It's Not About The Calories
Gretchen pointed me to this Gary Taubes piece on Slate on how to reduce childhood obesity. An excerpt:
Take Michelle Obama's Let's Move! campaign, one of the most high-profile examples of this mistaken approach to the problem. The principles of Let's Move! sound good. Who would be against getting kids to be more physically active and eat more fruits and vegetables? But anyone who thinks that will reverse the obesity epidemic is sorely mistaken.Beneath all the program's talk of making healthier food choices and increasing physical activity, its fundamental tenet is that we get fat because of the "overconsumption of calories." This is how the White House's Task Force on Childhood Obesity phrased the problem in its May 2010 report (PDF). And so the way to induce our children to lose weight is to get them to consume fewer calories, which they'll do supposedly by eating less-energy-dense foods, and, of course, expending more energy through exercise--hence the name, "Let's Move!"
This approach is certainly convenient. As Michelle Obama has said, it doesn't require the "demonization of any industry." All foods are OK in moderation, and the more our kids exercise, the more they can consume without getting fat. Follow this simple prescription and all will be well.
Except it won't be. For the last 60 years, physicians and public-health authorities have been giving that exact same advice to obese people--children and adults--with little or no success. When researchers have tested diets that restrict how many calories are consumed--counseling their subjects to eat, say, 500 or 1,000 fewer calories a day than they normally would--the results have been depressingly predictable. The subjects experience modest weight loss (maybe nine or 10 pounds in the first six months), and then they gain the weight right back. Weight loss doesn't last.
...So here is the answer: Fat accumulation in the human body is regulated fundamentally by the hormone insulin. If insulin levels increase, so does fat accumulation. If insulin levels decrease, fat is released from the fat cells and used for fuel. There's nothing controversial about this fact. You can find it in most biochemistry and endocrinology textbooks, like this one that the Library of Medicine makes available online. It's just considered irrelevant to the problem of obesity.
And here's the catch: Insulin levels, for all intents and purposes, are controlled by the carbohydrates in the diet. The more refined and easily digestible those carbohydrates (the higher the glycemic index, as nutritionists would say), the more insulin will be secreted. And the sugars we consume--i.e., sucrose, the stuff we put in our coffee, as well as high-fructose corn syrup--will cause long-term increases in insulin production.
I have to say, it was most dismaying when, a few years back, I went to a talk Gary Taubes gave at USC to an auditorium of childhood obesity researchers from around the country. They sat and watched and listened as he laid out extensive evidence for why we get fat -- that it's carbohydrates that cause weight gain.
And then, when I talked to a few researchers afterward, it was clear they hadn't changed their thinking about obesity one iota...clinging to the ideas that Taubes had just shown were not based in evidence...which means a lot of kids would be stuck with a lot of their fat.
I have given up! Not on the diet!
Just telling people about how low carb works and getting the NO NO NO you are wrong and that can not work and then repeating some variation of above. Putting less calories in or burning more calories out thru exercise. All the while ignoring the I have lost visible amount of weight and that I have not keeled over with a heart attack or am leaving bacon fat from my ears.
Let the fools suffer in ignorance!
No! NOPE! The fight must continue. Let me go get my 2x4 I have got some heads to start cracking. Let she my sisters number is....
Thank You Amy for getting onto this topic once in a while over the few years I have been around. Your advice finally took ground and grew. It's working! Now if I just figure out my broken heart.
John Paulson at March 17, 2011 10:10 AM
I remember reading an article in the New Yorker about appetite stimulation; and, in a nutshell, sweet things encourage people to eat more (among, other things, studies on lab rats confirmed it). So there was an argument why things like diet soda and other artificially sweetened foods don't work. I believe it mentioned studies re: the Atkins diet and an examination of dedicated followers; in essence, they did consume fewer calories - because the fats and proteins they were consuming were more filling. It sort of makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint - when our ancestors came across a tree with ripe fruit, there's a small window of opportunity to take advantage of it. Either eat all you can or risk other animals taking it and/or the fruit going bad.
Just thought I'd add a little bit more to the conversation.
factsarefacts at March 17, 2011 10:38 AM
"... fundamental tenet is that we get [are] fat because of the 'overconsumption of calories.'"
Over the years I have often been exposed to the idea (annoying when from doctors) that I am fat because I overeat. Maybe, to some extent, but why is it that this "excess intake" - especially coupled with my "couch potato" lifestyle - does not result in continuing weight gain? My weight has been stable at 235 for over twenty-five years. Oh, and I do not know why - certainly not anything I did intentionally - but that is after dropping from a previous stable 280 pounds of fourteen years standing.
John A at March 17, 2011 10:53 AM
And the sugars we consume--i.e., sucrose, the stuff we put in our coffee, as well as high-fructose corn syrup--will cause long-term increases in insulin production.
I like Taubes a lot, but this last point - ie. the assertion of the causal relationship between eating refined carbs and the fact that today we suffer from long-term "insulin resistance" to - has not been proven.
Indeed, in GCBC Taubes calls this the "carbohydrate hypothesis" as it has not been demonstrated in studies.
Stephan Guyenet points to studies that show that cultures can subsist primarily on starchy vegetables like yams or potatoes without getting fat. Guyenet suspects other factors or confluences of factors, including: wheat consumption, stress, lack of sleep, poor food quality, hyperpalatability of today's food.
Engineer at March 17, 2011 12:40 PM
I 1/2 caught a commercial this morning while getting ready to leave for work by the corn lobby (I assume). It essentially claimed that your body can't tell the difference between sugar from corn or from other sources... which having watched the video that you've linked here several times, I know is flat out false. The doctor showed how fructose is metabolized just like alcohol, just without the impairment, while glucose didn't have nearly the negative effects while being metabolized. I should see if I can pull it off my tivo.
Miguelitosd at March 17, 2011 3:00 PM
Obesity is most certainly about an imbalance of nutrition. If you track the weight gain in the US, it goes right back to the "food pyramid" with it's overabundance of carbs... PLUS... the plethora of processed and fast foods, sodas, and the introduction of GMO foods.
If you study the research of Dr. Donald K. Layman, you find that balanced carb, high protein, will produce a "fat burning" metabolism... because when you eat correctly... your metabolism burns, rather than stores, fat.
Layman discovered this (30 years of research - 90+ peer reviewed papers)... in a nutshell...
You need healthy muscle for a "fast," fat burning metabolism.
Leucine is the amino acid that triggers the protein synthesis process that turns protein into muscle. However you have to consume the RIGHT amount of protein in order for the leucine to trigger this process. Leucine is found in meats, but soy is the only vegetable I know of that contains leucine.
The right amount of protein is... 1.5 grams per pound of body weight.. 3-4 times a day (with leucine!)
It takes 3-4 hours to process the protein.
You need carbs... but you should never exceed the amount of protein in starchy carbs. So... 25 grams of protein.. no more than 25 grams of potato or bread. You can go over 25 grams with a green vegetable , or "smart" carb. Essentially though... your meal should be 1/3, 1/3, 1/3.
NOTE: the optimum amount of protein is 1.5 grams. If you eat a lot more... it won't hurt you... but your body doesn't use it to create new muscle and tissue... it simply burns it as fuel. SO... if you skip protein at one meal... you CANNOT make it up later. Skipping protein is BAD... as your body then pulls it from your muscles and bones. Since your heart is a muscle, and since the number one cause of death after age 60 is falls... and the related consequences of them. Then you don't want to skimp on getting the right amount of protein.
Most people eat WAY too many carbs. But if you simply adjust your consumption to this balanced approach, you will find that fat goes away.
The bonus is... you can eat plenty of food... in fact, I found I actually was eating more food... but losing weight. Another bonus is that... as it was said... when you eat enough protein to don't GET cravings between meals. If you do get slightly hungry... have a protein, or protein AND carb snack - balance.
You don't need to "diet" ...you don't need to buy fancy products (though I use shakes for breakfast for convenience). AND... when someone talks about "quick weight loss" - it's a red flag that it's NOT a healthy way to lose weight.
LINKS TO STUFF SUE IS SELLING RELATED TO DR. LAYMAN HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
Sue at March 17, 2011 3:08 PM
Hmmm.
Michael Fumento of your much-hallowed magazine, Reason, seems to regard Taubes as a fraud.
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/01/big-fat-fake
Of course, I regard Reason as a bunch of catamites for plutocrats, but Fumento does offer a perspective.
AMY'S RESPONSE: I was told by somebody at reason that Fumento's piece was an embarrassment to them. He seems to have an ax to grind against Taubes. Fumento's piece is well-debunked by Taubes' subsequent response.
BOTU at March 17, 2011 3:11 PM
There seems to be controversy about whether too much meat is bad for you. As I said above though... Layman's research shows that much more than 1.5 grams per pound of your body weight is unnecessary.
I researched that issue and found no real consensus... no hard research saying too much protein is bad for the liver (though lots of mythology) ... several nutritionists saying high protein was NOT damaging ... HOWEVER, at the same time... lots of research showing that PROCESSED meats raise your cancer risk significantly.
Lots of times you see studies and you have to look at methodology. For instance... the idea that too much protein is bad for the liver and kidneys might have been from population studies looking at people who ate lots of protein that included lots of processed meats. But not all protein and meats are equal.
In fact... processed meats - twice a week - raise your cancer risk by 63% (according to the World Cancer Research institute and 7000 studies). I wish people knew and would think about that next time they're taking the kids to MacDonalds instead of stopping at the grocery store for real food.
Myself... I eat a variety of proteins... no processed meats... lots of eggs and organic tofu (love tofu in about anything). If I am not getting enough protein for my weight (about 25-30 grams) I will have a small protein shake with my meal.
I look for protein shakes with whey protein... as that is what Dr. Layman recommends. This article here talks about recent research on whey protein and it's beneficial effects on fatty livers and cholesterol ...
http://www.naturalnews.com/031654_whey_protein_fatty_liver_disease.html
The science points to balance of nutrients... in the proper proportions. Sadly... the US diet is weighed too heavily toward processed grains. If you look at every foreign country that is "adopting" the American style of eating... they are gaining weight as nations as well.
Sad that our country is supposedly so sophisticated and advanced... yet we can't seem to keep our population EDUCATED and informed about how to stay healthy and eat right.
And for some.. it's not about education. If you are poor and live in the inner cities... you don't have CHOICES about what to eat for the most part. The cheapest food is the most unhealthy food.
If you send your kids to public school and let them eat the food there ... you don't have much of a choice either... as most public schools feed nothing BUT processed meats and foods.
Sue at March 17, 2011 4:36 PM
I do believe that "most* people, especially kids, can eat carbohydrates--and any other food they choose--in moderation without getting fat. Growing up in an upper-middle suburban area, probably less than 5% of the kids at my school would be considered overweight or obese. No one was on a low-carb diet, but pretty much everyone had parents who were cooking them balanced meals, easy access to fresh produce and meats, big backyards to safely run around in, and a variety of sports teams and athletic activities to join.
I'm pretty sure that the contrast between that environment and the lifestyle of many kids who are eating cheap, refined starches and fast food for 90% of their meals and sitting on their couch playing video games all day is what's causing the obesity epidemic. You can attribute that to socioeconomic inequalities, bad parenting, helicopter parenting, single motherhood, the internet, and so and so on--but I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than just blaming the food pyramid.
Shannon at March 17, 2011 4:55 PM
http://www.hulu.com/watch/223360/saturday-night-live-corn-syrup-commercial
Anyone see this last week?
Also as far as corn syrup goes, does anyone else find it funny that a populion obbsesed with healthy eating, antibacterial soap, and over medicating the slightest illness in to antibiotic/anti viral firestorm eats food laced with an artifical sugar that would not exist if not for a multistep process requiring many fungi and bacterial interactions with their fake sugar?
lujlp at March 17, 2011 9:38 PM
@ Engineer: "Stephan Guyenet points to studies that show that cultures can subsist primarily on starchy vegetables like yams or potatoes without getting fat. "
Pre-industrial agricultural cultures involved a great deal of heavy physical labour. This in itself would inhibit development of obesity.
Robbo at March 18, 2011 3:13 AM
The amount of protein is 1.5 grams per kilogram NOT POUNDS less that half the amount in pound. pound divided by 2.2 are the Kilograms.
John Theobald at October 1, 2012 8:46 PM
Leave a comment