How to Get Fat Without Really Trying

This video was posted on Ross Enamait's site yesterday: How to Get Fat Without Really Trying

It's 10 minutes long and a good watch. There are quite a few salient points in the video, such as:
- The typical grocery store carries 30-50,000 products, most of which are processed.
- Americans consume 3 times as much corn in the form of sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, etc) as in other forms, including as a side dish.
- It takes 1 hour of biking to burn off the calories in a soda. They showed a 20oz bottle, but didn't elaborate on the quantity of soda.
- A McDonald's meal (appeared to be a cheeseburger and fries) takes about 6 hours of walking to burn off.
- 25% of elementary school kids have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.

All of those tens of thousands of processed products are specially packaged to entice you to make that impulse purchase. Colorful cartoon characters and celebrities call out to us, tempting us to just try a bite of the garbage they're hawking. To counter the excellent marketing of the food companies, stick to the outer perimeter of the store where you can get your meat, eggs, dairy (if you desire), and produce. If you must walk down a center aisle, pick the one with the olive oil and/or nuts or an aisle that has products you are completely disinterested in. It's hard to be tempted if you don't see the products. Another solution is to shop at farmer's markets as much as possible, venturing into the supermarket as little as possible for essentials like spices, olive oil, and nuts. And get one of the small hand baskets as we tend to want to fill whatever apparatus is at hand...smaller apparatus = less room to fill with crud.

Three times as much corn in the form of sweeteners! That is appalling. Art De Vany had a good post on the I'll run it off mentality.

All of those elementary school kids have the makings of Syndrome X. Unless their dietary intakes are changed, most of them will end up obese, diabetic, and disease-ravaged. All of that sugar depletes the immune system and destroys arterial walls.

Peter Jennings was talking to a marketer about the products that the marketer helps shill. They didn't give a name, so John Doe is our marketer so I can quit writing "the marketer". He asked John if he cares if a product is healthy when he designs the advertising. JD's reply was "I care that the product has a positive role in a child's life." What positive role could Twinkies, Pop-Tarts, Oreos, and Cocoa Puffs possibly have in a child's life? Does he think that insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome are a positive thing? When Jennings pushed him to compare his products to asparagus and broccoli, he actually used the words "so-called less healthy products" in reference to the sugary junk. "So-called"! That's marketing speak for "you're absolutely correct that I'm making a living off of pushing crap to kids, but I won't admit it in as many words." One good way to reduce your and your children's exposure to advertising is to....turn off the television.

Of course, I can't get behind the "blame the food industry" tack. It's all about personal responsibility. Granted marketers have mastered the art of using human nature against us to get us to buy things we know are bad for us. But ultimately, companies are only providing that which people are buying. If people would quit buying the junk, the companies would quit making it. It's not Kraft's fault if you're overweight. Kraft, et al, may be enablers, but in the end you and only you put the food in your mouth.

Fructose-sweetened Beverages Increases Risk Of Diabetes In Rats

Here is an interesting, albeit not surprising, article from Science Daily. This article discusses a study on rats that showed an increase in diabetes from fructose-sweetened drinks. Fructose is the sugar found in fruit and is also concentrated in high-fructose corn syrup, which is so prevalent in our packaged foods industry. The scientists noted changes in liver function amongst the rats receiving the fructose drinks.

In this study, rats receiving fructose-containing beverages presented a pathology similar to metabolic syndrome, which in the short term causes lipid accumulation (hypertriglyceridemia) and fatty liver, and at later stages hypertension, resistance to insulin, diabetes and obesity.

A quick note about fruit:

"The fructose in fruit has nothing to do with this study," stresses Professor Laguna. "Fruit is healthy and its consumption is strongly recommended. Our study focuses on liquid fructose intake as an addition to the ordinary diet."

This is just more proof that ditching the soft drinks and other high fructose corn syrup containing products from your diet is a good move. The sugar hit from HFCS is incredible and, as this study shows, too much fructose deranges liver function. I've discussed some of the other effects of soft drinks before, such as high levels of the carcinogen benzene and an increase in pancreatic cancer risk. Don't stop eating fruit, do stop drinking soft drinks. It is the one of the top things you can do for your health.

High Blood Sugar Linked to Cancer Risk

Swedish Study Shows More Cancer in People With Higher Blood Sugar, Regardless of Diabetes

But when researchers looked at specific types of cancer, they found that both men and women with the highest blood sugar levels were more likely to have pancreatic cancer, urinary tract cancer, and malignant melanoma (the most deadly type of skin cancer) than those with the lowest blood sugar levels.
....
Also, the study didn't track all possible cancer influences. For instance, researchers didn't know the participants' diet, exercise habits, or family history of cancer.

Unfortunately, as the last part of this quote shows, the study doesn't actually prove anything, it just throws a bit of a question towards high blood sugar. However, while correlation doesn't prove causation, we have to consider if the link makes sense. A diet that promotes high blood sugar also promotes high insulin levels. Insulin is a very potent growth stimulator, which is why most people that have high blood sugar and high insulin also have high body fat. Insulin's purpose is to shuttle the nutrients you eat into muscle, liver, and fat storage areas. Insulin also has the ability to stimulate even more potent growth factors, known as insulin-like growth factors (IGFs). Studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of IGFs have a higher risk of developing cancer. Along with that, the preferred fuel of cancer is glucose, which the Standard American Diet supplies in abundance.

We can also consider this from the evolutionary standpoint of nutrition. High carb diets were not possible until the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years ago or so. Until that point, all humans lived as hunter-gatherers, eating animals and plant matter. Large quantities of grains were not available, so the staple carbs were roots, fruits, and vegetables. Fast forward to the 20th century when the industrial complex took over our food production and began churning out grocery stores full of cheap, high sugar products. Given that cancer is primarily a 20th century disease, along with so many others that are tied together (obesity, diabetes, etc), the logic fits.

Considering all of the other deleterious effects of a high sugar diet, it seems prudent to keep your blood sugar low by limiting yourself to a whole foods-based diet with carbs coming from fruits, vegetables, tubers, and squashes, rather than grain products like bread and pasta. Here is a short list of the effects of a high-carb diet:
- Higher Cholesterol, for those that worry about such things
- Diabetes and Double Diabetes
- An increased risk of heart attack and stroke
- Higher risk of pancreatic cancer from soft drinks, a staple of the high-carb diet.

And let's not forget that another carb-heavy staple, bread, has been linked to kidney cancer.

Diet vs. Drugs - The Great American Showdown

Pills or papayas? Survey finds Americans want healthful foods, not more medicines

If you thought Americans would rather pop a pill to treat illness than make major diet changes, think again. A new survey shows the vast majority would rather change their diets—including trying a vegetarian diet—than use medicines. According to a nationally representative survey of 1,022 adults conducted in mid-January by Opinion Research Corporation, 69 percent of Americans would prefer to try a dietary approach. Just 21 percent preferred treating diabetes with medicines.

It's a miracle! I would have never suspected the numbers to be so high. Of course, there is still that scary 21% of folks that aren't interested in a dietary intervention, opting instead for yet another pill. I'm not a big fan of vegetarian diets as they tend to include a boatload of grains and soy and to be quite low-protein and low-fat. But a vegetarian or vegan diet is superior to what most people are eating on the Standard American Diet, so any change from that is admirable.

Other findings are that women are more likely than men to take the diet option (73% to 65%...I guess we really are hardheaded) and middle-aged folks were much more likely to take the diet option (76%) than senior citizens (59%) or 18-24 year olds (63%). I can understand senior citizens being averse to the dietary option. They've been doing the same thing for 60+ years and it is ingrained. I would expect such a finding. Amongst 18-24 year olds, 30% (!!!!) would take the drugs option. This is likely some combination of the indoctrination of our youth by Big Pharma to see drugs as a panacea and the invincibility of youth. Other findings that are unsurprising are that the Western states and more highly educated are more likely to opt for diet over drugs. In the Western states, you find more healthy folks than in the Midwest and South and it is widely known that education correlates well with health.

But this was a simple survey. It's very easy for people to say "Yeah, I'd try diet." I wonder how many would change their tune once they realized what a dietary intervention would entail. But I do feel hopeful from this news.

The New Epidemic: Double Diabetes

Double Diabetes

I read an article some time ago about "Double Diabetes" (aka Type 3 Diabetes aka Type 1.5 Diabetes). Then a couple days ago I came across this one. Basically a person with Double Diabetes has both Type 1 (insulin deficient) Diabetes and Type 2 (insulin resistant) Diabetes. Type 1 Diabetes, a category which 5-10% of diabetics fall into, is typically an autoimmune disorder where the body attacks the pancreas' insulin producing cells such that they don't function anymore, hence insulin deficiency. Type 2 Diabetes is a disease of lifestyle. It is characterized by obesity and high blood sugar. It is termed "insulin resistance" because the muscles have closed down their insulin receptors due to overstimulation (i.e., too many carbs creating too much insulin). Once the muscles shut down, the body shuttles everything into fat to protect itself against high blood sugar.

What happens in Double Diabetes is that a person with Type 1 may overuse their insulin to cover a poor diet, such as that pushed by the ADA, resulting in obesity and resistance to the action of their injections. Or a Type 2 diabetic may continue to eat a poor diet (the same diet that caused their diabetes in the first place) and cause their body to secrete ever-increasing amounts of insulin in an effort to force nutrients into the muscles, eventually resulting in pancreatic burnout.

The scary part:

For instance, recent studies suggest that as many as 30 percent of newly diagnosed diabetes cases among children involve youngsters with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

30%!!! Three of every ten kids diagnosed as diabetic are being diagnosed with both diseases. Unless steps are taken to change the direction of obesity in this country, today's kids are going to live shorter lives with a lower quality of life than their parents. The fix is simple: eat a diet based on whole, natural foods that can be killed with a stick or picked from the ground, namely meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch, and no sugar.

Men's Health and Type II Diabetes

Men's Health on The Cure for Diabetes

This article was posted on The Performance Menu Forum run by Robb Wolf and Greg Everett. Even Men's Health is starting to get it, or maybe they're just publishing what sells. Regardless, this five-page article has some very excellent information regarding why a low-carb diet is healthier than a low-fat diet.

A few excerpts that stood out when I read it:

Even with all the accumulating evidence, there's no doubt that the high fat content of low-carbohydrate diets is worrisome for many people. And this may be why more physicians don't advocate the approach, even though many follow it themselves: A University of Pennsylvania study reports that doctors prescribe a low-fat diet to their patients 67 percent of the time, yet when it comes to their own diet, they more often go low-carbohydrate.

When it comes down to it, doctors are following a much healthier diet than what they are prescribing to their patients. One reason is that people are so indoctrinated with thinking that fat is bad for them that it can be futile to push a low-carb diet. And even when people believe that low-carb is healthier, getting them to give up their beloved pasta, bread, and chocolate can be impossible. Giving up unhealthy foods is far more uncomfortable than being overweight and unhealthy.

"We're not saying it's okay for people with diabetes to eat lots of sweets," says Franz. "But they deserve the right to eat all types of carbohydrates, just like any other person."

"The right"? People have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies. People have the right to drink antifreeze if they want to. It doesn't mean they should exercise that right very often. The Diabetic Food Pyramid is a carb-heavy, starchy and sugary mess. It proposes a diet that is at odds with the biochemical workings of the body, especially that of a diabetic.

Wrong, says Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D., a nutrition researcher at the University of Connecticut. "Our research indicates that replacing carbohydrates with saturated fat has a beneficial effect on cardiovascular health," he explains. "A low-carbohydrate diet decreases the body's production of saturated fat and increases its ability to burn the incoming dietary fat." In fact, says Volek, more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies published since 2003 show that a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet is more effective at reducing overall heart-disease risk than a high-carb, low-fat regimen. And, just like the diet that Dr. Vernon prescribes, each of these meal plans ranged from 50 percent to 70 percent of total calories from fat.

WHAT?! They're even talking good about saturated fat? Hell hath frozen over. Saturated fats from grassfed animals and coconut and palm oils are every bit as good for you as olive oil, all of which are many times better for you than polyunsaturated fats with their immunosuppressing characteristics. But it's rare to see a mainstream publication take that side. Next thing you know they'll be talking about how cholesterol isn't the killer it's made out to be.

The tide is turning. One day people will look back and see humor that fat in general and saturated fat in particular were considered health demons while bread and pasta were looked upon as a health panacea. The work of Drs. Atkins, Eades (Michael and Mary), and Sears, along with many, many others will one day be appreciated for setting human nutrition back onto the pathway that our genes have determined for us.

Cod Liver Oil Protects Against Type 1 Diabetes

Cod Liver Oil Protects Against Type I Diabetes

Ok, so the article is a week old, but I've been busy. Anywho, it seems that the more we learn about the vaunted omega-3 fatty acid, the more we realize what an amazing and cheap medicine it is. This study shows that consumption of cod liver oil during the first year of a child's life reduces the chances that s/he will develop Type I diabetes, the insulin-dependant type (as opposed to the type you get from eating too much sugar). Cod liver oil and fish oil are both rich in the long-chain omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA with cod liver oil also being a great source of natural vitamins A and D, two fat soluble vitamins that are difficult to come by in the food supply. In fact, cod liver oil and fish oil are the most important supplements you can take. Our food supply is rife with omega-6 fatty acids, but relatively devoid of the omega-3 variety. Unless you consume a ton of fish and grassfed meats, you are not getting enough omega-3 and this omega-6/omega-3 imbalance influences internal inflammation and general disease.

Cod liver oil has also been shown to fight cancer, heart disease, depression, Alzheimer's, arthritis, and numerous other health issues. The omega-3's also help pregnant women avoid birth complications, low birth weight, and premature birth. Five to ten grams of omega-3 per day will help anyone and you can get it from oil or capsules. Carlson's and Kirkland's both make excellent brands at a good price.

Experts Debate Labeling Kids Obese

I was directed to this article yesterday. Basically, doctors and parents are debating whether or not to call obese kids obese. Current guidelines are that overweight kids are called "at risk of overweight" and obese kids are called "overweight". An "obesity task force" is now proposing calling the first category "overweight" and the second category "obese".

My opinion on this matter is to call a spade a spade. We can sugarcoat the truth all day long, but it isn't going to help anyone. The choice boils down to:
a) protect Little Johnny's self-esteem and make him think he is only "at risk of overweight" (when in reality he is between the 85th and 95th percentile for his age group), but set him up for huge health problems later in life, or
b) hurt Little Johnny's feelings, show him that he is overweight and that, if he continues on this course, he will become obese, with all of it's attendant health problems.

The only thing that is going to make a kid change his/her habits and hopefully improve his/her life is to give it to them straight. Kids aren't as stupid as we would like to believe they are. Kids know if they are fat because their peers make sure to let them know. It isn't hard for Janey to look around in gym and see that she's carrying an extra 50% of girth compared to most classmates.

Frankly, all of this ridiculous political correctness infuriates me. As Dr. Reginald Washington says in the article, if it were cancer, anemia, or an ear infection, this topic wouldn't even be up for debate. Is someone with a mild ear infection told they are "at risk for ear infection"? Is full-blown cancer labeled as "a small tumor"? Until we face the truth that our nation is fat and getting fatter and that this problem is starting in adolescence and before, we will not find a way to address it. The PC-mongers are going to drive us to a happy state where everyone is free to blame their genes for every problem that affects them.

People that I know that have changed their lives and lost significant amounts of weight have mentioned that the thing that got them on their horse was someone telling them "you're fat!" A parent, sibling, or other relative at one point in time told these people what they needed to hear. We need to wake up and realize that we aren't going to run an end-around on obesity. This problem requires a focused, direct effort to ensure today's youth aren't the first generation that has a shorter lifespan than their parents.

Veganism Cures Diabetes?

Originally posted 8-26-2006

A study came out recently touting the benefits of a low-fat vegan diet over the diet promoted by the American Diabetes Association. I love the headline: “Vegan diet best for diabetes” [emphasis added], as if it has been compared to every diet out there. This vegan diet was a plant-based diet, void of animal products, and low in fat and sugar. The ADA diet is a grain-based diet, which allows some animal products (4-6oz per day), some fat (~30% of calories), and some sugar. Food choices on the ADA diet are relatively unrestricted other than sticking to the pyramid. A few other headlines reporting this same study are:
- Vegan diet offers diabetics a carb bonanza (talk about hyperbole)
- Vegan diet reverses diabetes symptoms, study finds
- Vegan diet found to markedly improve health of diabetes patients

The vegan diet study is being promoted by the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine, which some say is a front for PETA. Regardless of whether PCRM is PETA or just has a lot of ties to PETA, if a group with any ties to the beef or pork industry put out a study showing a diet high in beef or pork to be better than any other diet, it would be attacked and scrutinized. However, since it is politically correct to talk about vegetarians and vegans as being the healthiest humans on earth and showing us gluttonous meat-eaters to be on the fast-track to a heart attack, this study raises no eyebrows. Pointing out the ties between PCRM and PETA probably amounts to an ad hominem logical fallacy, but oh well. The point remains that ties to a group with a certain agenda automatically weakens your stance.

So where should we begin? First, the ADA diet is identical to the old Food Guide Pyramid with a focus on carbohydrates, especially processed carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, and other grains. Since diabetes is a disease where the body doesn’t properly process carbohydrates, it seems rather odd to prescribe a diet that is based on carbohydrates, especially one based on high glycemic load carbohydrates such as breads, pastas, and starchy vegetables. The point is that one diet (the vegan diet) is based on low glycemic fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and provides a great load of vitamins and minerals, while the other is based on processed grains, with a small amount of fruits, vegetables, meat, and other vitamin-containing foods.

Participants also said that the vegan diet was easier to follow, which means that compliance was quite likely higher. Considering that the vegan dieters were less likely to eat high-sugar, trans fatty junk foods, it should come as little surprise that these diabetics exhibited better glucose control. However, let’s take a quick look at a result that was glossed over: “43 percent of those on the vegan diet and 26 percent of those on the standard diet were either able to stop taking some of their drugs such as insulin or glucose-control medications, or were able to control their condition with lower doses.” So apparently to be considered a good diet, it doesn’t even need to improve the condition of half of the test population. Let’s consider that again; the vegan diet that is being touted as “best for diabetes” doesn’t even allow 50% of the people following it to lower their medication dosage.

There is no denying that a vegan diet is better than the diet of a great majority of America, in terms of nutrient content and quality of foods consumed. Anytime you eliminate the bulk of processed foods that most people call dinner, you will see a prodigious improvement in health. However, it appears that the study authors and the media are setting up a false dichotomy whereby the two choices are “vegan” or “not vegan” and choosing a poor candidate for “not vegan”. To truly test the effectiveness of the vegan diet, we need to see studies pitting it against a well-designed omnivorous diet based on grass-fed meats, nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits, nuts and seeds, and no sugar. My car is fast if I compare it to a Yugo or even a Honda Civic, but the real test of whether my car is fast is to compare it to a Corvette or some other truly fast car.

Regina Wilshire points out that other markers of glucose control fall short of the National Institutes of Health standards, such as fasting glucose and HbA1c. Both groups had fasting glucose above the diabetic threshold. HbA1c, a marker of glucose control over time that is considered the critical marker of diabetes control, and both groups came in above the 7% standard, denoting “poor glucose control.” Basically, to paraphrase Ms. Wilshire, one diet that produced substandard results is being touted over another diet that produced substandard results. My car sure is fast when compared to a Yugo.

One has to wonder why there was no media blitz when a study of equal length (22 months) showed even greater improvements from a low-carbohydrate diet. Subjects following a 20% carbohydrate diet had HbA1c of 6.6%, 7.0%, and 6.9% at 6, 12, and 22 months, respectively. All three readings are within the standard of glucose control, yet we heard nothing of this study. Even more interesting, seven of the subjects in the low-fat group saw the results that the low-carb group was achieving and switched to the low-carb diet! The ADA says that they won’t promote the low-carb diet because “patients find it restrictive,” yet they readily acknowledge that the diet helps patients control their blood glucose. So the ADA is making decisions that should best be left to the patient, that of what lifestyle one finds most beneficial. While some would certainly prefer to take drugs over changing their lifestyle, there are surely some diabetics motivated enough be the promise of health to follow a low-carb diet, were it offered as an option by their doctors.

We can also examine the drawbacks of a strict vegan diet. Because of shunning all animal products, the vegan diet is markedly void of certain vitamins and minerals only found in meat, such as vitamin B12, conjugated linoleic acid, and long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. B12 deficiency is linked to Alzheimer’s and nervous system disorders. The low-fat and low-protein nature of the diet means that vitamins A, D, E, and K, the fat-soluble vitamins, are poorly absorbed. Further, vitamin D intake is necessary for uptake of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. Vegan literature will tell you that protein needs can be met from vegetable sources, such as soy, but those have their own issues, from poor protein quality to numerous antinutrients. Also, many people turn to flax seeds and oil to increase their omega-3 intake, but the omega-3 fatty acids in flax are short-chain acids which must be converted to long-chain acids, a process which is highly inefficient, converting generally less than 5% of the alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) to the long-chain eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

Basically, yet again, the evidence doesn’t support what is commonly shown to be “the way to health.” The ADA refuses to provide its patients with the materials that they can use to decide what avenues they should pursue to regain their health. The ADA continues to promote a diet based on carbohydrates for people that cannot effectively process carbohydrates, while promoting a low fat and protein intake, the two nutrients that slow the rate of absorption of carbohydrates. And once again, we’re told how great a vegan or vegetarian diet is for us, when studies show a low-carb, meat-eating diet to produce even better results. I’m off to find a Yugo to race.