I hope Brian doesn't mind this post as it is not golf-related, but I know it does relate to many golfers here.
The reason I am here is my interest in golf and my appreciation of the knowledge here and the sense that the knowledge here is factually grounded in careful observation (by some very smart people, like Brian) and is in a real sense science-based and is not part of some faith-based one size fits all method being promoted by a guru looking for blind followers. The difference between learning the importance of a flat left wrist and learning about this week's Golf Digest tips is the difference between having a tool that will allow you to learn and improve versus having incomplete information that is just as likely to be bad as good for your long-term golf results. I played golf on and off for thirty years without ever learning the importance of a flat left wrist, which is amazing given how much I read and studied golf.
Brian mentioned in his recent post his 2008 goal included "losing 50 pounds." If you walk around a driving range or golf course in the U.S., you may wonder which is a bigger problem - flipping or obesity. As of September in 2007, I needed to lose more than weight than Brian's "50."
And I got very lucky. A good friend started talking to me about reading a book by Gary Taubes - Good Calories, Bad Calories - and my friend mentioned that he would be interested in my opinion on the book because the information presented was so contrary to much of what he believed about nutrition and health. This book by Taubes is not a diet book but is instead a science survey book written by a science writer, and it is about the conclusions Taubes reached after interviewing researchers and reading the medical research literature related to obesity.
In short, it is possible that after reading this book that you may conclude that the conventional "scientific" wisdom about the causes of coronary heart disease, diabetes, and obesity is as useful as this month's Golf Digest tips. Actually, it may be worse, believing in this particular brand of shoddy "science" may shorten your life significantly.
Good Calories, Bad Calories is a tough read - not as hard as The Yellow Book, but not easy. It took me three weeks of close, careful reading (in and amongst having a life to live). I think it is important to be informed and form your own conclusions about the matters discussed in the book. It is quite possible that after reading this book you will conclude that the actual level scientific care that went into establishing some of the major premises of current thinking in public health - that fat causes people to be fat and have coronary heart disease, that all calories are equal, that to lose weight all it takes is a slight reduction in calories and increased exercise are all very wrong. You may even conclude that the probable cause of the obesity epidemic in the United States is not some sudden loss of collective willpower over the last thirty years (which seems an absurd idea when you think about it), but is instead a direct result of current dietary "religion" presented, wrongly, as science.
It is very possible that you will conclude from reading the book that reducing calories without reducing, in a very significant fashion, carbohydrates will never never lead to significant weight loss. There are large studies that have been done that show that your chance of losing 40 lbs in a year from a typical semi-starvation calorie reduction diet are roughly the chance of going from a 10 handicap to winning your club championship in that same year.
Taubes does not tell you how to lose your 40-50 lbs. But you can infer from what you read that a Zone or Atkins approach may help you lose weight and avoid obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. Many in the medical establishment (I am married to a doctor, and know many doctors and some medical researchers, so believe me I know) have dismissed those approaches as "unhealthy." You may conclude that the shoddy "science" of nutritional science and the availability of many high carbohydrate foods caused the obesity epidemic, that orange juice may be more harmful to your health than meat, and that bad nutritional information - not a lack of willpower - has been causing your weight gain.
But I think the important thing is that if your former approaches to health issues like weight loss have not worked that you consider whether the information you have is good or not and examine the science underlying your beliefs to see if you can improve. Reading Taubes is like learning about a flat left wrist. Reading the latest diet blurb on CNN online without science-based context is like relying on Golf Digest tips.
I apologize if what I have written sounds strident, but I think it is important. My dad was obese his entire adult life and once he faced significant health problems in his 60's, he decided to try something "extreme" and dramatically reduced his carbohydrate intake, contrary to his doctor's advice. It was in some sense too late in that he is now diabetic, but in another sense it was not too late as he lost 50 lbs. and he is in better health at 75 than he was at 65. I don't think he would be alive today if he had not made those "radical" changes.
I don't view myself as being on a diet, but as having totally changed my diet to eliminate most carbohydrates. So far in three months I have lost three inches off my waist. I feel tremendously better than I have in years. I was hungry dieting before; reducing my carbohydrate intake significantly has eliminated the hunger I felt constantly.
So if you are willing to spend tens or hundreds of hours trying to become a better golfer (and read somethign as difficult as Homer Kelley), at leas consider reading Good Calories, Bad Calories as a starting point to fixing your health issues. You may conclude that the science is not convincing, but at least you will be using some sort of scientific framework as a starting point, rather than magical thinking, to begin trying to fix that "50 lbs. issue." I hate to sound like a heretic, but being alive for an extra decade or two is more important than your handicap. Science trumps magical thinking in understanding most aspects of the world.
Best to everyone in 2008!
The reason I am here is my interest in golf and my appreciation of the knowledge here and the sense that the knowledge here is factually grounded in careful observation (by some very smart people, like Brian) and is in a real sense science-based and is not part of some faith-based one size fits all method being promoted by a guru looking for blind followers. The difference between learning the importance of a flat left wrist and learning about this week's Golf Digest tips is the difference between having a tool that will allow you to learn and improve versus having incomplete information that is just as likely to be bad as good for your long-term golf results. I played golf on and off for thirty years without ever learning the importance of a flat left wrist, which is amazing given how much I read and studied golf.
Brian mentioned in his recent post his 2008 goal included "losing 50 pounds." If you walk around a driving range or golf course in the U.S., you may wonder which is a bigger problem - flipping or obesity. As of September in 2007, I needed to lose more than weight than Brian's "50."
And I got very lucky. A good friend started talking to me about reading a book by Gary Taubes - Good Calories, Bad Calories - and my friend mentioned that he would be interested in my opinion on the book because the information presented was so contrary to much of what he believed about nutrition and health. This book by Taubes is not a diet book but is instead a science survey book written by a science writer, and it is about the conclusions Taubes reached after interviewing researchers and reading the medical research literature related to obesity.
In short, it is possible that after reading this book that you may conclude that the conventional "scientific" wisdom about the causes of coronary heart disease, diabetes, and obesity is as useful as this month's Golf Digest tips. Actually, it may be worse, believing in this particular brand of shoddy "science" may shorten your life significantly.
Good Calories, Bad Calories is a tough read - not as hard as The Yellow Book, but not easy. It took me three weeks of close, careful reading (in and amongst having a life to live). I think it is important to be informed and form your own conclusions about the matters discussed in the book. It is quite possible that after reading this book you will conclude that the actual level scientific care that went into establishing some of the major premises of current thinking in public health - that fat causes people to be fat and have coronary heart disease, that all calories are equal, that to lose weight all it takes is a slight reduction in calories and increased exercise are all very wrong. You may even conclude that the probable cause of the obesity epidemic in the United States is not some sudden loss of collective willpower over the last thirty years (which seems an absurd idea when you think about it), but is instead a direct result of current dietary "religion" presented, wrongly, as science.
It is very possible that you will conclude from reading the book that reducing calories without reducing, in a very significant fashion, carbohydrates will never never lead to significant weight loss. There are large studies that have been done that show that your chance of losing 40 lbs in a year from a typical semi-starvation calorie reduction diet are roughly the chance of going from a 10 handicap to winning your club championship in that same year.
Taubes does not tell you how to lose your 40-50 lbs. But you can infer from what you read that a Zone or Atkins approach may help you lose weight and avoid obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. Many in the medical establishment (I am married to a doctor, and know many doctors and some medical researchers, so believe me I know) have dismissed those approaches as "unhealthy." You may conclude that the shoddy "science" of nutritional science and the availability of many high carbohydrate foods caused the obesity epidemic, that orange juice may be more harmful to your health than meat, and that bad nutritional information - not a lack of willpower - has been causing your weight gain.
But I think the important thing is that if your former approaches to health issues like weight loss have not worked that you consider whether the information you have is good or not and examine the science underlying your beliefs to see if you can improve. Reading Taubes is like learning about a flat left wrist. Reading the latest diet blurb on CNN online without science-based context is like relying on Golf Digest tips.
I apologize if what I have written sounds strident, but I think it is important. My dad was obese his entire adult life and once he faced significant health problems in his 60's, he decided to try something "extreme" and dramatically reduced his carbohydrate intake, contrary to his doctor's advice. It was in some sense too late in that he is now diabetic, but in another sense it was not too late as he lost 50 lbs. and he is in better health at 75 than he was at 65. I don't think he would be alive today if he had not made those "radical" changes.
I don't view myself as being on a diet, but as having totally changed my diet to eliminate most carbohydrates. So far in three months I have lost three inches off my waist. I feel tremendously better than I have in years. I was hungry dieting before; reducing my carbohydrate intake significantly has eliminated the hunger I felt constantly.
So if you are willing to spend tens or hundreds of hours trying to become a better golfer (and read somethign as difficult as Homer Kelley), at leas consider reading Good Calories, Bad Calories as a starting point to fixing your health issues. You may conclude that the science is not convincing, but at least you will be using some sort of scientific framework as a starting point, rather than magical thinking, to begin trying to fix that "50 lbs. issue." I hate to sound like a heretic, but being alive for an extra decade or two is more important than your handicap. Science trumps magical thinking in understanding most aspects of the world.
Best to everyone in 2008!
Last edited:
