Puti et al. J. biol chem. 2007
Keller, P. J biol chem. 2008

This, of course counteracts the neat and tidy little insulin theory that many still hold dear.

On a side note, re: Fred Hahn. It seems he is comming around a bit to his myopic opinions on stregth training. After however many years of insisting that people shouldn’t train more than 2 times per week, he threw the idea out there to a client and… low and behold, the client saw better results.

He is starting to learn. Better late than never.

http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2009/03/acylation-stimulating-protein-asp.html

“Did we just take this journey through Cianflone’s research to prove that acylation-stimulating protein, the primary effector of the uptake of fatty acids into fat tissue, is regulated by insulin!?!”

But as Mike pointed out several times: if it doesn’t validate your stance – just exclude it and move on with your creationist-alike behavior.

Your definition of exercise is VERY relevant, as is Taubes’. Perhaps your definition isn’t AS relevant as you haven’t written a big book that makes blanket and misleading statements.

You point out correctly that resistance training IS effective in burning fat, but you continue to skirt the issue – which is that Taubes makes no such distinction. It just further emphasizes your bias in that you are unwilling to admit fallibility in Taubes’ theories.

Other forms of complementary training (HIIT) and other more intense bouts of cardiorespiratory based *exercise are also helpful in the pursuit of fat loss.

Fred Hahn has the occasional spark of good sense mixed in with an overwhelming swarm of misguided drivel. I have thoroughly debunked his nonsensical blanket statements that he has make regarding exercise. I provided studies and he refused to – demanding that I prove something that I didn’t disagree with in the first place.

No wonder Taubes doesn’t think exercise helps you lose fat!

He too, eventually agreed with me (although in a way that made it sound like he never disagreed in the first place).

Fred’s stances on exercise range from mildly curious to outright flummoxing. He’ll make a series of blanket statements and then dance around the issue or skirt it altogether when challenged for evidence.

I have engaged in discussion on his blog and provided contrary evidence and Fred couldn’t counter with anything.

A few examples of some of Fred’s sound bites from his blog: (I’m paraphrasing here)

Marathon running is like smoking 10,000 cigarettes.
You should “cool down” rather than “warm up” prior to exercise (he stragely relates increasing body temperature though warming up to a fever here).
You have only a certain amount of heart beats in your life, don’t waste them on cardio
Too much joint movement (regarless of how and under what circumstance) will cause joint wear (no mention of predisposing factors, type of training, etc)
Weight training alone is as good if not better than a combination of cardio and resistance training together (all things equal with diet) for fat loss.

These are just a few examples off the top of my head., but this type of blatant stupidity is fairly common on his blog.

He seems stuck on a narrow-minded fitness philosophy and that’s the “truth” to him, despite other philosophies that have a great deal of evidence.

(I’ll refrain from taking informal license with your name.)

I’ll take each of these in turn, as I have time.

————————————————————————————————–
Chip says;
“Exercise” does not cause fat loss. Resistance training builds muscle mass, and both the recovery mechanisms that result from such training, as well as the increased metabolic needs of the resulting increased muscle mass, both cause fat loss. Resistance training (in the absence of a carb load) releases HGH, that causes fat loss. But, I stand by my assertion that “exercise” does not cause fat loss.
My response:
Chip – have you considered a career in politics? I marvel at your acumen for spin. So according to you, exercise DOES cause fat loss – thank you for agreeing with me. (the fact that resistance training would escape your definition of “exercise” is puzzling). I’ll assume than that either you;
a) Agree with me that Taubes’ stance on exercise is elusive and incomplete. or
b) You agree with Taubes as you share an equally muddled and obfuscated view of “exercise”.
So, Chippy – what IS your definition of *exercise* exactly? Cardio? Which kind? What intensity? These all matter when it comes to fat loss.
————————————————————————————————–

Are you just obtuse, or are you intentionally mis-representing my points in order to set up false-dichotomy straw men?

My definition of “exercise” is irrelevant. My point was not that resistance training did not fall under the definition of exercise but rather that, of all the various pursuits that may fall under the definition of “exercise”, the only one that has really shown to produce weight loss (as detailed in your quote) is resistance training.

Technically speaking, many other activities that fall under the definition of “exercise” *can* lead to muscle growth; however, most do so incredibly inefficiently.

If you would like to put a label on my views, please read “Slow Burn Revolution” (Fred Hahn) or “Body By Science” (Doug McGuff).

Insofar as Taubes’ theory that exercise makes you hungry? He has chosen to ignore a large number of studies that have shown otherwise. To be clear, some people do get hungry after they exercise, but it depends on how you mange that hunger. If you go out and pound a burger, fries and a blizzard after a run, than no, exercise will not help you. But Taubes must have missed these studies on exercise and appetite;

Blundell JE, cross talk between physical activity and appetite control: does physical activity stimulate appetite? Proc Nutr Soc, 62, 651-661. 2003
Donahoo WT, Variability in energy expenditure and its components. Curr Op Clin Nutr Metab. 7: 599-605. 2004.
King NA, et al, Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: Identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss. Int J Obes, 32, 177-184, 2008.
King NA, effects of exercise on appetite control: Implications for energy balance. Med Sci Sport Exer, 29(8): 1076-1089. 1997
King, NA, The relationship between physical activity and food intake. 57: 77-84. 1998.
Lluch A, Exercise enhances palatability of food, but does not increase food consumption, in lean restrained females. Int J Obes, 21: supp a129.Melzer K., effects of physical activity on food intake. Clin Nutr, 24: 885-895. 2005
Slentz CA. Effects of the amount of exercise on body weight, body composition, and measures of central obesity. Arch Intern Med. 164: 31-39. 2004
Titchenal A., Exercise and Food Intake: what is the relationship? Sports Med, 6: 135-145. 1988
Yoshioka M, Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness. Int J Obes. 25, 332-339. 2001

So, Chip-sy; In terms of “calories don’t matter”, and this magical “metabolic advantage, please provide me with substantial evidence in tightly controlled studies that show an isocaloric, low carb diet is superior (where hydration flux and glycogen loss are controlled for). Here are some metabolic ward studies that show NO SUPERIORITY of low carb diets. If you can find studies that match the level of control of these diets, than I’m all ears (hint: It doesn’t get much better than metabolic ward studies when it comes to control).

Golay A, et al. Similar weight loss with low- or highcarbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Feb, 1996; 63 (2): 174-178.
Stimson RH, et al. Dietary Macronutrient Content Alters
Cortisol Metabolism Independently of Body Weight Changes in Obese Men. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism,
Grey N, Kipnis DM. Effect of diet composition on the
hyperinsulinemia of obesity. New England Journal of Medicine, Oct 7, 1971; 285 (15): 827-831.

These are some of the more recent ones, but there have been several over the years, as far back as the mid-30’s that (with very scant exception) show no metabolic advantage of low carb diets. Here are some more from the past 30 years;

Bogardus et al 1981
Hoffer et al 1984
Baggio et al 1988
Brinton et al 1990
Leibel et al 1992
Vazquez, (1992,’94,’95)
Piatti et al 1994

Now, Chip – in case you are going to throw some free living studies and use them as evidence, might I remind you of something that Taubes again cleverly glosses over…. Fat people lie – at least when it comes to how much food they eat. I did post some studies on this with links (again, they are being held) but I’ll post them here without links and you can look them up if you so desire. Essentially, obese people underestimate how much food they eat – by as much as 47% in some cases.

Johnson, Goran. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1994
RR Briefel, CT Sempos, MA McDowell, S Chien and K Alaimo. AJCN, 1997
Price, Paul, Cole, Wadsworth. British Journal of Nutrition. 1997
L Johansson, K Solvoll, GE Bjorneboe and CA Drevon. AJCN, 1997

Again, Chip – if you can produce studies that counter these (of superior design quality) please post away.
Let it be known again that I am not against low carb.

I think a lower carb diet can be very effective for helping people eat less by staving off hunger. But based on the weight of evidence, it seems that setting protein levels optimally and getting enough essential fatty acids is of prime importance. Individual physiology and genetic propensity certainly factor in here, but when these factors are in place, macro composition doesn’t much matter – so long as you can keep in a deficit. If you have any studies that counter this theory, again – post away.