Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFonz
Can you link to the abstract and not the direct article? I'd like to look at the test setup and the methodologies.
Regardless, I still disagree with you. Look at fasting studies for example which show that fat oxidation greatly accelerates in hr 16 of a fast. It's only when you hit the 32 hr mark that your body begins to catabolize muscle.
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html
On the whole calories in, calories out silliness - yes what you eat makes a difference, but calories do matter to an extent as well. Taubes (I assume if you've read fat head, you've also read good calories, bad calories) himself has said that (I cant for the life of me find it on his blog though).
As for good fats? What? Nuts are most certainly not full of good fats. They are mostly comprised of omega 6 fatty acids and further exacerbate the typical north american problem of having WAY too much omega 6s vs omega3s in their diets.
Nuts are also a pretty useless source of protein. For a handful, you get what.. 5 g? Pretty insignificant not to mention that their amino acid profile is incomplete. |
1 ounce of almonds, approximately 25 of them gets you 3g of fiber (which our overly processed diets are seriously lacking in), 6g of protein, 14g of fat, 6g of total carbs, 1 g of which is sugar, as well as calcium (which a lot of us don't get enough of either) and iron.
While I agree wonky omega 6 to 3 ratios are a big part of the problem in our diet, I don't think 25 almonds or an equal amount of walnuts is going to break the 6/3 ratio bank. There's far more insidious foods in our diets. A better snack then processed fruit snacks (you might as well just drink sugar water). I wouldn't recommend living off nuts, but I would recommend including them in your diet.
I've seen the same research that Taubes references in his documentries where diets that were low in fat but high in carbs have resulted in while weight loss, a flabbier physic. Also where higher calorie but lower carb diets have shown a stable weight or minimal weight gain.
Yes some calories are better than others, yeah I can agree with that. But I wouldn't say that the total number of calories in a food is what should be looked at when one first looks at the nutritional data on it, where the calories come from.
As for the abstract:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...07114507877646