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.

Science and zealots: How to detect bad science and how to detect zealots.

Last night, I got banned from Zoë Harcombe's blog. More on that later. Meanwhile, this...

From http://capisho.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/science-vs-faith.html

I re-read It's all about ME, baby! (1997 - present) and there's something important missing.

In 2005, I discovered Lyle McDonald. Before this happened, I had the following beliefs:-
1. If something works for me, it must work for everyone else.
2. If someone with qualifications states a fact, it must be true.
3. If someone without qualifications states a fact, it must be false.
4. If a study confirms my beliefs, it must be true.
5. If a study contradicts my beliefs, it must be false.

Sound familiar?
1. is a "Hasty generalisation" fallacy.
2. is an "Appeal to authority" fallacy.
3. is an "Ad hominem" fallacy.
4. & 5. are a "Cherry-picking" fallacy.

Suffice it to say, Lyle bitch-slapped the fallacies out of me. Thank you so much! Read Lyle's site, if you want to learn.

How can studies conflict with each other so much?

Having read a number of conflicting studies, here are some of the tricks that bad studies use:-

1. Fudge the methodology:-
In a meta-study (a study of studies), to make something that's bad (e.g. some saturated fats/fatty acids) look harmless or to make something that's good (e.g. Vitamin D) look useless, fudge the inclusion criteria so that only studies using low intakes or a narrow range of intakes are used, so that the RRs are either close to 1 or have 95% CI values above & below 1. In addition, include studies that show both positive and negative effects (due to them looking at different types of saturated fats/fatty acids, say), so that the overall result is null.

In a study, use a different type of the thing being studied (but bury this fact somewhere obscure so that it's easily missed) to get the opposite result. E.g. To make "carbs" look bad, use a test "carb" that comprises 50% simple carbs (sugars) and 50% complex carbs (high-GI starches, preferably), thus guaranteeing a bad result.

2. Fudge the statistics:- e.g. Regression toward the mean. I'm not a stats nerd, but there are many ways to lie with statistics.

3. Make the abstract have a different conclusion from the full study (which you hide behind a pay-wall), by excluding the methodology and results.


Back to Zoë Harcombe: I left some comments on Jennifer Elliott vs Dietitians Association of Australia.

My M.O. for detecting zealots is by using a slowly, slowly, catchee monkey approach. I left a comment supportive of low-carb diets, because:-

For people with Insulin Resistance, low-carb diets DO ameliorate obesity, postprandial sleepiness and postprandial hyperglycaemia.

Was that loud enough?

I added that I thought the first priority should be to tackle the causes of the Insulin Resistance, because reversing a condition is better than ameliorating it.

My comments were helpful, with links to blog posts showing the above and how to reverse T2DM in 8 weeks. I then went for the throat, criticising Jennifer Elliot, as the article she wrote contained cherry-picked references. I included three more links to my blog as supportive evidence. This resulted in the removal of all but one of my comments (and the comment that remained had the link removed) and the addition of the following:-

"Zoë Harcombe says:

October 23, 2015 at 8:55 pm

Nigel – too many comments purely trying to get traffic to your site – link above removed; other comments spammed. You’re now spammed.
Best wishes – Zoe"

The correct word is "banned", Zoë! Low-carb zealot successfully detected.

It's not a problem if a lay person becomes a low-carb zealot, but it is a problem if a Health Professional/Fitness Trainer becomes one. Cognitive bias and a refusal to accept contradictory evidence are not good traits for someone who's supposed to be practising evidence-based health/fitness.

How to lose weight and get slim by eating "fast food" for 180 days.

Hopefully, that got your attention! Please watch the following video.


The secret to weight loss success is this:-
1. Formulate a good plan. A good plan is one that both works and is doable.
2. Stick to it!
3. Exercise mostly increases fitness, but it does increase energy expenditure by a significant amount. See Calories Burned - Walking: 3.5 mph (17 minutes per mile). A 250lb man walking for 90 minutes expends 756kcals.

The vast majority of people who eat "fast food" don't do the above. "Fast food" establishments use every trick in the book to get people to make bad food choices and consume as much as possible.

As people are reluctant to go back for more food (as they think that it makes them look greedy), super-sizing was invented, which allows people to eat twice as much food for less than twice as much cost.

Delicious aromas stimulate the appetite. Added sugar, salt & flavour enhancers increase the food reward.

Bright colours, cartoon characters and toys entice children.

Why using macronutrient percentages is so wrong.

From http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Food-Function-and-Structure/Sci-Media/Images/Macronutrient-percentages

1. Deception

Consider Lies, damned lies and statistics, part n+1. Riera-Crichton et al.  

Relative fat intake in %E decreased and obesity increased.

The conclusion:- "Carbohydrates are fattening and fat is slimming." Yeah, right!

Absolute fat intake in grams/kcals increased after healthy eating guidelines (which weren't low-fat guidelines) came out in 1980, according to More Thoughts on Macronutrient Trends.

Gary Taubes & Nina Teicholz use this deliberate misrepresentation of data to create the false narrative that low-fat healthy eating guidelines caused the obesity epidemic in the US. It's a pack of lies.

2. The terms "Low Fat" and "High Fat" are meaningless

Take 55g of fat (500kcals), 125g of protein (500kcals) and 375g of carbohydrate (1,500kcals). It adds up to 2,500kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 60/20/20. It's a High Carb, Low Fat diet.

Now remove 125g of carbohydrate to leave 250g of carbohydrate (1000kcals). It now adds up to 2,000kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 50/25/25. It's still a High Carb, Low Fat diet.

Now remove another 125g of carbohydrate to leave 125g of carbohydrate (500kcals). It now adds up to 1,500kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 33/33/33. It's now a Medium Carb, Medium Fat Zone diet.

Now remove another 62.5g of carbohydrate to leave 62.5g of carbohydrate (250kcals). It now adds up to 1,250kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 20/40/40. It's now a Low Carb, Highish Fat diet.

Now remove another 62.5g of carbohydrate to leave 0g of carbohydrate (0kcals). It now adds up to 1,000kcals, with a percentage C/F/P split of 0/50/50. It's now a Very Low Carb, High Fat diet.

So, 55g/day of fat can be Low Fat, Medium Fat, Highish Fat or High Fat. Which leads to...

3. Confusion

When someone sees the term LCHF (Low Carb, High Fat), they think it means "Eat less carbohydrate and eat more fat". As changes in bodily stores are determined by Energy Balance, eating more fat leads to a slower rate of weight-loss (or even weight-gain), not a faster rate of weight-loss.

By all means cut the consumption of "bad" carbs, like burgers in buns, chips/fries, crisps/chips, pizza, cake, biscuits/cookies, chocolate and sugar sweetened beverages.

However, if you believe that "good" carbs like vegetable produce, legumes, whole grains and whole fruits make you fat and sick, you need to have your head examined, unless you're in the tiny percentage of the population who have genetic carbohydrate intolerance.

See also Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.

How we lose weight: Oxidation of carbohydrate & fat in the body.

1. Oxidation of Carbohydrate in the body.

Glucose is C6H12O6, or 6(CH2O)

6(CH2O)+ 6(O2) → 6(CO2) + 6(H2O) + energy

Oxygen is inhaled. Carbon Dioxide is exhaled. Water is lost in breath, wee, poo, sweat & other bodily fluids.

As 6 molecules of Oxygen produce 6 molecules of Carbon Dioxide, the Respiratory Exchange Ratio (RER) is 6/6 = 1

Converting molecular weights into their gram equivalents, 180g of Glucose combines with 192g of Oxygen to produce 264g of Carbon Dioxide plus 108g of water plus ~3,012kJ of energy. I'm using kJ rather than kcal, as the human body expends energy as mechanical energy (force x distance) and heat energy.

2. Oxidation of Fat in the body.

Fat is three fatty acids (Stearic Acid, say) attached to a Glycerol backbone. As ~95% of the energy released from a fat is from the three fatty acids, I'm ignoring the Glycerol backbone, to keep the maths as easy as possible.  Stearic Acid is CH3(CH2)16COOH. I'm approximating it to 18(CH2), to keep the maths as easy as possible.

54(CH2) + 81(O2) → 54(CO2) + 54(H2O) + energy

Oxygen is inhaled. Carbon Dioxide is exhaled. Water is lost in breath, wee, poo, sweat & other bodily fluids.

As 81 molecules of Oxygen produce 54 molecules of Carbon Dioxide, the RER is 54/81 = 0.67

Note: The RER for fats is actually 0.7, as the Glycerol backbone is converted into Glucose by the liver. As the RER for  Glucose is 1, this raises the RER of my approximated fat by ~5%.

Converting molecular weights into their gram equivalents, 756g of approximated fat combines with 2,592g of Oxygen to produce 2,376g of Carbon Dioxide plus 972g of water plus ~28,468kJ of energy.

We lose weight by breathing, weeing, pooing, sweating etc. See also Majority of weight loss occurs 'via breathing'.

This doesn't invalidate Energy Balance, as the kcal/kJ values for foods merely represents the amount of chemical energy that can be released by oxidation of the various fuels in the foods. See Why Calories count (where weight change is concerned).

We gain weight by consuming fuels & water.

Variations in weight change for a given Calorie change - An Engineer's Perspective.

Another techie post, inspired by Insulin Doesn't Regulate Fat Mass. Consider the inverting amplifier using an Op-Amp, below:-

From HERE

As the amplifier is inverting (i.e. a ↑ input on V_in results in a ↓ output on V_out), the feedback from V_out via R₂ opposes V_in via R₁ at the - terminal of the Op-Amp.

If R1 = R2 and V_in changes from 0V to 1V, the change in V_- (the voltage on the - terminal of the Op-Amp) varies with A (the magnitude of the Op-Amp gain) as follows*:-

A_____________Change in V_-(V)
∞_____________0
1,000,000_____~0.000001
1,000_________~0.001
100___________~0.01
10____________~0.08
8_____________0.1
5_____________~0.14
3_____________0.2
2_____________0.25
1_____________~0.33
0_____________0.5

As the body operates on biochemical principles, slopes of input/output transfer functions aren't steep at their steepest points. E.g.

From http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/69.long

Therefore, the gains in the various parts of the Leptin "adipostat" NFB loop are not very high. Therefore, there will be a significant variation in weight change vs Calorie change, and there will be significant variations in the variation due to loop gain variations from person to person.

Insulin Resistance makes the slopes of  the above input/output transfer functions shallower, reducing the gain in the system. This increases the variation in weight change vs Calorie change. For ways to reduce Insulin Resistance, see Insulin Resistance: Solutions to problems.

*In case anyone thinks that I've made the numbers up, here's the maths:-
Current in/out of the - terminal of the Op-Amp = 0.
∴ I_R1 = I_R2
I set R1 = R2 to keep the maths simple. By Ohm's Law, V = I * R.
∴ V_R1 = V_R2
With a 0V input:-
All currents & voltages = 0.

With a 1V input:-
V_R1 = 1 - V_-
V_R2 = V_- - V_out.  As V_out is negative, - V_out is positive.
- V_out = A * V_-
∴ V_R2 = V_- + (A * V_-)
∴ 1 - V_- = V_- + (A * V_-)
Rearranging:-
1 = (2 * V_-) + (A * V_-)
Dividing both sides by V_-:-
(1/V_-) = 2 + A
∴ V_- = 1/(2 + A)

"Myths, Presumptions, and Facts about Obesity" is partly a myth.

Yoni Freedhoff has already blogged about this in The New England Journal's Obesity Mythbusting

It's a mythtery.

I don't have anything to say about Yoni Freedhoff's blog post on Myths, Presumptions, and Facts about Obesity, except for Myth 1.
"Small sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long-term weight changes."

This is misleading. One small sustained change (say, -100kcals/day) in energy balance results in one sustained change in weight of -10lbs. If no further changes are made, there are no further changes in weight. However...

If, after the result of the small sustained change has stabilised, another small sustained change (say, -100kcals/day) in energy balance is made, there's another sustained change in weight of -10lbs. And so on...

A series of small sustained changes in energy balance will produce large, long-term weight changes.

Little changes, big results.

The Facts of Life.

No, not those Facts of Life!

From http://www.clipartbest.com/stork-carrying-baby

It's becoming painfully obvious that there's a lot of ignorance about certain dietary "Facts of Life". This post will dispel the myths - backed up by evidence, where necessary.

1. Everyone is Different: This has been a recurring theme on my blog, starting in 2009 with the aptly-named Everyone is Different. What this means in practice, is that:-
a) You can't calculate your Energy Expenditure exactly, using one of those fancy equations (e.g. Harris-Benedict).
b) Weight change is proportional to caloric excess/deficit ± inter-personal variation.

2. CALORIES COUNT: If there's zero caloric surplus, there's zero weight gain. There can be water balance shifts due to glycogen shifts, hormonal shifts, electrolyte shifts etc. Somebody fitted a lovely straight line to the weight gain data in Bray et al shows that a calorie *is* a calorie (where weight is concerned), but their line didn't pass through 0,0. Duh!

3. Glycaemic Index (GI) has NOTHING to do with calories: A low-GI carbohydrate still has 4kcals/g. GI is a useful hint as to whether a carbohydrate may disturb blood glucose levels, but it isn't as useful as Glycaemic Load (GL = GI x grams of carbohydrate in the serving). Watermelon has a very high GI, but 100g of watermelon contains only ~5g of carbohydrates, so the GL is less than 5 i.e. watermelon is as safe as houses.

4. Exercise DOESN'T burn as many calories as you think: Exercise is for fitness, not weight loss (unless you're a professional sports-person, who can expend 1,000's of kcals a day in training).

5. Weight loss doesn't ALWAYS result in reduced Basal Metabolic Rate: Whether or not Basal Metabolic Rate reduces with weight loss depends on the degree of Adipocyte Hyperplasia that occurred during weight gain. Humongous weight gain, also weight gain in childhood, increases adipocyte hyperplasia, which is protective against developing T2DM, but makes the subsequent loss of significant amounts of FM more difficult.

6. For Muscle Hypertrophy, a STIMULUS is required: Eating too much food and/or swallowing loads of protein without hypertrophy training doesn't make muscles grow significantly bigger. See http://hillfit.com/. Chris Highcock knows what he's talking about.

7. Yo-yo dieting isn't ALWAYS a bad thing: Bodybuilders (BB'ers) do cycles of "cutting" and "bulking". Cutting is Fat Mass (FM) loss with minimal Lean Body Mass (LBM) loss. Bulking is LBM gain with minimal FM gain.

Non-BB'ers tend to get it the wrong way round. They go on crash diets with insufficient protein intake and lose loads of LBM (which increases weight loss, due to the lower Energy Density of LBM relative to FM). They then eat way too much, gaining weight way too rapidly for much (if any) of it to be LBM, even if they are doing hypertrophy training.

8. FM loss CAN be rapid: See The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook. A Scientific Approach to Crash Dieting.

9. LBM gain CANNOT be rapid: See What’s My Genetic Muscular Potential? to find out how much LBM you can gain and how quickly you can gain it.


Finally, see http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/. What Lyle McDonald doesn't know about fat loss, general nutrition, muscle mass gain and training fits on a postage stamp. He also explains things in language that the sort of person who reads my blog can understand. Just don't leave a comment asking him a question, that's already been answered elsewhere on his site!

Dry carbohydrates, wet carbohydrates & energy density.

Karen N Davids thought of it first!

From http://www.amazon.co.uk/Carbs-Weight-Manage-Nutritional-Carbohydrates-ebook/dp/B00DJF2GKU

Here's a list of commonly-eaten carbohydrates and their Energy Density, in kcals/100g. From http://nutritiondata.self.com/

Dry Carbohydrates:-
Bread, White_________________________________________________266
Bread, Multi-grain___________________________________________265
Bread, Rye___________________________________________________258
Bread, Pumpernickel__________________________________________250
Bread, Whole-wheat___________________________________________247
Bread, reduced-calorie, white________________________________207
Bread, reduced-calorie, wheat________________________________198

Wet Carbohydrates:-
Pasta, fresh-refrigerated, plain, cooked_____________________131
Rice, white, long-grain, regular, cooked_____________________130
Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked______________________________111
Peas, green, frozen, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt_______78
Beans, kidney, red, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, with salt__127
Lentils, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, with salt_____________114
Vegetables, mixed, frozen, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt_60
Broccoli, frozen, spears, cooked, boiled, drained, with salt__28
Sweet potato, cooked, baked in skin, with salt________________92
Potatoes, boiled, cooked in skin, flesh, with salt____________87
Grapes, red or green (European type), raw_____________________69
Cherries, sweet, raw__________________________________________63
Pears, raw [Includes USDA commodity food A435]________________58
Apples, raw, with skin________________________________________52


If a diet is high in carbohydrates:-
Which of the above foods are most likely to result in weight gain?
Which of the above foods are most likely to result in weight loss?
Answers on a postcard, please!

Ketogenic Diets and Sudden Cardiac Death.

Last night, thanks to comments on my previous post, I stumbled across The therapeutic implications of ketone bodies: the effects of ketone bodies in pathological conditions: ketosis, ketogenic diet, redox states, insulin resistance, and mitochondrial metabolism, then a Google search led me to Sudden Cardiac Death and Free Fatty Acids.

The following graph is Figure 1 from Lack of suppression of circulating free fatty acids and hypercholesterolemia during weight loss on a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet.

Nice Insulin, shame about the FFAs.

From the first link above:-
"Current ketogenic diets are all characterized by elevations of free fatty acids, which may lead to metabolic inefficiency by activation of the PPAR system and its associated uncoupling mitochondrial uncoupling proteins."

From the third link above:-
"Weight loss was similar between diets, but only the high-fat diet increased LDL-cholesterol concentrations. This effect was related to the lack of suppression of both fasting and 24-h FFAs."

See also Elevated plasma free fatty acids predict sudden cardiac death: a 6.85-year follow-up of 3315 patients after coronary angiography, and Circulating Nonesterified Fatty Acid Level as a Predictive Risk Factor for Sudden Death in the Population.

I think that's quite enough bad news for a Friday afternoon.


EDIT: So much for fat being a "clean-burning" fuel for the heart. Some people believe that, because dietary fats pass from the small intestine, via the Lacteals, to circulation at the Subclavian vein, this means that the heart prefers to burn fatty acids.

From Page 10 of HIGH CARBOHYDRATE DIETS: MALIGNED AND MISUNDERSTOOD:-

Did you know that Human erythrocytes (red blood cells) are loaded with cholesterol and that it can contribute towards atherosclerosis? See https://twitter.com/Drlipid/status/496625195738619904.

See also Evidence for a cholesteryl ester donor activity of LDL particles during alimentary lipemia in normolipidemic subjects. This is more evidence that very high fat meals are atherogenic, which is relevant to Ultra-high-fat (~80%) diets: The good, the bad and the ugly.

Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and energy efficiency in weight loss diets, by Richard D Feinman and Eugene J Fine.

From http://www.caloriegate.com/the-black-box/9-pictures-that-prove-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-that-calories-dont-count

From Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and energy efficiency in weight loss diets:-

"Conclusion
Emphasis on kinetics and nonequilibrium thermodynamics provides a conceptual framework for understanding the effect of macronutrient composition on maintenance and change of body mass and possibly for analysis of adipocyte metabolism in general. The simple model presented is intended to be consistent with a general shift away from equilibrium thermodynamics and towards a more dynamic analysis of cellular processes."

Sounds plausible. There's only one thing wrong with Feinman et al's article - it's completely wrong!

Consider two rooms:-

Room "A" has an adjustable heater. The heater is adjusted until the room temperature is 20°C.

Room "B" has a radiator, controlled by a wall-stat set to 20°C. The radiator is on, and the room is at 20°C.

We have two rooms of the same size, at the same temperature.

If you plug in & turn on a 2kW fan heater in each room, what happens to the temperature in each room?

Room "A" gets warmer, because there is 2kW more heat power entering it.

Room "B" stays at 20°C, because the wall-stat reduces the heat power from the radiator by 2kW.

The human body stays at 37°C ±~2°C, because there's a Negative Feed-Back loop adjusting the heat power produced, via UCP's, futile cycles, thyroid hormones, shivering and heat conservation/wasting behaviours.

∴ Variable heat power generation due to variable Dietary Efficiency doesn't change E_out.

EDIT: By request, here's Figure 1 from the above study.

This suggests that fat mass & therefore weight can increase indefinitely - at maintenance energy intake, due to the effect of insulin on HSL. This, of course, is quite impossible!

From The Energy Balance Equation:-

Change in Body Stores = E_in (corr for digestion) - E_out (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT)
__BMR/RMR & TEA ∝ weight
∴ ↑ weight → ↑ E_out
__If E_in = constant, ↑ E_out → ↓ (E_in - E_out) → ↓ weight
∴ ↑ weight → ↓ weight
∴ Figure 1 is wrong.

Dietary Carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management. Critical review and evidence base, by Richard D Feinman et al.

Another Bookmarking post.

From http://dgeneralist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-low-carb-high-fat-diet.html

The study in question is Dietary Carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management. Critical review and evidence base. Here are my comments on the 12 points.

Point 1 is wrong. For ~85% of people who have T2DM, hyper*emia is the salient feature, where * = glucose, TG's, cholesterol, NEFAs, uric acid etc. For ~85% of people who have T2DM, it's a disease of chronic excess.

Ad lib LCHF diet → ↓ Blood glucose & ↓ fasting TG's, but ↑ PP TG's, ↑ LDL-C, ↑ LDL-P & ↑ NEFAs. See Postprandial lipoprotein clearance in type 2 diabetes: fenofibrate effects.
↑ PP TG's is associated with ↑ RR of CHD.
↑ LDL-P is associated with ↑ RR of CHD.
↑ NEFAs are associated with ↑ RR of Sudden Cardiac Death.

Point 2: So?

Point 3 is wrong. A caloric deficit is essential, to reverse liver & pancreas ectopic fat accumulation. See Reversing type 2 diabetes, the lecture explaining T2D progression, and how to treat it.

Point 4 is misleading. Feinman doesn't distinguish between different types of carbohydrates. Starches, especially resistant starches (e.g. Amylose) are beneficial. See Point 11.

Point 5 is moot. Prof. Roy Taylor found that motivation determines adherence. Prof. Roy Taylor's PSMF was adhered to. See Point 3.

Point 6 is correct. Prof. Roy Taylor's PSMF is ~1g Protein/kg Bodyweight, some ω-6 & ω-3 EFAs & veggies for fibre. See Point 3.

Point 7 is misleading. Siri-Tarino et al gave a null result by including low fat studies, also a dairy fat study which had a RR < 1 for increasing intake. Chowdhury et al gave a null result, as some fats have a RR > 1 for increasing intake and some have a RR < 1 for increasing intake.

Point 8 is irrelevant. ↑ Dietary fat → ↑ 2-4 hour PP TG's. See Point 1.

Point 9 is partly correct. Microvascular, yes. Macrovascular, no. See Point 8.

Point 10 is mostly irrelevant. See Point 8.

Point 11 ignores results obtained with high-starch diets, where the starch contains a high proportion of Amylose. See Walter Kempner, MD – Founder of the Rice Diet and From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food.

Point 12 is misleading. The low-carbohydrate part is fine. It's the high-fat part that can cause problems. See Point 8.

Some thoughts on the essentiality of dietary carbohydrates.

I didn't know that there's a watch strap called Essentiality. I do, now.

From https://svpply.com/item/3229602/Swatch_Skin_Collection_Silver_Essentiality

This is a book-marking post for thoughts I had in https://www.facebook.com/TheFatEmperor/posts/1442430506020812.

"The human body does not need carbohydrates from an external food source, because it is capable of very precisely and correctly assembling its own amounts of glucose that is needed in very small amounts for auxiliary and specialized functions." - Igor Butorski.

1) It's not very precise. See http://nigeepoo.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/how-eating-sugar-starch-can-lower-your.html

2) It's not enough to fuel high-intensity exercise. See http://nigeepoo.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/funny-turns-what-they-arent-and-what.html

3) Using the above argument, the human body does not need saturated fats & monounsaturated fats from an external food source, because it is capable of very precisely and correctly assembling its own amounts of saturated fats & monounsaturated fats (out of carbohydrate) that are needed in very small amounts for auxiliary and specialized functions.

If we only consumed Essential Fatty Acids, Essential Amino Acids, Vitamins, Minerals, Fibre/Fiber, Water & Anutrients, there wouldn't be much to eat. Also, there wouldn't be a source of chemical energy to generate heat energy & mechanical energy. That's what dietary carbohydrates & fats are for.

Respiratory Exchange Ratio/Respiratory Quotient (RER/RQ) varies with carbohydrate & fat intake, as the body preferentially oxidises the fuel that's most readily available.

RER/RQ varies with Exercise Intensity.
Low-intensity exercise results in mostly fats being oxidised.
High-intensity exercise results in mostly carbohydrates being oxidised.
Medium-intensity exercise results in a mixture of fats & carbohydrates being oxidised.

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.