What's Really Making Us Fat?

[philnotfil]

theatlantic.com

Conventional wisdom says that weight gain or loss is based on the energy balance model of "calories in, calories out," which is often reduced to the simple refrain, "eat less, and exercise more." But new research reveals a far more complex equation that appears to rest on several other important factors affecting weight gain. Researchers in a relatively new field are looking at the role of industrial chemicals and non-caloric aspects of foods -- called obesogens -- in weight gain. Scientists conducting this research believe that these substances that are now prevalent in our food supply may be altering the way our bodies store fat and regulate our metabolism. But not everyone agrees. Many scientists, nutritionists, and doctors are still firm believers in the energy balance model. A debate has ensued, leaving a rather unclear picture as to what's really at work behind our nation's spike in obesity.

Bruce Blumberg, professor of developmental and cell biology and pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine, who coined the term "obesogen," studies the effect that organotins -- a class of persistent organic pollutants that are widely used in the manufacture of polyvinylchloride plastics, as fungicides and pesticides on crops, as slimicides in industrial water systems, as wood preservatives, and as marine antifouling agents -- have on the body's metabolism. Organotins, which he considers to be obesogens, "change how your body responds to calories," he says. "So the ones we study, tributyltin and triphenyltin, actually cause exposed animals to have more and bigger fat cells. The animals that we treat with these chemicals don't eat a different diet than the ones who don't get fat. They eat the same diet -- we're not challenging them with a high-fat or a high-carbohydrate diet. They're eating normal food, and they're getting fatter."

A widely reported study that came out in January in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) would seem to dispute this finding: it confirms the belief in the energy balance model, and has been cited as proof by many researchers working in the field. I asked an author of the study, Dr. George Bray, professor of medicine at Louisiana State University, about the myriad of additives and industrial ingredients in our food that were not accounted for in this study. "It doesn't make any difference," he said in a telephone interview. "Calories count. If you can show me that it doesn't work, I'd love to see it. Or anybody else who says it doesn't -- there ain't no data the other way around."

The energy balance model also diverts responsibility back to the consumer because conventional wisdom says that the spike in obesity and diet-related disease is the result of people consuming more foods than ever before. But a review of the literature in The Obesity Epidemic: Science, Morality, and Ideology by Michael Gard and Jan Wright asserts that there is no evidence that food intake levels have increased in industrialized countries, or that activity levels have declined. According to Gard and Wright, some studies even suggest a reduction in energy intake over the past several decades.

Julie Guthman, a professor of community studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, points out in her new book, Weighing In, that the amount of calories consumed across racial lines and income levels varies little, according to a study by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This is despite the fact that obesity and overweight do vary across racial lines and income levels: Poorer people tend to be more obese, and African Americans and Latinos have higher rates of obesity than do whites. This means there must be some other mechanism, Guthman says, besides excess calories, in the varying levels of obesity. In her book, she refers to the possible role of environmental factors like exposure to obesogens and other toxins, stress, and non-nutritional aspects of food.

[Dreamliner]

This is old news and was roundly rebutted almost literally the next day. For example:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_850032.html

Basically, we have here just another lame attempt to demonize a food group. Cold reality: we know that activity levels are basically unchanged since 1980. During that time, calorie consumption has soared.

Too many calories are what is making us fat.

[96Gatorcise]

Dream turn on www.undergroundwellness.com now listen to Dr. Kuse

[Dreamliner]

Thanks, but only able to catch a few minutes of it. Did some hasty research on Kruse and Cold Thermogenesis does sound intriguing.

[lacuna]

I've been reading Jack Kruse and others for about 6 weeks now. Eating a paleo/primal diet, doing resistance by lifting stone blocks building a patio by myself. Have lost + or - 20 pounds. Will continue as I am feeling and looking much better.

The cold therapy sounds logical but can't pucker up enough to do it. When driving in the car yesterday, I did set the A.C. thermostat to 60, though. Might try ice vest but can't see myself in an ice bath or cold shower.

Kruse's latest blog entry on Cold Thermogenesis: http://jackkruse.com/jacks-blog/

[Nicho]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Basically, we have here just another lame attempt to demonize a food group.

What makes you so sure that certain food groups shouldn't be demonized?

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Too many calories are what is making us fat.

Wrong. Those who follow the Paleo diet -- myself included -- consume as many calories as anyone else. And you'll find that we are much leaner, stronger and of more robust metabolism than average Americans.

I literally eat snacks all day. Fruit, nuts, eggs. Meats and veggies for meals. I'm 6'2, 180 lbs and very fit at 34 years old. And that's with 2 brief HIIT exercise sessions per week. As a sophomore at UF, I was 210 lbs. with a 38-inch waistline. The difference is that back then I wasn't eating Paleo.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Nicho

What makes you so sure that certain food groups shouldn't be demonized?



Wrong. Those who follow the Paleo diet -- myself included -- consume as many calories as anyone else. And you'll find that we are much leaner, stronger and of more robust metabolism than average Americans.

I literally eat snacks all day. Fruit, nuts, eggs. Meats and veggies for meals. I'm 6'2, 180 lbs and very fit at 34 years old. And that's with 2 brief HIIT exercise sessions per week. As a sophomore at UF, I was 210 lbs. with a 38-inch waistline. The difference is that back then I wasn't eating Paleo.

(1) I can see the force is strong with you. There is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad' foods.

(2) Wrong on at least two accounts. One, all ward studies show that weight-loss is due to calorie deficit regardless food choices. Two, paleos I know are not leaner than people who control their weight by other means. However, I can attest that paleos tend to be very dogmatic.

In brief: no, you cannot eat as much as you want and control your weight. Coupled with your exercise program, your food choices enable you CONTROL CALORIES and eat pretty much ad libitum.

[Nicho]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

(1) I can see the force is strong with you. There is no such thing as 'good' and 'bad' foods.

(2) Wrong on at least two accounts. One, all ward studies show that weight-loss is due to calorie deficit regardless food choices. Two, paleos I know are not leaner than people who control their weight by other means. However, I can attest that paleos tend to be very dogmatic.

In brief: no, you cannot eat as much as you want and control your weight. Coupled with your exercise program, your food choices enable you CONTROL CALORIES and eat pretty much ad libitum.

Let's not split hairs regarding the semantics behind "good" and "bad" foods. Those aren't normative terms. To say that a food is "good" simply means that we have been consuming it for a long enough time to adapt to it as a species. That's the gist of Paleo, and it's both theoretically and empirically sound. Not sure why you wouldn't acknowledge this, other than the threat it poses to your own dogmatic views.

[LeafUF]

Nicho you say you consume as many calories as anyone else and paleo alone makes you leaner. That is simply not true studies have shown that those who limit carb intake eat between 1400 and 2100 calories. Therefore your diet is a calorie restricted one whether you plan for it to be or not. Add activity level and you are most certainly not anything like the average person who is less active and overeating.

[Nicho]

I am not as hardcore about my carb intake as some Paleo folks. For me, it's more about not eating grains and legumes than it is about limiting carbs. So I'll have 3-4 bananas a day at times. Throw in all the almonds I consume and that's probably 1000 calories a day just in snacks. I'm probably in the range of 2400-2800 calories per day. Someday I'll sit down and do the math on it.

[LeafUF]

Originally Posted by Nicho

I am not as hardcore about my carb intake as some Paleo folks. For me, it's more about not eating grains and legumes than it is about limiting carbs. So I'll have 3-4 bananas a day at times. Throw in all the almonds I consume and that's probably 1000 calories a day just in snacks. I'm probably in the range of 2400-2800 calories per day. Someday I'll sit down and do the math on it.

Yea probably worth it just to see where you are at. If you are actually around that range you still aren't overeating. I tend to think any plan that makes it hard to overeat and you enjoy it is worthwhile I just don't buy into the rest of it because for everyone saying paleo is the way there is a vegan telling me meat causes all of modern societies problems.

[Nicho]

Originally Posted by LeafUF

Yea probably worth it just to see where you are at. If you are actually around that range you still aren't overeating. I tend to think any plan that makes it hard to overeat and you enjoy it is worthwhile I just don't buy into the rest of it because for everyone saying paleo is the way there is a vegan telling me meat causes all of modern societies problems.

I agree that I'm not overeating. However, there are tons of people around me that eat no more than I do but don't have anything close to a lean build.

Paleo is the ultimate diet for humans. Any potential issue with sustainability is not inherent to the diet but instead relates to overpopulation of our pale blue dot. Even then, there are a few agricultural pioneers (e.g., Joel Salatin) who seem to think it can be done. I tend to agree with the premise of this article, which says that that a single, scalable solution doesn't exist. Efforts to make the world more Paleo would have to happen one region/locality at a time.

[LeafUF]

Originally Posted by Nicho

I agree that I'm not overeating. However, there are tons of people around me that eat no more than I do but don't have anything close to a lean build.

How do you know that? You track their calories, you are with them 24/7? There is simply no way for you to state that definitively, its just an assumption that helps you feel superior in your choices. Not to mention the right amount of intake is different for each person based on a number of factors that are not being considered here.

Originally Posted by Nicho

Paleo is the ultimate diet for humans.

And here is where you lose me. Hard to argue with a true believer and so I am out.

[Nicho]

Originally Posted by LeafUF

And here is where you lose me. Hard to argue with a true believer and so I am out.

That's your prerogative. I am just a results-oriented person, and having tried quite a few diets over the past 15 years, I can say without a doubt that Paleo has been the most effective. For the friends of mine who were willing to give it a try, they will say the exact same thing.

If you can introduce me to a way of eating that is more effective in achieving a lean body, more restful sleep, improved mental clarity, and on and on, I'll drop Paleo in a heartbeat. I just haven't found it yet.

That was the implication behind my "ultimate" comment. If you want to interpret it as some kind of pseudo-religious attempt at indoctrination, then that's your loss.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Nicho

Let's not split hairs regarding the semantics behind "good" and "bad" foods. Those aren't normative terms. To say that a food is "good" simply means that we have been consuming it for a long enough time to adapt to it as a species. That's the gist of Paleo, and it's both theoretically and empirically sound. Not sure why you wouldn't acknowledge this, other than the threat it poses to your own dogmatic views.

You're confused. You're the dogmatist, not I. I'm not the guy around here who's telling people what they have to do (aside from obeying the Law of Thermodynamics). I'm just the guy who's telling people what they DON'T have to do in order to transform their bodies. And they don't have to eat like their primal ancestors (whose lives were nasty, brutish and short) to do that.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Nicho

I agree that I'm not overeating. However, there are tons of people around me that eat no more than I do but don't have anything close to a lean build.

Paleo is the ultimate diet for humans. Any potential issue with sustainability is not inherent to the diet but instead relates to overpopulation of our pale blue dot. Even then, there are a few agricultural pioneers (e.g., Joel Salatin) who seem to think it can be done. I tend to agree with the premise of this article, which says that that a single, scalable solution doesn't exist. Efforts to make the world more Paleo would have to happen one region/locality at a time.

Newsflash: the primals ate grains and potatoes!

And I eat lots of sugar and am leaner than you are. Sisson is a sham. He trumpets the primal diet and then designs supplements for P90X.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by LeafUF

How do you know that? You track their calories, you are with them 24/7? There is simply no way for you to state that definitively, its just an assumption that helps you feel superior in your choices. Not to mention the right amount of intake is different for each person based on a number of factors that are not being considered here.



And here is where you lose me. Hard to argue with a true believer and so I am out.

It's akin to mass-hypnosis.

[Nicho]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

You're confused. You're the dogmatist, not I. I'm not the guy around here who's telling people what they have to do (aside from obeying the Law of Thermodynamics). I'm just the guy who's telling people what they DON'T have to do in order to transform their bodies. And they don't have to eat like their primal ancestors (whose lives were nasty, brutish and short) to do that.

Ah, the old "nasty, brutish and short" retread. Are you really going to make me point out the obvious here? That said short lifespans were attributable to the trauma and/or infection that so frequently occurred in prehistoric times, not chronic disease. And I suspect with that you'll try to counter with another fallacy: "now we are just living long enough for chronic diseases to manifest." If that's the case, why is adult-onset diabetes now known as Type II? Why are there doctors now who specialize exclusively in juvenile arthritis? Why is the incidence of strokes among teenagers increasing? Here's a hint: it's got nothing to do with diagnosis.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Nicho

Ah, the old "nasty, brutish and short" retread. Are you really going to make me point out the obvious here? That said short lifespans were attributable to the trauma and/or infection that so frequently occurred in prehistoric times, not chronic disease. And I suspect with that you'll try to counter with another fallacy: "now we are just living long enough for chronic diseases to manifest." If that's the case, why is adult-onset diabetes now known as Type II? Why are there doctors now who specialize exclusively in juvenile arthritis? Why is the incidence of strokes among teenagers increasing? Here's a hint: it's got nothing to do with diagnosis.

Good for them that they didn't live long enough to contract the sort of degenerative diseases that plague people in our time, diseases connected with eating ... too much sugar.

R-i-g-h-t.

[Nicho]

You can do better than that response, Dream. I mean that respectfully.

Also, let's not equate Sisson with the Paleo movement. He happens to be one guy supporting the diet, but any inconsistencies in his particular endeavors do not render the entire movement a sham. I don't pay for his website, anyway. Just pop in every now and then. Art De Vany seems to walk the walk. And while he probably has excellent genetics, there's just no way you can avoid attributing some of his vitality at his age to eating Paleo.