The Elephant in the Room.

On Twitter about two weeks ago, Max Roser tweeted the following graphic:

From Health and the Economy in the United States from 1750 to the Present

The plots of low & stable BMI's until ~1945 made me think.

1. Over-refined sugars & starches entered the US food supply in ~1880. Ref: How the Mid-Victorians Worked, Ate and Died. ∴ Over-refined sugars & starches don't cause obesity.

2. Americans ate more carbohydrate per day from 1909 to 1929 than they do now. Ref: 3rd Fig. from More Thoughts on Macronutrient Trends. ∴ Carbohydrates don't cause obesity.

3. The "low-fat" dietary guidelines were issued in 1980. The two dates at which BMI began to increase significantly are ~1945 (slow rate of increase) and ~1990 (rapid rate of increase). ∴ The 1980 "low-fat" dietary guidelines didn't cause obesity.

So, what happened in the US in ~1945? From my comment HERE:
"After World War 2, the economy was in a slump and something had to be done to get people to buy more stuff, to stimulate economic growth. Corporations changed the way that they marketed to people. Instead of appealing to people’s logic, they began to appeal to people’s emotions. It worked.

Edward Bernays pioneered all of the dirty tricks used by the Food Product Industry to get people to over-consume. Ref: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d29tf_the-century-of-the-self-part-1-of-4-happiness-machines_school

One of Bernays' dirty tricks is confusing the public by promulgating conflicting information. The Tobacco Industry paid health professionals to advertise cigarettes. On the one hand, you had researchers telling people that smoking was bad for them and on the other hand you had a doctor on TV saying that he preferred to smoke Camel cigarettes. This confused the public and made them mistrust researchers & science. Another dirty trick was setting-up organisations with scientific-sounding names to promulgate conflicting reports which the press published as “science”, saying that “X” was good for you, then some time later “X” was bad for you, then some time later “X” was good for you again and so on. The public mistrusted researchers & science even more.

The recent NOF report from Malhotra et al telling people to eat more fat is conflicting information, resulting in even more public confusion and even more mistrust of researchers & science. This is exactly what the Food Product Industry wants."

The Tobacco Industry used Bernays' dirty tricks to encourage women to smoke in public by making smoking a women's rights issue. Cigarettes were marketed to women as "Torches of Freedom". From the 1920's, women became as free as men to greatly increase their risk of getting Emphysema a.k.a. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Lung Cancer & Coronary Heart Disease, while the Tobacco Industry's profits increased.

By focusing on foods/macronutrients/micronutrients etc, people like Taubes, Teicholz, Malhotra et al are helping the Food Product Industry to manipulate the masses to over-consume their products.


So, what happened in the US in ~1990? Which dirty trick used by the Food Product Industry caused the rapid rate of increase in BMI from ~1990?

See also The cause of America's rising obesity rate is irrelevant. The cure for it is what's important.

Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 4.

Cont'd from Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 3.

"You tend to get what you accept" Tillerman (don't ask). The following music video sums it up.


If you give someone an inch, they'll take a mile. Why do people put up with the following piss-takes?


If you accept crap, you get crap. Therefore, insist on non-crap.

I used to think that I couldn't do certain things, e.g. perform in public, due to extreme shyness.
Now I do things like this...


Almost anything is possible, if you put your mind to it.

FIN.

Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 3.

Cont'd from Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 2.
 
Derren Brown shows how easy it is to manipulate your thoughts, by the use of subliminal images.


I may have mentioned it somewhere on this blog, but everyone is different. The reactions of the kids in the "I ate all your Halloween candy" video in the previous blog post varied from total melt-downs, through feigned deaths, through tears, to "That's all right!". Candy/sweets have different importance to different people and people's suggestibility varies from "Very easy to manipulate" to "Very hard to manipulate".

There's engineering of foods to be as moreish as possible. "The trouble is, they taste too good!" (Crunchy Nut Cornflakes), "Bet you can't eat just one!" (some savoury snack made from refined starch, salt & flavourings) and "Once you pop, you can't stop!" (Pringles). As Harry Hill once said "The problem with heroin is, it's rather moreish!" Although addiction to pure table sugar isn't a thing, addiction to hyperpalatable foods is a thing (which can be blocked by Naltrexone). See Food cravings engineered by industry and Sugar addiction: pushing the drug-sugar analogy to the limit.

Then there's the incessant marketing, including sponsorships, product placements, celebrity endorsements, cartoon characters on packaging to appeal to kids etc. See The Money Spent Selling Sugar to Americans Is Staggering and It’s Not Your Imagination: Celebrities Hawk Pretty Much Only Junk Food.

Then there's the bribery lobbying of government to:-
1. Water-down Dietary Guidelines so that crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle (CIAB) meets them. As people get fatter and fatter, the Guidelines and government get the blame.
2. Subsidise the ingredients of CIAB so that it's cheaper than produce.

Then there's corruption of science e.g. getting doctors to advertise cigarettes years ago. Organisations with vested interests are created, to promulgate conflicting dietary information. Is it any wonder that the public distrust science and scientists?

Edward Bernays' manipulation techniques have worked exceedingly well. If you're too fat and someone says to you "Nobody made you over-consume that crap", point out the above.

What can you do? You can't sue Food Product manufacturers, as their products don't immediately harm you. See How Ultra-Processed Foods Are Killing Us. Hit them where it hurts i.e. in their bank accounts, by eschewing CIAB and basing your diet on whole, minimally-refined animal and vegetable produce. CIAB should be treat foods, not staple foods.

Finally, here's a nice video on how to form good habits for life.


Cont'd on Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 4.

Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 2.

Cont'd from Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 1.

Remember the video "YouTube Challenge - I Told My Kids I Ate All Their Halloween Candy 2015"?


Some of those kids reacted as if their life had just come to an end!

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about psychotherapy, so I don't know how accurate the information is in Hypoglycemia and Neurosis.

Please don't pacify crying babies/toddlers/children with sugary crap.

Cont'd on Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 3.

Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 1.

Cont'd from Public Service Announcement: Calling all Low-carb, Low-fat and Veg*n advocates.

I feel a music video coming on! It's Not Safe For Work!


Start of clarification.
I've noticed some confusion over the term "Crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle" (CIAB). My previous post received the following comment, which I'll annotate.
"Is highly processed the problem? Yes.
Tinned tomatoes are processed, what's wrong with including those in your diet. Nothing, other than the fact that they're too salty for me if they're tinned in brine.
What about low sugar baked beans? Nothing, other than the fact that they're too salty for me.
What's wrong with a burger if all it is, is minced beef? Nothing.
Other processed food:
Smoked mackerel Fine.
Frozen peas Fine.
Milled porridge oats Fine.
Parma ham Fine.
Cheese Fine.
Nitrate free bacon Fine.
Prunes Fine.
Almond butter Too calorie-dense & moreish for me.
Filtered milk Fine.
Low sugar jam Fine.
Roasted chestnuts Fine.
Haggis Fine. I think."

CIAB is stuff like French fries/chips, chips/crisps, "fast food", take-aways, pizzas, biscuits/cookies, chocolate, sweets/candy, sugar-sweetened beverages, sugary cereals etc.
End of clarification.

In How to lose weight and get slim by eating "fast food" for 180 days. I showed that it's possible to be healthy on a diet of fast food, if you have a plan and you stick to it. The vast majority of people who eat fast food don't have a plan!

Between the ages of 5 & 8, I spent my 12d/week (that's 5p/week, for those of you who are too young to remember £,s,d.) on sweets. Aniseed balls were 4 for 1d. I also ate French Fancies (small sponge cakes covered in fondant icing) and drank Corona Lemonade (~15% sugar content) at home.

How did I get such a ferocious sweet tooth? Here's the probable answer:- Farley's Rusks.

Look at the health-washing on the Heinz web-site.
"Farley’s Rusks have been loved by mums and babies for generations. Each rusk is lovingly baked using baby grade ingredients."

Let's take a look at the baby grade ingredients:-
"Wheat Flour, Sugar, Palm Oil, Raising Agents (Ammonium Carbonates), Calcium Carbonate, Emulsifier (Monoglycerides), Niacin, Iron, Thiamin, Riboflavin, Vitamin A, Vitamin D."

The first three ingredients are refined starch, refined sugar and refined fat. The refined sugar content is 29% by weight. Perfect food for a baby! The previous sentence may contain traces of sarcasm.

Cont'd on Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 2.

Public Service Announcement: Calling all Low-carb, Low-fat and Veg*n advocates.

Cont'd from The cause of America's rising obesity rate is irrelevant. The cure for it is what's important.

While you're rearranging the deckchairs by squabbling over which diet is best...

From http://www.britishtitanicsociety.com/titanic-story-gallery/tragedy/

People are getting fatter and sicker in increasing numbers around the world, due to increasing numbers of people eating a diet based on crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle. Would switching back to a diet based on whole, minimally-processed produce not be an improvement?

So, why don't you all agree to say the same thing, like:-

Base your diet on whole, minimally-processed produce, rather than products. Tweak it to suit.

While you're wasting time shouting each other down, the manufacturers of crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle are laughing all the way to the bank. :-/

Cont'd on Free will? It's just an illusion! How the Food Product Industry gets people to dance to their tune, part 1.

The cause of America's rising obesity rate is irrelevant. The cure for it is what's important.

NuSi go home. You're not needed!

From http://dietdatabase.com/causes-of-obesity/

On a blog comments section somewhere, a argument discussion took place about what caused America's rising obesity rate. Certain people have a hypothesis that there's one cause. Here's a rough list, in no particular order:-
Carbohydrates (Taubes)
Refined Sugar (Yudkin. Lustig)
Refined Fructose (Lustig)
Wheat/Gluten Grains (Davis)
Fat (Ornish, Esseltyn etc)
Saturated Fat (Ornish, Esseltyn etc)
Animal Protein (Vegans)
Mineral Imbalances (Karlsson, "Duck Dodgers")
The Government (Nikoley)
Dietary Guidelines (Teicholz et al)

It's not Refined Sugar. Sorry, John Yudkin & Robert Lustig. See below...

Refined Sugar intake (kcal/capita/day) is higher in France than in the USA, but in France there's a lower obesity rate. ∴ Hypothesis disproved*.

*As the Refined Sugar intake data may be unreliable (it's also associational data), the hypothesis is not necessarily disproved. If only there's an interventional study (which proves causation) which results in lower weight on a higher sugar/fructose intake. There is! See The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial. ∴ Hypothesis disproved.

I asked Duck Dodgers what he wanted to happen. He said:-
"My feeling is that if people recognize that enriched foods are the antithesis of whole foods, then the demand for enriched/refined foods may diminish, forcing the industry to change."

I want people to eschew refined foods for whole foods, too. So all the arguing about what caused America's rising obesity rate was a complete waste of time. This gave me an idea. I decided to run my idea past someone who deals with obese people with T2DM and who just happened to be in the U.K, attending the Health Unplugged Conference, I PM'ed Dr. Jeffrey Gerber on Facebook, inviting him to meet me at Cafe Class in Woking (a location roughly half-way between my home and London).

So this happened...

Ivor Cummins came, too!

Suffice it to say, the afternoon was a blast!

Cont'd on Public Service Announcement: Calling all Low-carb, Low-fat and Veg*n advocates.

I never expected THAT to happen!

Hat-tip to Melissa McEwen for https://twitter.com/melissamcewen/status/502553259224338432


As I clicked on the video, I was thinking "I bet those instant Ramen noodles disintegrate instantly, causing a big surge of glucose into the blood".

Watch and learn. Well, did you expect that to happen? If instant Ramen noodles are a heart health risk, it's not because they digest too quickly. BPA? Something else?

Jumping through hoops, and my Blog List.

I'm seeing a curious thing. The VLC "camp" seems to be "jumping through hoops" to prove a point.

From http://davidbressler.com/2013/08/26/easier-harder/

From Neuron fuel and function (emphasis & formatting, mine):-
"Ketones and lactate do not drive reverse electron flow through complex I. Glucose can. Palmitate certainly can. What you want from a metabolic fuel depends on the remit of your cell types. Neurons within the brain preserve information by their continued existence.

This is best done by burning lactate or ketones. NOT glucose and, of course, not FFAs.

Anyone who claims that glucose is the preferred metabolic fuel of the brain has not though (sic) about what a neuron has to do and what an astrocyte actually does do. Or much about the electron transport chain."

Basically, glucose is bad mmm-kay. Also, anyone who claims that glucose is the preferred metabolic fuel of the brain is a dumb-ass. Damn our livers & kidneys churning out glucose! Are they trying to kill us?

∴ Carbohydrates are bad and must be avoided at all cost! This, of course, is utter nonsense.

Glucose can drive reverse electron flow through complex I. Can means that it's possible. Is it probable?

On a hypercaloric Western diet of excessive crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle, yes.

On a Kitavan diet of ~70%E from tubers, no.

On a diet of Basmati rice & beans, no.

On a diet of whole fruits, no.

See also Another crash and burn on low carb paleo and CrossFit. Enough of the 'carbs are evil' nonsense. Carbphobia is hurting a lot of people.

I have a list of blogs that I read on a regular basis. As a result of the bad science & cherry-picking displayed in various VLC blogs, I have deleted them from my Blog List.

See also Guest post: Denialism as Pseudoscientific Thinking.

Carbs, Carbs, Carbs, Carbs and Carbs.

Carbohydrates seem to get the blame for everything nowadays. "Carbohydrates made me fat". "Carbohydrates burned-out my pancreas". "Carbohydrates raised my blood glucose". "Carbohydrates raised my blood triglycerides". "Carbohydrates stole mer jerb!". O.K, I made the last one up!
If carbohydrates are responsible for all of these bad things, then how come a diet of only potatoes had the opposite effect? See 20 Potatoes a day.

Also, Blue Zone populations eat a diet with a high percentage of total energy (%E) from carbohydrates. See Low serum insulin in traditional Pacific Islanders--the Kitava Study and The Kitava Study. The Kitavans eat ~70%E from carbohydrates, ~20%E from fats and ~10%E from proteins. They don't eat a significant amount of Western crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle.

Maybe it has something to do with the type of carbohydrates and with what they're eaten. In A very-low-fat diet is not associated with improved lipoprotein profiles in men with a predominance of large, low-density lipoproteins , (emphasis, mine) "The very-low-fat, high-carbohydrate experimental diet was designed to supply less than 10% of energy from fat (2.7% saturated, 3.7% monounsaturated, and 2.6% polyunsaturated), with 75% from carbohydrate (with equal amounts of naturally occurring and added simple and complex carbohydrate) and 15% from protein." Simple carbohydrates are sugars.

The experimental diet which did bad things contained 37.5%E from sugars. I declare shenanigans!

1. There are simple carbs, there are simple carbs and there are simple carbs. In the previous post, the graph of plasma triglycerides after an OGTT showed that 100g of glucose had no significant effect on plasma triglycerides over a 6 hour period. If it had been 100g of fructose, there would have been a significant increase in plasma triglycerides. Galactose is taken-up by the liver and has minimal effect on blood glucose, but I don't know its effect on plasma triglycerides.

2. There are complex carbs, there are complex carbs and there are complex carbs. Overcooked starch is high in amylopectin which is highly-branched, which means that it hydrolyses rapidly into glucose which gives it a very high glycaemic index. Raw & refrigerated potato starches have very low glycaemic indices, due to the presence of amylose, or other resistant starches. Rice contains a mixture of starches which varies with rice type, cooking time and subsequent refrigeration.

3. There are oligosachharides e.g. FOS.

4. There are polysaccharides e.g. inulin.

5. There is soluble fibre/fiber e.g. cellulose.

Although overeating sugars containing fructose & starches that rapidly hydrolyse into glucose makes the liver fatty, overeating fats also makes the liver fatty. See Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes: tracing the reverse route from cure to cause.

It's the chronic over-consumption of crap-in-a-bag/box/bottle (high in sugars and/or starches and/or fats), not just carbohydrates, that causes over-fatness and other health problems.

I'm back with some miscellaneous ramblings.

I'm not dead! Who knew?


I saw https://twitter.com/JimJohnsonSci/status/468745252170248192 and read Modeling type 2 diabetes in rats using high fat diet and streptozotocin.

What I find a bit sad is the "cure > prevention" attitude. The cause of pre-diabetes & type 2 diabetes is pretty well known now, i.e. it's basically the inability of bodily stores (liver/muscle glycogen stores & fat masses) to accommodate any more, resulting in excessive amounts of various things (e.g. glucose, fat, cholesterol, NEFAs etc) in the blood, with varying degrees of beta cell dysfunction.

The degree of fatness at which bodily stores become full depends on the degree of adipocyte hyperplasia, so it's possible for slim people to become type 2 diabetic, though ~85% of type 2 diabetics are over-fat. Some slim people are misdiagnosed with type 2 diabetes, as they have LADA or signalling abnormalities. Some have acquired endocrine abnormalities.

I've been pre-diabetic twice to my knowledge, the most recent occasion being last year when I became slightly manic after mum died and got into a large number of arguments on various blogs. I "took my eye off the ball" diet-wise and ended up gaining too much body-fat, even though my belt didn't feel noticeably tight. I blogged about feeling too hot last year. When I had blood tests in September to find out why I was overheating so much, the results revealed hyper****aemia, where **** = glucose, total cholesterol & triglycerides. The doctor recommended that I take a statin. I declined, stating that I knew what had caused the problem and that I would deal with it. I was told to have repeat blood tests in 3 months time.

I subsequently "kept my eye on the ball" diet-wise (using bathroom scales to monitor progress), lost 8kg (some of it fat mass & some of it muscle mass) and when I was retested 3 months later, the previously abnormal blood test results were back to completely normal. That's twice I've gone from pre-diabetes to normal, which suggests that deterioration from pre-diabetes to type 2 diabetes is not inevitable, provided that the cause is dealt with before excessive irreversible beta cell dysfunction occurs.

The main reason why the incidence of over-fatness & type 2 diabetes is increasing is the overconsumption of "Crap in a bag/box/bottle" by increasing numbers of people. How to reverse this trend? Damned if I know!

Back to black, CIAB, pharmaceutical drug deficiencies & nerds.

First, a song by someone who should be alive, but isn't...

The above video was inspired by a Facebook friend who had an accident with Schwartzkopf black hair dye and spent ages getting the stains off her skin. You know who you are!

I may have mentioned that nutrient deficiencies can adversely affect mental (and/or other) function. Nowadays, many people live on a diet of Crap-In-A-Bag (CIAB). There's just enough essential amino acids (EAAs), essential fatty acids (EFAs), minerals & vitamins to keep their bodies alive. However, Alive ≠ Working properly.

To compensate for one (or more) nutrient deficiencies, many people are prescribed one (or more) pharmaceutical drugs to tweak how their brains work e.g. fluoxetine, citalopram/escitalopram, venlafaxine, quetiapine, risperidone, valproate etc. There are no pharmaceutical drug deficiencies!

There are people who suffer from mental (and/or other) illnesses, despite having diets & lifestyles that provide sufficient amounts of all nutrients. This post isn't about them. There are people who suffer from depression due to traumatic & inescapable events/situations. This post isn't about them, either.

Finally, nerds! We nerds love to compile information. For an interesting interview with a top compiler of useful information, see Examine's Supplement Goals Reference Guide.

For an excellent article with a mere 148 references, see Why Calories Count. To sum up:-

Where body weight is concerned, calories count (but don't bother trying to count them).
Where body composition is concerned, partitioning counts.
Where health is concerned, macronutrient ratios, EFAs, minerals, vitamins & lifestyles count.

N.B. Poor health can adversely affect body weight and/or body composition, by increasing appetite and/or by adversely affecting partitioning.

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