Kelloggs Special K Cracker Crisps.

At home, I watch TV on my lap-top with ad and script-blocking plugins. As a result, I don't see any adverts on commercial TV, YouTube etc.

While visiting mum today, the TV was set to a commercial channel. During an ad break, there was an advert for Kelloggs Special K Cracker Crisps, with the following tag-line (emphasis mine):- Introducing New Special K Cracker Crisps, the deliciously moreish savoury snack that you can feel good about.

A serving (21 crisps weighing ~23g) provides only 95kcals. A box contains 100g which provides 413kcals. I wonder how many people will be able to stop after eating 21 of these crisps?

Walkers salt & vinegar crisps contain the following ingredients:- Potatoes, Sunflower Oil (25%), Rapeseed Oil, Salt & Vinegar Seasoning, Salt & Vinegar Seasoning contains: Flavouring, Dried British Vinegar, Salt, Citric Acid, Sugar, Potassium Chloride, Yeast Extract.

Kelloggs Special K Cracker Crisps S & V contain the following ingredients:- Tapioca Starch, Dried Potato, Wheat Flour, Salt & Balsamic Vinegar Seasoning (Lactose {from Milk}, Sugar, Acidity Regulator {Sodium Diacetate}, Salt, Flavourings (contains Barley), Sea Salt, Citric Acid, Balsamic Vinegar Powder, Rapeseed Oil, Dried Tamarind Extract, Yeast Extract, Black Pepper, Stabiliser {E450a}, Antioxidant {E304}), Sunflower Oil, Maize Flour, Oat Fibre, Salt, Emulsifier (E471).

With food engineering like that, I'm sure that they'll sell like hot cakes. Here's my opinion on how the fight against the obesity epidemic is going...

Not exactly rocket science, is it?

If Paul (astrophysicist) Jaminet met Jack (neurosurgeon) Kruse ;-)

The paleo diet was recently ridiculed as a food fad in Natural’s Not In It. It also came last in a US News Best Diets survey.

Ways of eating such as very-low-carbohydrate, low-carbohydrate, low-reward, paleo, primal, ancestral, just eat real food etc discourage the consumption of manufactured food products and encourage the consumption of produce. If a large percentage of the population stop filling their shopping baskets with manufactured food products and start filling them with produce, who suffers? Not exactly...

This is why the food manufacturing industry tries to ensure that the population gets the best nutritional and dietetic advice that money can buy. See also New study: Big Food’s ties to Registered Dietitians.

While libertarians and anarchists moan about freedom from government interference, the food manufacturing industry has the freedom to crap all over the aforementioned diets and influence people to buy manufactured food products. Morbidity is also very profitable for healthcare and drug companies.

I think that I've now flogged this particular horse to death!

It’s the Calories, Stupid.

I thought I'd mark my return to blogging by taking the piss out of a certain Diet Doctor for his post It’s the Insulin, Stupid, who takes (and tweaks) Fig 7A from Hyperinsulinemia Drives Diet-Induced Obesity Independently of Brain Insulin Production.

At first glance, Fig 7A looks like a CIH believer's dream come true (apart from the words "High Fat Diet").

Hyperinsulinemia → Obesity.

Obesity is caused by too much insulin. Game, Set and Match to insulin.

Not so fast! Let's take a look at the rest of Fig 7.

Figure 7. Revisiting the Current Model of Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes(A) The most widely accepted model of the pathogenesis of obesity and type 2 diabetes posits that a high-fat diet leads to obesity and insulin resistance (there is debate about the relative order and causality of these). In this widely held view, insulin resistance then leads to hyperinsulinemia, which is followed by β cell exhaustion, and then type 2 diabetes. The accepted model is incompatible with our results that put the insulin hypersecretion genetically upstream of obesity.(B) Our data support a model whereby insulin levels must be kept low to maintain energy expenditure in white adipose tissue via the expression of Ucp1. Our data do not address the order of subsequent events after obesity (outside the yellow box), such as insulin resistance and/or type 2 diabetes, since they were not observed in our studies. In other words, the effects of insulin gene dosage on obesity are independent of sustained changes in glucose homeostasis or insulin resistance.

↑ Peripheral Hyperinsulinemia → ↓ Uncoupling Proteins (WAT) → ↓ Energy Expenditure → ↑ Obesity.

Obesity is caused by a reduction in energy expenditure. Game, Set and Match to The Energy Balance Equation. It’s the Calories, Stupid. In the mice in this study, energy expenditure is strongly influenced by insulin levels. In humans, not a lot. In humans, insulin can act as a stimulant and as a sedative.

I'm not an insulin denier as is obvious from my other blog posts. I'm still controlling my carbohydrate intake.
I'm not a food reward denier and I've been using food reward principles to lose some more weight.

The above post will probably annoy some people. Before wasting your time writing a comment, please note my Moderation Policy.

A comment, a simile and insanity.

A lot of my recent titles contain three items.

1) The comment: I'm just about to leave the following comment on Peter (Hyperlipid)'s blog post Insulin and the Rewards of overfeeding. I thought that it was so good at summing-up, I'll post it here first!

"All,

Insulin increases the amount of glucose & FFAs entering fat cells, muscle cells & the liver.

Insulin decreases the amount of glycerol & FFAs exiting fat cells & the amount of glucose exiting the liver.

Hyperinsulinaemia (which can produce sedation) results when one or more of the following tissues loses insulin sensitivity:- fat cells, muscle cells & the liver.

So, why do people keep saying that hyperinsulinaemia locks nutrients away in fat cells only, thus robbing other cells of nutrients, thus causing lethargy?

The relative insulin sensitivity of tissues determines the relative partitioning of nutrients into those tissues.

When tissues lose sensitivity to insulin, blood glucose control becomes impaired. This results in a roller-coaster blood glucose level after eating high-glycaemic carbohydrates. A rapidly-falling blood glucose level can cause ravenous hunger. I have experienced this during medically-monitored tests (OGTTs & an insulin shock test).

Low-carb/ketogenic diets don't result in a roller-coaster blood glucose level and therefore don't cause ravenous hunger. Simples!

Over-eating due to ravenous hunger is NOT gluttony, just as under-moving due to sedation is NOT sloth.

THIS is gluttony."

EDIT: This didn't go in my comment but should have:- "Low-carb/ketogenic diets result in the avoidance of moreish & calorific foods such as sweets, chocolate, cake, biscuits, pizza, Pringles etc. A single bite of such foods has a negligible effect on blood glucose & insulin levels, but encourages another bite and another and another ad nauseam due to Food Reward.

2) The simile: I use similes. I used the simile "As happy as a pig in shit" in a comment somewhere on Woos blog. Now, you may (or may not) have noticed that my user-name is Nigeepoo. We Brits are obsessed by two things - The weather and our bowel movements. I find things to do with poo and farting amusing (schoolboy humour, I know!). I used the simile "As happy as a pig in shit" because it is amusing to me.

3) The insanity: According to Woo in the following comment:-

"Re: the comment...Sorry, not convinced.
You are basically refusing to admit your choice of words implied moral judgement. The phrase "happier than a pig in shit" is always applied to examples of people being content in immorality/bad behavior particularly gluttony and sloth... unless it is used ironically. Only an autistic or a non-english speaker would believe this crap."

Woo, you are as mad as a March hare. IMO of course, like everything I write. Duh!

Obesity is multi-factorial, spectra and other stuff.

This post is a hotch-potch of thoughts that are currently whizzing around in my brain.

1) Obesity: Like just about everything in life, obesity is multi-factorial. Each factor may have only a small impact on obesity. Tackling one factor alone won't solve the problem. Every factor has to be tackled, one at a time.

So, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announcing a ban on sales of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, delis, sports arenas, and movie theaters won't solve the obesity problem, but it will help.

EDIT: In shops and supermarkets in the UK, tobacco products now have to be kept out of sight. I'd like to see the same thing happen to Crap-In-A-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB).

2) Spectra: As also mentioned in my first link, there is a spectrum of fatness in the general population which probably follows a bell distribution curve. From skinniest to fattest, there are people who are:-
Extremely skinny. Very skinny. Skinny. A bit skinny. Average. A bit fat. Fat. Very fat. Extremely fat.

If you take somebody in a category who isn't currently consuming CIAB and introduce CIAB to their diet, what happens? They move to a category to the right. Therefore, it's possible for there to be very skinny people who consume CIAB. Therefore, anybody who (or should that be Wooo?) states that the existence of very skinny people who consume CIAB is proof that Food Reward doesn't exist is wrong.

3) Other stuff: I am concerned with people overlooking postprandial (a.k.a. nonfasting) triglycerides (a.k.a. triacylglycerols a.k.a. TAGs a.k.a. TGs) after eating large amounts of fat. According to Fasting Compared With Nonfasting Triglycerides and Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Women, serum TGs 2-4 hours post-meal are very significantly associated with Cardiovascular Events (fully adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] for highest vs lowest tertiles of levels, 4.48 [1.98-10.15] [P < 0.001 for trend]).

After 4 hours post-meal, serum TGs are cleared from circulation by being burned by muscles and/or by being stored in fat cells. See Figure 3B in Extended effects of evening meal carbohydrate-to-fat ratio on fasting and postprandial substrate metabolism.

Testing hypotheses - a rant.

My brain just exploded! On Why conventional view of obesity / FR is wrong, ItsTheWoo wrote "...there is not a doubt in my mind obesity is entirely 100% an illness, a disorder... "

According to ItsTheWoo's hypothesis, the increasing incidence of obesity all around the world since 1970 is 100% caused by the increasing incidence of illness all around the world since 1970. Seriously, WTF?

According to Nigeepoo's hypothesis, the increasing incidence of obesity all around the world since 1970 is significantly caused by the increasing influence of Crap-in-a-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB) manufacturers on the population by cunning marketing and on the Government by bribery lobbying since 1970.

The former results in increasing consumption of CIAB and the latter results in increasing subsidies on the raw materials used for manufacturing CIAB, making CIAB cheaper (also more profitable) than natural foods, thus increasing consumption of CIAB. See Why are Twinkies cheaper than carrots?

There are other factors causing increased obesity e.g. increasing numbers of towns/cities which discourage walking. See also Determinants of the Variability in Human Body-fat Percentage.

Highly-engineered and highly-calorific CIAB encourages subconscious over-eating via Food Reward. The hyper-secretion of insulin (compensatory hyperinsulinaemia) caused by the subconscious over-eating of CIAB causes subconscious under-moving by inducing drowsiness and lethargy, sometimes followed by the munchies if blood glucose goes too low. Insulin is just a hormone that is secreted for the storage of stuff and a reduction in the burning of stuff. Don't blame insulin for doing its job. If you have zero insulin (e.g. untreated type 1 diabetes), your body stops storing stuff and starts burning stuff uncontrollably. Before the invention of insulin injections, people with type 1 diabetes usually died within 2 years.

Subconscious over-eating is good for the profits of CIAB manufacturers. An increasing number of dyslipidaemic/hypertensive/depressed/diabetic/demented/w.h.y. people is good for the profits of health-care providers and drug manufacturers. These organisations currently make huge profits, so it's not going to be easy to change anything that will reduce them.

I deleted the last part of my rant as it was a bit too ranty, but I'm reinstating it in a toned-down form as I've mentioned it in the comments.

ItsTheWoo continually conflates subconscious over-eating and under-moving with conscious over-eating and under-moving (gluttony and sloth). The vast majority of over-fat people become over-fat due to subconsciously over-eating and under-moving. A tiny minority of over-fat people are gluttonous and slothful.

Telling people to consciously Eat Less, Move More doesn't work. This doesn't mean that Eat Less, Move More doesn't work. It means that Eat Less, Move More has to be done subconsciously. This is where low-carb/paleo/real food diets come into their own.

Rant over.

How stuff works, Part 2.

I'm the kind of person that likes to analyse everything to death (and make lists).

1) Here's what I wrote on Synthesis: Low-Carb and Food Reward/Palatability, and Why Calories Count:-
"I’m going to stick my neck out here and state that fat, sedentary people do better on low-carb diets because:-

Fat, sedentary people have severe muscular insulin resistance.
This results in chronic hyperinsulinaemia and acute hyperinsulinaemia on eating carbs (which causes lethargy & increased sedentariness).
Chronic hyperinsulinaemia impairs the Phase I insulin response.
This impairs the stability of the blood glucose control system, resulting in large fluctuations in blood glucose level on eating carbs.
A rapidly-falling blood glucose level causes severe hunger pangs (I’ve experienced this under medical supervision).
Severe hunger pangs cause overeating, resulting in increased fatness.
GOTO 1

Low-carb diets reduce the large fluctuations in blood glucose level. Once normal blood glucose control has been restored by bodyfat loss & exercise, low-carb diet is no longer required."

I added a hot-link that wasn't in the original comment. Thanks to Sam Knox for linking to that study.

Lethargy & increased sedentariness result in very few calories burned (BMR/RMR + TEF). Eliminating (lethargy & increased sedentariness) greatly increases calories burned without conscious effort (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + NEAT/SPA). This is why people on low-carb diets can eat more and still lose weight. The Energy Balance Equation still applies.


2) I've noticed that people conflate Food Tastiness with Food Reward. Here's my opinion:-

Excessive reward = Moreish. What your food tastes like is only vaguely relevant. Avoid eating moreish foods, unless you're a body-builder who's trying to bulk.

Here's what I wrote on Food Reward: “There’s Always Room For Dessert”:-
"I believe that obesity is physiological AND neurological (the proportions varying from person to person).

For example, one chocolate doesn’t disturb my blood glucose & insulin, but I still crave another. And another. Ad nauseam."

Physiological cravings take hours to kick-in.
Neurological cravings take seconds to kick-in.

Emily Deans wrote:-
"Multiple times I’ve used naltrexone (an opiate blocker) to stop binge eating. The cravings go away. It only takes a few weeks. It’s a nice way to undo addiction/reward without starving someone… not FDA approved."

That's pretty damning evidence for the existence of Food Reward. How can naltrexone block something that doesn't exist?

Finally Monsieur, a waffer-thin mint.

Exercise and Food Reward

Given all the current interest in the Food Reward theories of obesity (check out Richard's post with a phenomenal number of comments), I thought I'd just point to this study that popped across my screen this morning:

Aerobic exercise reduces neuronal responses in food reward brain regions

Exercise reduced neuronal responses in brain regions consistent with reduced pleasure of food, reduced incentive motivation to eat, and reduced anticipation and consumption of food. Reduced neuronal response in these food reward brain regions after exercise is in line with the paradigm that acute exercise suppresses subsequent energy intake.

If Food Reward is an issue and I think it obviously is then we also need to think about exercise.

Reduced sleep makes you overeat.....

This fits in with a lot of the studies I'd had before about the way in which lack of sleep can contribute to obesity....through messing up your brain and how it reacts to desires for  food.  Also it fits in with Stephan's work on food reward.

Sleep restriction leads to increased activation of brain regions sensitive to food stimuli.

RESULTS
Overall neuronal activity in response to food stimuli was greater after restricted sleep than after habitual sleep. In addition, a relative increase in brain activity in areas associated with reward, including the putamen, nucleus accumbens, thalamus, insula, and prefrontal cortex in response to food stimuli, was observed.
CONCLUSIONS:
The findings of this study link restricted sleep and susceptibility to food stimuli and are consistent with the notion that reduced sleep may lead to greater propensity to overeat.

Bias.

All lies and jest. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Here's a lovely song by Simon & Garfunkel.



I watched the Paranoia video from my last post a few times and I couldn't help but notice how balanced it was. The Labour party (Roy Jenkins) was praised, the Conservative party (Margaret Thatcher) was praised and capitalists (Rupert Murdoch) were praised. Nixon's politics were never mentioned. He was simply power-mad. The more power/influence/money that someone has, the more they have to lose and therefore the more distrustful & paranoid they become.

Since the Hutton Inquiry, the BBC has bent over backwards to appear balanced and impartial. There's probably still bias in it, but I can't see it. That's because I'm biased!

I see a lot of Confirmation bias. There are various theories out there which try to explain the recent huge rise in rates of obesity and morbid obesity, as these conditions are occurring in ever-younger people. Morbid obesity in childhood is a disaster, as it leads to fat mass hyperplasia, (rather than fat mass hypertrophy), which leads to hypoleptinaemia when significant fat mass is lost and a lifetime of low metabolic rate & excessive hunger.

There's Taubes' (Wrong) Insulin & Carbohydrate Theory Of Obesity, which makes the acronym TWICHOO.

There's Guyenet's Food Reward Theory Of Obesity, which doesn't make an acronym.

There are opposing camps of people who believe that one theory is right and the other is wrong, and they cherry-pick evidence to "prove" it. However, the two theories are not mutually exclusive. I believe that refined carbohydrates (and thus insulin) have a large influence on fat mass in people with poor blood glucose control, due to roller-coaster blood glucose & insulin levels causing lethargy and subsequent overeating. I believe that food reward has a large influence on fat mass, due to it causing overeating.

That's why I'm in favour of REAL food diets, as they reduce both blood glucose & insulin fluctuations and food reward. Please note that reward is not the same thing as deliciousness. Fries/chips aren't delicious but they are moreish. Real foods can be delicious without being moreish.

What I believe and what I don't.

First, some soothing music...


I've been getting into arguments on the Internet again! People assume that I believe certain things and "put words in my mouth". As we all know, assume makes an ass out of u and me. I am therefore "laying my cards on the table", so that you have no excuse for being ignorant.

I believe that human beings are extremely complicated creatures both physiologically and psychologically. Our weights are influenced by a humongous number of factors, some of which I will list below.


Physiology

Calories count (but don't bother counting them)! If we eat more than we use, we store the excess in fat mass and muscle mass. If we eat less than we use, we draw the deficit from fat mass and muscle mass. Insulin is involved in the storage of stuff, as is acylation stimulating protein (ASP).

Moving too little makes our skeletal muscle insulin resistant, as inactive muscles have virtually zero requirement for glucose and fatty acids, so down-regulate the uptake of them. See also The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women.

Eating too much and moving too little has sweet-F/A to do with gluttony and sloth.

Our weights are regulated by our brains, which are influenced by a large number of hormones & chemicals, including insulin. There is no "set point" weight.

In the winter, when it's cold and dark, we eat more, sleep more and move less so we gain body fat. Subcutaneous fat acts as heat insulation, so having more of it in the winter makes sense.

Our weights can be affected by water balance, which is controlled by our kidneys.

How much of a particular food we eat is influenced by reward. Some foods can be addictive (or moreish, as we say in the UK) due to excessive reward. Deliciousness and moreishness are not the same thing. Reward theory and set-point theory are not the same thing.

Rapidly-falling blood glucose level in the normal range can stimulate appetite. I have had personal experience of this on three occasions where my blood glucose level was being monitored. As eating a load of high-glycaemic carbohydrates can result in rapidly-falling blood glucose later, this is another good reason to not overeat refined carbohydrates.


Psychology

The exercise paradox. Exercise decreases appetite*. So, why do some people eat more when they exercise more? See Normal Weight Men and Women Overestimate Energy Expenditure – Research Review and Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects.

*If exercise increases your appetite, there may be a reason for this. See Move More: Solutions to problems.

The diet paradox. People think that eating a healthy food with an unhealthy food reduces the calories, discussed in detail in The Dieter’s Paradox – Research Review.

Manipulating the masses is easier than you think.

The Coolidge Effect applies to food as well as sex. Eating one food for every meal gradually reduces reward to zero, no matter how moreish it may be initially. This is how the Potato diet worked.


I often leave very concise comments on blogs. Just because I don't mention this, that or the other doesn't mean that I consider this, that or the other to be irrelevant. I can also go on a bit. I'm a nerd!

EDIT: If I disagree with your point of view, I may try to tease more information out of you (or I may tease you just for fun). The more I disagree with your point of view, the more I'll tease you. If I utterly abhor something you stand for, I will tease you mercilessly!