the people are skinny?

Meanwhile, over in Russia where potato makes vodka, the peasants, as a general rule look like fat fire plugs.

When you're in a rich country, "going on a diet" is just a fad.

Obesity rules. Meanwhile, I wonder if all you did was limit your food intake to two bowls-full of rice a day ... if you'd get constipated, first? Or skinny?

Did you know that there are two parts to the roadway food takes, after you chew. And, swallow.

That's why very obese people go for the radical surgery of putting a band around your stomach. It's an amazing thing to see the weight loss you get from this procedure, alone.

While Princess Diana just used to stick her finger down her throat. She thought it didn't matter if she gorged. Or not. She just stopped the food after she had swallowed.

How did gaining weight become a bad thing?

[Carol Herman]

You know, the "secret" of french cooking is serving miniscule portions! And, drinking your food down with wine. So you won't feel hungry. Just "buzzed."

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Jim:

The commenter is wrong. The ruling upholding the mandate as a tax was contained in Section IIIC of the Roberts opinion. Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined in Section III C of the opinion.

Had they not, the case would have been decided 5-4 that the mandate was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and was not Necessary nor Proper. The four liberal Justices were forced to consider the mandate a tax to preserve its constitutionality. I think that helps to explain Ginsburg's rather testy concurrence.

[Frau Affenspaß]

Jim Rhoads, Tetlock reigns and at LI, it is raining *hailing* experts. From what I read there and elsewhere, there are people who actually know what was going on in CJ Roberts' mind and why. Don't we have anyone here who can read minds? If not, we.are.doomed.again.

The Bush family, including Barbara and Barney, is to blame for everything. Period. I read it on the internet.

[Frau Affenspaß]

Spot would not have gone along with any of this carp.

[narciso]

No, I credit Barney with more discernment, lol.

[Porchlight]

(A)B, I'm kind of reacting to past threads (like this one) where TM has shown some sympathy to the Bloomberg nanny view. Also people not wanting to pay for the healthcare of "fatties." Well, obviously we'd all rather just not have to pay for anyone's bad health-related decisions and in an ideal world those costs wouldn't be passed around. They'd be borne by the individual.

However, lots of other social and health costs are passed around and the same folks don't seem to harbor the same level of objection. But somehow food, and specifically overeating, seems to bring out the finger waggers even on the right. I don't know, it might be my class-sensitive buttons being pushed.

[Carol Herman]

Since the decision is already out; you're mind reading or not why the Chief switched sides.

Yes. He did so.

And, yes, too. When he was in the majority on the conservative 5-4 divide ... he gave the opinion writing job to Anthony Kennedy. (He didn't keep the plum for himself.)

When the 4 liberals become aware of the "tensions" that must have existed throughout April ... they saw Roberts (like a stranded survivor of a shipwreck) signaling for permission to "come on board."

Oh. And, he came on board with paperwork. He had written the majority opinion in his own office. And, he angered Anthony Kennedy, who then dug in his heels.

Where previously Anthony Kennedy was considered the "most likely vote to peel off." WRONG!

The pundits read Anthony Kennedy WRONG!

While there was plenty of scuttlebutt behind closed doors to keep people very alert to chatter. Which went unreported in the press!

How so? Because there was deliciousness in anticipating the dish that was going to be served.

As to using the "Commerce Clause?" NOPE. No can do. This strategy has been closed off by this decision.

You just discovered America that the POWER TO TAX is sufficient? FDR was told this back in 1934.

That's how the Social Security Act was born. And, it didn't get "reviewed" by the old Conservative Supreme Court back then, either.

What does Obama know? Probably that if he wins re-election ... he'll own more Supreme Court appointments ... because even if nothing else happens, age takes over.

What if he appoints Richard Posner of the 4th (or is it 7th?) circuit? can you imagine heads exploding, or what? How about Alex Kazinsky (sp?) of the 9th?

Plus, today I read someplace that a majority of Americans accept the Supreme Court "solving" these legislative "riddles."

[Jim Eagle]

Myth buster: Cullen Jones wins the 50 m freestyle at the Olympic trials. He's AA.

/finished 2nd in the 100 m.

[GoneWithTheWind]

If it were that simple we would all be obese. Obesity is genetic. Most of us aren't obese and couldn't eat enough to become obese if we wanted to. Yet those people who are obese try every diet, every fad and simply cannot lose the weight.

[(Another) Barbara]

But somehow food, and specifically overeating, seems to bring out the finger waggers even on the right. I don't know, it might be my class-sensitive buttons being pushed.

Thanks for answering. It is certainly not Taubes' view. His position is the opposite of a finger wagger, matter of fact, and he has said "You are not fat because you eat too much. You eat too much because you are fat." You'd have to read his writings, possibly, to understand his foundation for that, but be assured he realizes no one wants to be fat -- to be unfit, to be in poor health and ridiculed constantly, etc. Obesity is a sad thing, and those afflicted suffer terribly. Too bad it's not as simple as blaming overindulgence and an absence of self discipline.

In any case I've talked too much here about this today and will quit now, ending with: I frequent a lot of "paleo" websites and when politics are mentioned, nearly all of the hosts of those sites lean to the right. I've never read any where the obese are scolded or are seen as burdens on the taxpayer.

[AliceH]

Okay - TM's Taubes push has generated another sale. I just ordered "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

Now all I need is a book called "How to Nag without Triggering Hostile Contrariness".

[gus]

If I want to guzzle chocolate covered melted butter with bacon grease, that is not the GOVERNMENTS business.
Obamacare has made my FREEDOM the GOVERNMENTS business.
John Roberts disgraced himself.
He also has made it clear to the libs on the court that all they have to do is stick together on any case that would overturn a lib law, and ROBERTS will join their side.

[(Another) Barbara]

Hooray for Alice!

I like your Nag title, but how about "Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking when Stakes are High" by Kerry Patterson. Obviously I didn't read it closely enough, but my son says it changed his arguments forever.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It's not a workable menu.

Nonsense. I've done it for great lengths of time. The only reason I fell off it recently was that while Mom was dying I kept getting meals through the car window as I drove to various hospitals, nursing homes, etc.

BTW, I've been back on the "nothing white except cauliflower" diet for a total of 3 days and I've lost 6 lbs.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Calories are what really matters.

No, that's not true. Nice to know there's someone who thinks the government is still infallable though.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

If not, I sense a major marketing opportunity.

What Makes Us Fat is basically the Cliffs Notes to Good Calories Bad Calories.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The picture shows the Hawaiian influence on Japanese cuisine.

Vice versa, actually. Span sushi is a Hawaiian innovation.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Another comment in the same thread. Is this factually true? Is the "tax" part of the decision Roberts on his own?

No.

[AliceH]

Thanks, (A) Barbara.

He's smarter than me, so really if the book makes the case well, and substantiates it with credible studies and evidence sufficient to counter "conventional wisdom", I won't actually have to nag.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

How come in Asian countries where rice is a staple, the people are skinny?

because they don't get enough food at all. However, as adequate calories have become available both China and Japan have started having trouble with both type II diabetes and obesity.

Look, this is one of those places where I kind of despair of ever seeing people generally understand, but the body isn't a bunch of on and off switches. It's not that you eat some refined carbs and instantly it turns on a "get fat" switch. And it's certainly not true that if you're getting only 500 calories a day, with it mainly in rice, that you'll get fat.

Weight regulation is a complicated feedback among a half dozen metabolic pathways, involving insulin, human growth hormone, ghrelin, and a whole bunch of others I don't recall. Each of those doesn't just throw a switch: insulin does encourage your liposomes to store fatty acids, HGH to release them, but it's not a boolean. It changes a rate constant. If your HGH and insulin are high, your liposomes are perfectly happy to try to BOTH absorb and release fatty acids.

The point is that its not a yes-or-no things: its' really the solution of a system of differential eequations and all sorts of different things affect it.

[Ignatz]

Is there anyone reading this blog who thinks J Fred Muggs in his prime couldn't have beaten Ann Curry on an IQ test six ways from Sunday?
Is there anyone who thinks he couldn't cut himself a piece of rug to put the perky one to shame?

[Porchlight]

Darn it if I didn't post a comment that got eaten.

Thanks, (A)B, for your comments. I actually really like low-carb/high protein plans and have done well on them. Paleo is also appealing although it seems a tad extreme to avoid cultivars simply because they are cultivars. I like low-carb for losing weight, but for maintenance, Why French Women Don't Get Fat. Seriously. It's the good life - the great life - in small portions. And it takes a healthy, non-obsessive view toward exercise and staying active.

[AliceH]

Hahahahaha! Funny funny Iggy! :-)

Seriously, though - I've never seen Ann Curry speak unscripted. As a newsreader, she was pleasant enough - IQ doesn't really enter into that job description. I gather they promoted past that point - too bad for everyone, I guess.

[Ignatz]

Just in the few brief interplays I witnessed with the other inhabitants in the Today show monkey house she demonstrated herself to be a nullity even by their lilicapuchin standards.

[AliceH]

'kay. I'll bite.

I know capuchin, but when I googled "lilicapuchin" the first hit in the results came with the warning "This site may harm your computer".

[AliceH]

Damn. Need a 'delete' function. Second I hit Post, it occurred to me that was a combination of Lilliputian and capuchin, wasn't it. Too clever.

[reliapundit]

been doing it for 4 wks and i've lost 16 pounds while enjoying what i eat and feeling satisfied

[mockmook]

He also has made it clear to the libs on the court that all they have to do is stick together on any case that would overturn a lib law, and ROBERTS will join their side.

Posted by: gus | July 01, 2012 at 09:47 PM/ul>

Great point, gus.

[mockmook]

Test

off?

[Carol Herman]

When people tell you they've lost pounds ... And, then you meet them again a year later ... Why are they fatter than before they went and "lost weight?"

There's a reason diets are labeled "yo yo."

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Carol, I've lost more than 50 lbs on low-carb diets. I yo yo because it's so damn convenient to eat sandwiches.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Great point, gus.

Because Roberts, after all the decision on the "right" side of something, will never again decide anything except to disappoint you.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

How did gaining weight become a bad thing?

When the number of people like this began to get extreme:

[Stephanie]

Taken at Disney World?

[Annoying Old Guy]

BTW, I've been back on the "nothing white except cauliflower" diet for a total of 3 days and I've lost 6 lbs.

A pound of human fat is about 3500 calories which would require a 7000 calorie / day deficit compared to before the diet, which would imply a daily intake pre diet of > 7000 calories per day. That seems a bit dubious.

[AL]

Nice article at the LUN, for starters.

Also, consumption of one alcoholic beverage before meal lowers glycemic load of the meal by 15%. So does addition of fat, protein, or acid (like balsamic vinegar).

So have your morning cruasan buttered, your cereal with whole milk, and slice of orange instead of glass of orange juice. And eat your pasta or pizza late, and with parmesan cheese.

And say hello to slim Italians and Froggers.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

That seems a bit dubious.

You say it's dubious. I've got a high quality scale. I know which one I believe.

But here's a hint: you've just observed that calories are not the *only* thing that regulates weight.

[clarice]

Shush..I spent the morning with the baker of Robion learning how he makes wood fired artisan baguettes and ficelles and he FORCED me to eat hot out of the oven croissants and bread.

(I'll be writing about the wine tasting/buying and bread making for PJ Media's lifestyle). Tomorrow I work at preparing American foods for our French friends and neighbors--we'll show em real food=Hebrew National hot dogs,hamburgers, potato salad, chocolate chip cookies and lemon squares all for the big Fourth of July celebration we're throwing.
XOXO

[jimmyk]

But here's a hint: you've just observed that calories are not the *only* thing that regulates weight.

Yeah, but over a 3-day period, diet isn't either, to that level of precision.

[Jim Ryan]

Holman Jenkins in the WSJ (Fri/Sat): a GOP Congress should pass a law allowing very high deductible insurance to count as fulfilling the mandate.

[jimmyk]

a GOP Congress should pass a law allowing very high deductible insurance to count as fulfilling the mandate.

A good idea, but the tax code, by effectively making covered expenses tax-deductible, penalizes those plans. Better to throw out the whole Obamacare monstrosity and start from scratch.

[Jim Ryan]

Agreed, Jimmy.

Does anyone here know where the line is between policies that are too high in deductible to count as satisfying the mandate and policies that satisfy it? My insurance broker doesn't know.

Reasons not to worry about the decision:

1. All that matters at this point is fixing the POTUS and Congress by installing competent conservatives. If you did that, you'd fix the Obamacare problem. If you don't do that, fixing the Obamacare problem won't matter because the country is headed for a brick wall.
2. They don't have the dough because of the brick wall. There won't be any Obamacare.

[CT]

Low Carb diets create a slight diuretic effect when you start them, so there's usually an initial drop in weight that's noticeable. (It's also why some people like them for dealing with bloating and inflammation issues.) Taubes' book well explains the interdependent metabolism of these things, as well as the reason largely single-source carb-consuming cultures may demonstrate different effects than our multi-carb, every grain, high refined sugar one. You may decide you don't agree with his rationale, but he does approach these logical questions.. But as in Charlie (C)'s example, not to mention obese people who don't lose or even gain on calorie-restricted diets, it's easy to see that calories in, calories out is way too simplistic a model of our complex biologies, so as always, your mileage may vary.

[AliceH]

JimRyan: It looks like Max Deductible ("Bronze Plan") will be $2K for individual/$4K for families.

Lot's more badness listed in this March2010 IBD article "20 ways Obamacare Will Take Away Our Freedoms"

[Jim Ryan]

Thanks, Alice. This is need-to-know info for me.

I suppose non-complying policies will be cancelled by the insurance companies for lack of customers, and customers wishing to keep these policies and disobey the mandate will get letters of cancellation.

[Porchlight]

Jim Ryan, I think the insurance companies are required under the law to offer only compliant policies, so demand doesn't enter into it. But I may be wrong on that.

[AliceH]

I don't think there are any true Catastrophic Health Insurance plans around anymore. Even my High Deductible plan includes all these "not counted against your deductible" preventive care services that I do not want, do not need, or which I would strongly prefer to just pay out of pocket.

With Obamacare, that approach is turned up to 11. My deductible will be reduced by 80%, and I'll pay for "free" services like:
* maternity and newborn care (don't need)
* mental health and substance use disorder services (don't need)
* preventive and wellness services(don't want "insured")
* pediatric services (don't need)
* oral care (don't want "insured")
* vision care (don't want "insured")

Faced with a choice of only pricey plans that grossly over-insure or pay a tax, the obvious choice for me will be to pay the tax.

[NK]

Porch@9:19-- compliant only plans- UNLESS you get a waiver!

[Jim Ryan]

Alice, I think my BCBS high-deductible is pretty true-to-form here in Va. I haven't read the policy as closely as you have yours, though.

Porch, there may be a few willing to pay the mandate fine along with their non-qualifying policy premium and a tiny few working under the table for cash wishing to evade the IRS altogether whilst carrying non-qualifying health insurance.

[Porchlight]

Gus, I hadn't thought of that. So insurance companies have to keep non-compliant policies around solely for customers whose business has been given a waiver?

What a flipping mess. I hate these people.

[Porchlight]

Jim Ryan, if Obamacare says companies can only offer compliant policies then there will be no such thing as non-qualifying health insurance. But Gus pointed out the waivers, so I admit I am unclear on all of that.

[rse]

I have a new post up where I continue the push to see the SEL emphasis as a means of mandating communitarianism via a back door and changing the economy.

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/does-common-core-target-hearts-and-minds-to-sway-future-voters/

[RokShox]

High-carb diets cause the body to retain sodium. The body compensates for the increased sodium by retaining water.

When you go low-carb, your body starts dumping sodium and the extra water along with it.

A 6 lb loss in three days is completely consistent with my experience.

The problem is that extra-cellular sodium and intra-cellular potassium are maintained in electrochemical balance. When you start dumping sodium, you dump potassium also.

This can cause significant problems with cramping, light-headedness, constipation, and fatigue.

What you have to do is supplement with sodium (i.e., salt) to blunt the loss of potassium. 1/2 teaspoon of salt provides a gram of sodium. That's what I take until my body acclimates.