Chow on chow, Parkinson's Law, two ways of doing something, and love.

Another mixed bag of subjects. First, here is Mr Carson C. Chow.

From A Mathematical Challenge to Obesity

According to Mr. Chow, Americans are getting increasingly fat because they're eating increasingly large amounts of "chow", because there's increasingly large amounts of it being produced. That's classic Parkinson's law (consumption expands to absorb the available supply).

According to Armi Legge, over-fat people need to . . . . Eat Less (& Move More).

There are two ways to "Eat Less".

1) Measure everything that goes into your mouth, calculate the calories in it and stick to an average daily calorie limit. Weigh yourself daily and adjust your intake to achieve a certain rate of rolling-averaged weight loss i.e. you consciously create a caloric deficit.

2) Tweak your diet until you find one that you can live with, that results in your belt and/or clothes getting looser i.e. you unconsciously create a caloric deficit. If you can't unconsciously create a caloric deficit, there will have to be some conscious restriction.

1) suits athletes & body-builders, as they are highly-motivated people who have a specific target in mind, whether it be athletic performance or a specific body-fat percentage/muscle mass/appearance.

2) suits the general public, as they aren't generally highly-motivated and won't tolerate hunger pangs.

Unfortunately, "Move More" has to be done consciously. Unconscious "Move More" i.e. Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT) a.k.a. Spontaneous Physical Activity (SPA) is genetically-determined.

Finally, I read Stretching out. I've been spending too much time on a blog full of fallacies & hate and it's been making me tetchy. I've now disengaged from that blog permanently. Breathe in. Breathe out. That's better!

Continued on Completing the trine: vive la différence!

FAO the over-fat and/or those with metabolic syndrome: Big breakfast, medium lunch & small dinner is beneficial.

Breakfast like a King/Queen.

Go to work on an egg.

According to High caloric intake at breakfast vs. dinner differentially influences weight loss of overweight and obese women.
"High-calorie breakfast with reduced intake at dinner is beneficial and might be a useful alternative for the management of obesity and metabolic syndrome." See the other PubMed studies listed in the above study, which corroborate it.

What about all the "artery-clogging" cholesterol in egg yolks? See Eat Whole Eggs All Day and Throw Your Statins Away? 375x Increased Dietary Cholesterol Intake From Eggs Reduces Visceral Fat & Promotes Healthy Cholesterol Metabolism.

Bursting from the seams: "Obese adipocytes" literally "explode" and leave a nasty inflammatory mess.

I just read a Public post on Facebook from someone I follow and whose blog is in my list.

https://www.facebook.com/profdrandro/posts/533941643320863

It contained a word that I've never seen before, but would like to see more often - Pyroptosis. 
See Obese adipocytes show ultrastructural features of stressed cells and die of pyroptosis.

Adipocytes dying, huh? You know what that means? Loss of body-fat. Unfortunately, there is an issue with the nasty inflammatory mess left, after adipocytes "explode". This limits the rate at which adipocytes can be "exploded".

See also SuppVersity Cellulite Special: The Etiology of Cellulite, Genetical and Behavioural Risk Factors? Physical and Supplemental Treatment Strategies & Their Efficacy. Warning! Not Safe For Work, due to pictures of naked botties.

We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.

If you don't recognise the words in the title, here's the classic song from which they came.


An increasing number of people are becoming like birds in gilded cages. See The perfect crime.
"What's fascinating is this: the marketing is so powerful that some of the people being hurt actually are eager for it to continue. This creates a cultural feedback loop, where some aspire to have these respected marketing jobs, to do more marketing of similar items. It creates a society where the owners and leaders of these companies are celebrated as risk-taking, brave businesspeople, not as the modern robber barons that they've become."

Did I ever mention?...

The danger of science denial: It happens even on Science-Based blogs.

Poor Benjamin Franklin. I know how he felt! ;-)

I do not believe that he wanted to be doing that!

This post will be highly critical of Dr. David Gorski MD, as some of his comments have been either trolling, downright stupid, or both. They're definitely in denial of science. This post is intended to encourage Dr Gorski to leave comments here, as I will never leave any further comments on any blogs that he edits, for reasons mentioned previously. I will be copying comments from his blogs and pasting them here, with my comments after. If this is considered to be "bad form", I really don't care. Leaving derogatory comments about me on blogs on which the commenters know that I will never return (because I told them so) is definitely "bad form".

I will also be quoting other commenters on Dr Gorski's blog, for the same reason. Everyone is free to leave comments here, that meet my fairly lax moderation criteria. In Vitamin D, cancer, cliques and flouncing. , a commenter from Dr Gorski's blog called flip was initially whitelisted, to allow his comments to appear without me having to moderate them. I eventually blacklisted flip after I detected intellectual dishonesty. That's how I roll. If you don't like my rules, don't let the door hit you on the way out! By the way, calling me a liar on here is a sure-fire way to get yourself blacklisted.

I've just turned Blogger word verification back on, as although Disqus automatically deletes anonymous comments containing links, I still get email notification of them. I've been getting a lot of email notifications. This may or may not have an effect on commenters.

Firstly, please read http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/a-closer-look-at-vitamin-injections/#comment-127850 , as it's my "letter of resignation" from that blog. With that in mind, read on.

# David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 9:49 am
Regarding Lappe et al, one notes that that study is not the be-all and end-all of vitamin D research. It’s an old study, for one thing. Also, cancer was not its primary endpoint. Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.
There is a recent review of the literature from the Endocrine Society, which includes Lappe et al and puts it into context:
*quoted text redacted*

# Nigel Kinbrum on 27 May 2013 at 11:16 am
David Gorski said…

Regarding Lappe et al, one notes that that study is not the be-all and end-all of vitamin D research. It’s an old study, for one thing.

Irrelevant.

Also, cancer was not its primary endpoint.

Irrelevant.

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

# David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 12:28 pm

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

How so? It’s actually very, very relevant, as is the issue of cancer not being a primary outcome measure of the study. That you don’t understand why these issues are so relevant indicates to me that you don’t understand clinical research very well.

#Nigel Kinbrumon 27 May 2013 at 1:42 pm
David Gorski said…

Finally, there was no vitamin D alone group, as I recall, only a vitamin D + calcium group, a calcium group, and a placebo group.

Irrelevant.

How so? It’s actually very, very relevant, as is the issue of cancer not being a primary outcome measure of the study. That you don’t understand why these issues are so relevant indicates to me that you don’t understand clinical research very well.

1) The RCT used Ca + D. Therefore, the conclusions apply to Ca + D. If they’d wanted to test D alone, they would have. They didn’t. Why don’t you write a letter of complaint to Joan M Lappe about it?

2) Whether the outcome was primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is irrelevant because the parameter in question (all-cancer diagnoses) was still accurately recorded. That you can’t understand such a simple concept boggles my imagination.

#David Gorski on 27 May 2013 at 2:34 pm

As I’m leaving permanently, what’s the point?

Ah, flouncing off again. It’s probably long overdue. I’ve been getting a few complaints about you here as well. Perhaps you should ask yourself why complaints seem to follow you wherever you go.

“Whether the outcome was primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is irrelevant because the parameter in question (all-cancer diagnoses) was still accurately recorded. That you can’t understand such a simple concept boggles my imagination.”

I rest my case that you do not understand clinical trial methodology and interpretation. I couldn’t have demonstrated it better myself to anyone who actually does understand clinical trial methodology and interpretation. Thanks!

You sir, are an asshole. I spelled it the American way, just for you!

I rest my case that you're either trolling, or stupid, or both. Whether the outcome is primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary or n’ary is completely and utterly irrelevant. It always has been and it always will be. You're effectively saying that only the first item in a shopping list should be bought because all of the other items in the shopping list are irrelevant. Bullshit!

Denice Walter May 27, 2013
@ Marc Stevens Is Insane:
I believe that Nigel is like two bright guys I know: they are well educated and professional in fields outside of SBM/ life sciences (business). Thus they read alt med ‘research’ (also see today’s post by Orac) and don’t get how it DOESN’T work in reality. It sounds like nutrients can do all of these wonderful things – that they can’t- at least not in RL. But the woo-meisters don’t tell you that part. We do.

So of course they think that these products are very useful- and they need celtic salt or ground organic flaxseed- as I know all too well.

However, if they’re smart- we can talk to them:
explaining how that *in vitro/ in vivo* thing works.
Or- as I often do- illustrating how much of the so-called science they read ( woo) is actually more accurately called “advertising copy”.

Businessmen seem to grok that.

Denice, seriously? I'm disappointed. I thought that you were one of the few reasonable posters on Gorski's blog and then you go and write that crap?

I do not read "alt med ‘research’", unless you're calling what's on PubMed "alt med ‘research’"? I've been reading studies on PubMed for years, so I know about the use of shoddy methodology to fudge results. The Lappe study doesn't use shoddy methodology. It's a Randomised Controlled Trial using double-blinded placebos and randomly-selected subjects who were post-menopausal women. Try to pick holes in it.

flip May 29, 2013
Hmmm… it occurs to me I probably haven’t been that overt about one other thing:

Lilady, I am sorry that you were called those things, and I certainly don’t think you should have been called names. I do think Nigel was wrong and do think he should be called out for it.

And I’m sorry for not making that clearer before.

flip, I'm not going to question your intelligence. However, why you're apologising to lilady boggles the imagination. lilady is a despicable human being. She pushed me to the point where I called her rude names, names that were not misogynist and for which I apologised. I explained about "twat" on SBM. I even posted a link to Wiktionary! You don't read things thoroughly before commenting.

Marc Stephens Is Insane May 31, 2013
Oooooh, Nigeepoo is ANGRY! He’s pulled a DJT, posting a “rebuttal” to all the comments here and on SBM. I’m suprised it’s taken him this long.

He’s calling Orac an a**hole and stupid, among other things. He’s invited us all to comment on his blog because he has an “open moderation policy” and “allows all comments.”

http://nigeepoo.blogspot.com.au/

I see that you idiots on RI are still reading my blog. I'm not the slightest bit angry, so you can give the projection crap a rest. For the record, most of you come across as assholes. You can't even quote me correctly. I said that I have fairly lax moderation criteria. Do try to get something right, for once in your miserable lives.

Anyway, you lot are now boring me with your never-ending inability to discuss things either accurately or rationally, so I'm not going to bother polluting my blog with any more of your crap.

P.S. I still occasionally read the comments on Gorski's blogs, so for the benefit of you peeps who read mine:-
1) "Black-list" means exactly what it says. It means that you're banned from posting comments.
2) The Lappe et al 2007 study was a good study. Just because some Messiah-like person says that it's a bad study and applies false reasoning to back himself up, doesn't make him right and me wrong. As I've previously pointed out, surgery's not exactly rocket science is it? I designed complicated electronic communications systems for 29 years. Just saying! ;-) Denice, I've got nothing against you. You've just been drinking Gorski's Kool-Aid for way too long. That's not a euphemism, by the way! :-D

Look what I just found. Exposing Dr. David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D. who believes he can use a cloak of anonymity and character assaults to discredit opposing views. Sorry Doc, but your game is up.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! :-D

A little moderate to vigorous physical activity does more than you think.

There are others!

Hat-tip to Bill Lagakos for tweeting this:- The Influence Of Physical Activity On Vascular Complications And Mortality In Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

"RESULTS: Forty-six percent of participants reported undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity for >15 minutes at least once in the previous week. During a median of 5 years of follow up, 1,031 patients died, 1,147 experienced a major cardiovascular event and 1,136 a microvascular event. Compared to patients who undertook no or mild physical activity, those reporting moderate to vigorous activity had a decreased risk of cardiovascular events (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.88, p < 0.0001), microvascular events (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96, p0.010) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.94, p0.0044)."

A HR of 0.83 is a reduction of 17%. That's quite impressive, for at least 15 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity at least once a week. Must. Get. Off. This. Sofa. More. Often.

Vitamin D, cancer, cliques and flouncing.

First Google Image Search result for Vitamin D, cancer, cliques and flouncing.

This is a continuation of my previous post Enzyme kinetics, standing on the sun and weird blog comments sections.

Apparently, I didn't like the answers that I received on the blog in my previous post, so I flounced. The study that I asked for opinion on was Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. If I showed you an RCT where deaths from all cancers fell by 77%, what would be your reaction? My reaction would be "That looks promising. More work is needed to investigate it". One person (sophia8) reacted thusly. Other reactions that I received (with their logical fallacies) were as follows:-

Pure coincidence. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

More than 1,100iu/day of Vitamin D is harmful. Straw man. I didn't say that people should take more than 1,100iu/day of Vitamin D (even though I take 5,000iu/day, which isn't harmful). Also, argumentum ad ignorantiam. See enzyme kinetics in the previous post.

You're cranky. Ignoratio Elenchi.

The study wasn't testing Vitamin D on its own. Straw man. I didn't say that it did.

By the way, “Nigeepoo”, taking supplemental vitamin D is not a proven way to prevent sunburn and is not an adequate method of protection from getting skin cancer (despite assertions in your blog). Straw man for the first part of the sentence. I didn't say that it was. Argumentum ad ignorantiam for the last part of the sentence.

Going for long drives with the top down and broiling gently without sunscreen on a repeated basis is dumb. Straw man. I didn't say that I did. I obviously don't go for long drives with the top down in the middle of the day on a sunny Summer's day. That is dumb. Like, duh!

I'm curious why you found my response to be satisfactory but lilady’s to be unsatisfactory. Could you explain? Ignoratio Elenchi.

Did I mention all of the mis-quoting?... Oy!

Maybe they should have done a bit of basic research, like:-

Vitamin D and musculoskeletal health, cardiovascular disease, autoimmunity and cancer: Recommendations for clinical practice.

The effect of calcium and vitamin D supplementation on obesity in postmenopausal women: secondary analysis for a large-scale, placebo controlled, double-blind, 4-year longitudinal clinical trial.

Vitamin D, cardiovascular disease and mortality.

Why randomized controlled trials of calcium and vitamin D sometimes fail. Essential reading.

I'm the sort of person who's not interested in cliques or secret societies. I'm therefore not interested in joining a cliquey, ivory-towery blog where you have to conform to a set of unwritten "rules" to be accepted, some of which are eccentric (Question: Which blogs insist on the use of manually-typed blockquote tags? Answer: Only that one). I decided to leave. I even apologised to some commenters for my language in some of the arguments.

I wondered why that blog and its owner annoyed me so much. Then it hit me (like a lost boomerang)!

Hmmm. See Brain Surgeon meets Rocket Scientist ;-)

Other comments:-

Orac
May 19, 2013
Nigel, you need to tone it down, too.
I’ve warned both of you once already. This is the second warning. There won’t be a third. To show you I mean business this time, your comments are going into automatic moderation. You two have already wasted more of my time than you’re worth.

Which part of "Can people please stop leaving comments aimed at me, unless it’s an acknowledgement. I don’t want to have to leave any more comments on here – ever." did you not understand?

MI Dawn
May 19, 2013
@Nigel: we responded to the Lappe information. It didn’t prove what you say it proved. Now, if you do have something to say, give the peer-reviewed proof.

Straw man. I didn't say that it proved anything.
Which part of "Can people please stop leaving comments aimed at me, unless it’s an acknowledgement. I don’t want to have to leave any more comments on here – ever." did you not understand?

lilady
May 19, 2013
Thank you Orac for your intervention.
The bottom line for Nigel and Lisa is that they, by their vicious unwarranted personal attacks, have drawn unfavorable publicity to themselves and their blogs.

There's no such thing as unfavorable (sic) publicity for my blog, as far as I'm concerned. What you have done, by your vicious, unwarranted, lying and malicious defamatory personal attacks on me, is to draw unfavourable interest from me.

flip
In a place where no federal police turned up today
May 20, 2013
What a pity they both seem to have flounced off without bothering to respond to the questions put to them. I am not surprised though.

Which part of "Can people please stop leaving comments aimed at me, unless it’s an acknowledgement. I don’t want to have to leave any more comments on here – ever." did you not understand?

Low-glycaemic diet seen to reverse diastolic dysfunction of diabetes.

From http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/802947?nlid=30763_1301&src=wnl_edit_dail (Medscape log-in required):-

"Of 32 overweight or obese diabetic patients (mean body-mass index, 34) without cardiac disease who were engaged in a "rehabilitation program in order to lose weight" that included two hours of supervised aerobic exercise per day, half followed a low-glycemic diet (25% carbohydrate, 45% fat, 30% protein) and the other half a low-fat diet (55% carbohydrate, 25% fat, and 20% protein) for three weeks. The diets provided the same amount of calories. Those on the low-fat diet then switched to the low-glycemic diet for an additional two weeks"

"....the two diets led to about the same declines in weight and waist circumference..."

The diet was 25% carbohydrate, 45% fat, 30% protein.
It was a low-carbohydrate/low-glycaemic load diet.
It was not a very-low-carb diet.

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...

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.

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.

Smoking and Obesity

interesting comment in the Guardian today from the artist David Hockney on obesity....

Is there a link between the decline of smoking and the rise of obesity and diabetes? It's been suggested that with a previous "health" scare of fat being bad for you, they took it out of a lot of food and thus the flavour, and then, to give it some flavour, added sugar. This was 30 years ago. It turned out some fat was not only essential, it was good for the heart after all, but they have now given a lot of people a sweet tooth. This is why it is so appalling that there is no debate at all about smoking. Some people might be much better off smoking instead of nibbling. There are still 10 million smokers, now treated like very naughty children. It seems there is no free lunch, and the media and political elite look like the cause of it all, exaggerating constantly to people they seem to despise.

Your epigenetics make you fat

I think I have remarked before on this Trinity of sexy themes at the moment in research in health and fitness:

• Microbiome
• Mitochondria
• Epigenetics

This is one for the epigenetics thread:  remember you have genes but the key thing is which of those genes are turned on  and which are turned off.  You are not programmed by you DNA, it is far more complex than that - you have a complex set of switches that react to your environment.

And that applies to your obesity.  You are not programmed to be fat.  Even if you have certain genes that are associated with fatness, they can be overridden.  The environment, epigenetic factors, the signals that you send to your cells,  are so much more important.  So to the study:


Getting Active Blunts Fat Genes

Physical activity appears to dampen the effect of fat-increasing genes, while inactivity allows the genetic disposition to unfold, a longitudinal study found.

Each additional gene variant linked with increasing body mass index (BMI) was associated with a mean gain of 0.13 kg/m2 in BMI, according to Qibin Qi, PhD, from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, and colleagues.

However, individuals who were most physically active saw a blunted genetic effect, with a mean increase of 0.08 kg/m2, while those watching more than 40 hours of TV per week had an accentuated effect, with a mean increase of 0.34 kg/m2.

Although the genetic effect on BMI was most pronounced at each extreme, it was less so with more benign lifestyles, researchers reported at the American Heart Association's Epidemiology and Prevention/Nutrition, Physical Activity and Metabolism (EPI/NPAM) meeting in San Diego.

For those in the lowest quintile of physical activity, the mean increase in BMI was 0.15 kg/m2 -- a number slightly higher than the reference mean gain associated with each gene variant.

For those who watched up to only one hour of TV per week, the mean gain in BMI was 0.08 kg/m2, the same as in the highest quintile of activity.
 

 You do not have to be fat.  Get up and move about a bit.

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.

Back to the microbiota - impact of the type of dietary fat

So back to another sexy term.  Not epigenetics this time but the microbiome.  There are studies out there that show that the gut midrobiome of the obese differs from that of the lean (and fecal transplants from lean to obese can make them lose fat).   This study seems to show that saturated fats shift gut microbiota profiles toward those typical of obese individuals, and that dietary fatty acid saturation influences shifts in gut microbiota independently of changes in body mass.

Oh noes, don't tell me that my saturated fat bias is being challenged?

Gut bacteria profiles of Mus musculus at the phylum and family levels are influenced by saturation of dietary fatty acids.

Gut Microbiome and metabolic health

This is another study that points to the the relevance of your gut microbes to health.  The finding is that certain strains of microbe in the gut are associated with obesity-related Metabolic disorders.

Women With and Without Metabolic Disorder Differ in Their Gut Microbiota Composition

Lieberman on Obesity

Another one on sleep and obesity

Short sleep duration in association with CT-scanned abdominal fat areas

Shorter sleep duration is associated with higher BMI, WC and SFA in men. Further research is needed to explicate the biological mechanisms behind these relationships and to see whether interventions addressing inadequate sleep could treat or prevent obesity by taking gender differences into consideration.

I suppose I should go to bed now.   There have been lots of studies showing this association now.  The mechanisms might not be clear but there is certainly something here.

Does it really matter?

I mean, does it really matter exactly how & why low-carb diets work? My thoughts...



There's a lot of in-fighting on the internet about low-carb & paleo diets etc. Which is "best", exactly how they work and so on. I don't believe that there is a best diet. Everyone is different (in genetics, environment, activity etc). To boil it down to the basics:-

1) Eat real food that hasn't been buggered-about with too much. Grains that have had the outer husk removed (e.g. white rice) are O.K. Grains that have been rolled flat or inflated to a large size by heating to >100°C are O.K. Grains that have been ground into dust are not O.K.

2) If eating "X" causes you problems, stop eating "X". If certain proteins cause you problems, you either have a genetic condition (e.g. coeliac disease) or excessive gut permeability. The first isn't fixable but the second may be. If certain carbohydrates cause you problems, you either have a genetic problem or insulin resistance. The first isn't fixable but the second may be.

The real enemy here is the food manufacturers. They don't want people to stop eating their highly-profitable Crap-in-a-Bag/Box/Bottle (CIAB), as it's bad for business. They also influence Governments. So let's stop fighting amongst ourselves and attack the real enemy any way that we can. Lead by example.