Energy Intake Vs Hormonal Disorder

Ben Bradley, general practitioner at the Meuchedet Health Care Organisation tips to lose weight Bradley challenges Taubes idea that there are two competing hypotheses excess energy intake versus a hormonal disorder. Calling it a disorder would imply a pathological derangement of normal function. The accumulation of excess body fat is simply a rather normal, and expected biological consequence of continued storage of (wait for it) excess total calories. I would additionally question why Taubes believes that a derangement of a healthy hormonal millieu is exclusive to the overconsumption of carbohydrate, but not fat. Estadella recently wrote a review discussing the potential adverse effects of excessive intakes of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and trans fatty acids (TFA) on insulin action and other biological processes. Note that I would read the latter review with caution since plenty of the supporting literature is animal research; long-term controlled/comparative human research is lacking in this area. This makes Estadella et als paper more of a discussion of hypothetical mechanisms involved in dietary lipid-mediated pathologies, rather than a solid case against high intakes of dietary fat. Nevertheless, unlike Taubes heavy reliance on anecdote and observation, Estadella et al base much of their speculations on peer-reviewed research. On this note, Id like to quote the conclusion of a review by Lara-Castro and Garvey since it sums up the situation very well Before I move on to the next letter, I have to quote Bradleys skepticism of Taubes agenda behind NuSi, echoing my previously mentioned concerns J Lennert Veerman, senior research fellow, School of Population Health, University of Queensland Veermans letter shoots several stiff challenges at Taubes, and to me is the most potent of the bunch. First of all, the dichotomization, or pitting of excess energy intake versus hormonal dysregulation (via excess carb intake) is false since it implies that the two are mutually exclusive, when they are not. Veerman asks the rhetorical question of whether previous generations of researchers saw energy imbalance as the cause of obesity without thinking that several factors influence that imbalance and the answer is, of course not. Secondly, Veerman echoes Garrows main point that Taubes is simply ignoring a substantial body of well-designed obesity research that has given us more answers than Taubes is willing to concede. Veerman feels that Taubes is throwing the baby out with the bathwater in his approach to the problem. Veermans third contention reiterates the concerns of other researchers about Taubes bias and ulterior motives (that plus a combination of a general state of wishful confusion). The way he put this is quoteworthy An important contention raised by Veerman is

Taubes failure to consider societal influences.