Did we become overweight on purpose?

   In the September 2012 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, Mary T Bassett, MD MPH, discusses the role of government in "leveling the playing field" so that consumers have a real choice when choosing a food item.  A level playing field could increase consumption of higher quality foods.
   This statement, her article and my own studies lead to the same conclusion.  Most of us make food choices based on taste, cost, marketing shaped preferences, availability and convenience.  Healthiness comes in last - after these attributes have been considered - by us or for us.
   Dr. Bassett made mention of the food industry's support for initiatives that encourage physical activity as a strategy to reduce obesity.  This is clear by the placement of actual exercise icons on some food packages.  
   Here is a sad truth.  Exercise is not a popular way to spend leisure time.  Two hundred years ago that didn't really matter, we moved for sustenance and survival.  In the more recent past, our physical activity levels during work and non work hours has decreased.  We have become sedentary and for that reason alone need to exercise.      
   Both of these energy expenditure issues play a role in our obesity (over fatness) epidemic, but a much smaller one than you'd expect.  Trends of weight status in the US and similar countries show a steady and sharp rise beginning in 1970 and continuing to this date.  It has occurred in every age group - infants included.
   Certainly, the entire country did not have a sudden cellular shift  that made us ALL genetically predisposed to gain weight.  And with regard to burning less calories from work and travel, the best estimates from scientific studies suggest at most a decrease in 100 calories expended.
   Could it be then, that the entire country made a conscious and deliberate decision to gain weight?  Even before we learned of the connection between fat and disease, we knew that being too large for our bones was uncomfortable and stigmatizing.  Few of us would invite those things. So I say NO, we did not seek out calorically dense, nutrient poor, portion inappropriate foods. They came to us.
   Sure, our changing culture had us looking for convenience and increased the number of meals we purchase away from home.  We did not however, know that our 200 calorie meal had doubled into a 400 calorie one- before adding the super sized sized milk, juice or soda.
    Today, we find ourselves in need of a few less calories (compared to 1970) but consuming a WHOLE lot more - often passively.  Calorically dense foods are what the food industry offers  - at a price we can't refuse.
   Our environment changed around us, we got fat, our heart disease, diabetes, cancer and stroke risk went up.  Indeed the playing field from which we make our choices became leveled against us.

The article referenced in the opening paragraph : Mary T. Bassett.  Of Personal Choice and Level Playing Fields: Why We Need Government Policies on Food Content. American Journal of Public Health: September 2012, Vol. 102, No. 9, pp. 1624-1624.

Beware the Food Bargains

(First - I did not blog yesterday because after I wrote my last post and viewed it in my email - I saw how very long it was. I heard my Mother's voice "Sometimes they are too long and people get tired of reading."  Hence, I gave you an extra day to absorb it.  I really loved that post myself!)

As you prepare to live a healthier 2012, the purveyors (suppliers) of calorie dense (high fat high sugar), nutrient poor foods are looking for ways to increase their sales.  In other words, they are out to sabotage your efforts and their strategies will be especially directed at persons with limited incomes.

I came across an article on a financial webpage which describes some of the tactics, such as the dollar menu (and more meat(i.e. even bigger portions)) as well as ten dollar pizza's, coupon books, cheaper buckets of chicken and promises not to raise prices.  You can see the story here.

I hope that you will not succumb to their tricks, gimmicks, ploys or strategies because what the special ads do not tell you is how many grams of fat and sugar the items contain, nor what large amounts of calories and sodium(salt) they have.  I believe it was the same news story that offered this link, but here you can see a picture of some of the highest calorie items along with the numbers.

So I offer you another thing to add to your list of 2012 commitments - packing your own meals. 
I hope that in the future, a future I plan to impact, foods that are nutrient dense and lower in calories will be offered as two for one deals and found on dollar menus.  I hope that  coupon books - like the two I received this week (BK and McDs) will include salads and healthier items for cheap prices, too.

Metabolic Fuel

In the article that I referenced last night (regarding the erroneous contention that 3500 cals was the equivalent of one pound of body weight), there was a separate discussion regarding the macronutrient composition of diets. 

What?

When I say macronutrient, you should hear; fat, protein and carbs.  For as long as I have been writing about and studying obesity (ten years now), people have asked and studies have explored, which is better – low fat, low carb or  high protein diets.  My answer has been and the research supports, a calorie is a calorie.  For this truism, Dr. K. Hall and the other authors (from the study referenced in the last post) do not object.

The sub article does give three possible reasons why the composition of the diet might impact the amount of weight lost.  By this I mean, if a person consumes 70% carbs and 15% protein and fat – or any such combination, does it change the amount or the speed in which they will lose weight.

In the short term, which is all that has really been studied, there is no true difference between types.  In the end, if a person consumes less calories than they have been and everything else stays the same, they will lose weight.  This is often true of exercise as well.  IF one adds more activity to their day (consistently) and does not change anything else, they will lose weight (albeit at a slower pace).  What tends to happen with the addition of PA is that people DO eat more.   

Okay – the three points that were made in the article.

Intracellular or physiological changes take place within the body based on the amount of each macronutrient that a person consumes.  I learned today that the fat, protein and carbohydrates that we take in are mirrored in the body by what is called metabolic fuel.  In the body, it is fat, protein and glycogen.  The body maintains a balance of the metabolic fuel.  It has been shown in lab experiments that if you change your balance, say you eat more carbs and your body needs some fat, it  will then use the stored fat to make up the difference.   This is possible, but the effect to date has not been enough to unseat the calorie is a calorie stance.

Energy burn can be impacted by the foods that we eat.  Certain macronutrients have an immediate but short term effect on your metabolism in the few hours after you eat it.  Scientists are using simulation techniques to explore this phenomenon, but again, it has not been found to improve outcomes – or cause more weight loss then simply creating a negative energy balance.  (less in and more out)

The composition of a meal may have an impact on one’s satiety and reduce hunger so that over consumption (over eating) does not occur.  When discussing this area, the article author’s noted how notoriously bad “free living” folks were at reporting what they actually eat and in following the recommendations of any meal plan.  

So for us the bottom line is – a calorie is a calorie.  Now as I have said before, this is regarding weight.  For health – what you eat – i.e. what the DGA 2010 recommends – is of great consequence and importance. 

Don’t eat all your calories in chips, dip and twinkies.

Don't Be a Kirstie

Or an Oprah for that matter. I first remember Ms. Alley from the TV miniseries, North and South. I was struck by her eyes and thought to myself that she was a beautiful woman. She continued to impress me with her acting and her comedic skills for many years, though I watched in dismay as the tabloids presented the other side of Kirstie Alley. I have watched her struggle with her weight and lose. I have no doubt that both she and Ms. Winfrey struggle with inner demons. In fact, I see them as being battered by them - maybe more so for Kirstie. I know those demons by name - which stokes my empathy even more. What is far worse however, is that the media exploits her. I think she is currently "staring" in her second weight loss show. No that is wrong. The first was the commercials for a diet food/program. Now she has a show. I do not want you to be a Kirstie. Diets and celebrity workouts will NOT change a person any longer than they are able to follow them (which is usually only when the cameras are rolling and the person is being paid). Never have these women taken something away from the "plan of the month" that has changed their lifestyles - and thus their health. Whatever battle that Kirstie has - it is deep and destructive and not going to be solved by a "diet." Her health however, will be adversely affected by these gimmicks and her pride, oh my, I cannot bear it for her. Do not be a Kirstie -

Everywhere I go; work, gym, running with friends - I explain Volumetrics - it is a way to eat the most healthy foods, in abundance, but not in caloric density. The video below is made for my YouTube channel, but I have not posted it yet. So enjoy the premiere. BTW, Volumetrics is a concept and there are no foods or things to buy. The idea comes from a college professor and no one pays me a cent to promote it. (if you are an email subscriber, you will have to click on the link at the bottom of your email to access the video on the blog website)

We Were Wrong

I don't expect you have heard this yet and if you have, you are probably peeved and a little discouraged - but that whole 3500 calories makes or breaks a pound, um - not so true (over time anyways).

Now don't throw your hands up and claim that all science is flawed and should therefore be dismissed - look at it this way.

If science does NOT improve over time - if we don't know any more today than we did 50 years ago, then, SOME ONE has been wasting time. Of course, we know more today and thank goodness we do. It is not something to use to dismiss health promotion but to elevate it!

I first heard about the clamour from journalist Carl Bialik and though I have not read the research that supports the idea that we need new math, I have no problem whatsovever believing it.

In a nutshell, whether it is gaining or losing, after a few months - or a year, the body adapts to the change we have made and either stops gaining or stops losing weight. Hey, read that first part again. So it isn't all bad! If you add a teaspoon of peanut butter to your day , every day, who will gain maybe four pounds a year, at first, but then it will level off. Same is true if you cut calories, and EVERYONE knows this - at first you lose weight and then you plateau.

Now we have science to say oh, it is a matter of the body being adaptive - and I want to be clear that this does not support a set point theory as much as it explains one. We do not have set points, that is a cop out. Instead, this means that our efforts to achieve and maintain a healthy weight must be dynamic. We have to do due diligence in this regard and approach our health strategically.

Surprised? Why? Haven't we been told for years from exercise physiologists that our muscles adapt to the loads we apply and that if we do not adjust our weight training regimens we will cease to see progress? Same principle.

I would use this new information - which portends very individualized outcomes - to discount all those commercials that tell you how much weight you'll lose and calories you'll burn using their product or device. It cannot be stated that way with any veracity.

This new science should not be used to argue against calorie content information or soda taxes either, as the math may be askew, the concept is still one of empowerment. The calorie equation may be off, but the calorie is still the deciding factor.

Might I add that Mr. Bialik's article in the WSJ noted that a woman a woman is trying to gain weight for a Guinness Book of World Records contest. Her intent is to eat 12,000 calories a day - 10,000 more than nearly any of us need- in order to gain 400 plus pounds. Her goal weight - 1000 pounds. My thought on this one is simple, "that lady is in serious need of a Psych. consult."