You "Ask", I Answer: Jared's Subway Diet

It's important to note that when Jared went on his Subway diet, his overall consumption of carbohydrates dropped way down, despite the fact that the relative amount may have been 60% of total calories.

Jared's weight loss is consistent with [Gary] Taubes' ["obesity is caused by high carbohydrate intake"] views.

-- Anonymous
(Via the blog)

I do not intend for Small Bites to turn into a "low carb vs. calorie cutting" blog (that would have been "hot" five years ago).

Alas, many low-carb advocates and Gary Taubes worshippers have found this blog and love to leave, what else, anonymous comments.

I initially thought it made for great discussion, but the postings -- and my subsequent answers -- are starting to rehash previous Small Bites content.

The last thing I want to do is repeat myself, especially when archives of all previous posts are available.

So, unless there is a major development or news story relating to low-carbohydrate diets, this will be my last post actively refuting low-carb claims.

Although readers are more than welcome to leave comments and debate amongst themselves, consider this a closing statement of sorts from my end.

Jared's carbohydrate consumption decreased, but, more importantly, so did his calories.

Had he dropped his carbs to roughly 130 grams a day (as he did when he went on the Subway diet) but still consumed 10,000 calories, he would not have lost weight.

Based on the comments I have received, it seems like the Taubes supporters aren't too sure of their own views.

On the one hand, you say Jared would have lose weight while eating 130 grams of carbs since these 130 grams were lower than what he normally consumed.

However, a large number of Taubes fans have harshly criticized research studies showing low-carb dieting isn't effective because the carb amount used in these studies (45 or so grams) is "too high."

According to these people, true low carb diets consist of no more than 30 grams of carbs a day (anything else, they say, is "not low carb" and therefore does not have much of an impact on weight loss).

So, which is it?

Like I have said before, this is a case of flawed logic.

It's equivalent to somebody saying, "It rains because the sky turns gray."

No, it rains when air rises, expands, and cools (as air cools, it is unable to hold much water; this water often condenses and becomes rain).

Gray clouds themselves do not cause rain.

In that analogy, cutting calories is the equivalent to air rising, expanding, and cooling (the real cause of something), while cutting carbohydrates is parallel to gray clouds (a consequence that people erroneously attribute as a cause).

Jared's case is very simple: calories decreased, and, consequently, so did his weight.

You can attempt to make the "his carbs also decreased" argument, but don't you see that an advocate of a low fat or even a low protein diet could say the same thing? After all, almost every single nutrient decreased.

Someone could even attempt to make the argument that Jared lost weight "because he didn't eat fruits" or "only ate at restaurants starting with the letter S".

So, no, Jared's case (a hundred grams of carbohydrates a day for someone with a propensity to be obese resulting in weight loss) is not consistent with Taubes' views.