Tag Archives: empty calories

Paleotard, meet potatotard, Op. 132

(credit to Dylan and Woo, respectively, for introducing me to those terms)

Empty calories – the potato

While it has a decent amino acid profile, with only 3 grams of protein it’d take a diabetic amount of potatoes to fulfill your daily protein.  By “diabetic,” I mean about a thousand grams of starch.  potatoes are just as glycemic as white bread.

potato

Continue reading

Inflammatory, trans, or linoleate?

As much as I’d like to say this is the nail-in-the-coffin, omega-6 causes irreversible fatality, I have a confession.

I believe it’s the empty calories, not the inflammatory omega-6 devil linoleate.  Biscuits, cookies, processed foods of all shapes and sizes are simply the delivery vehicles for industrially modified and probably “trans” fats that started out innocent enough as soybean oil or omega-6 vegetable oils.

linoleate is the quintessential omega-6 fatty acid and is found at high levels in vegetable oils.  just like the omega-3 linolenate found in soybean oil, processing of the oils usually damages them – turns them into trans fats and/or oxidizes them (by “oxidizes” I don’t mean fat burning, see pictorial below)

So despite the impeccable statistical anvil thrown at these data, which seem to clearly implicate linoleate, I don’t think it’s the linoleate.  H E double hockey sticks, we probably don’t get enough normal unmodified linoleate.  Unless you’re cracking shells, even “raw” almonds are Pasteurized.  

unshelled nuts

don’t sanitize your food.  your meat needn’t be burned, nor your nuts Pasteurized.

Continue reading

diabulemia

This isn’t a “magic bullet,” it’s a buckshot aimed at a barn door.

Yes, I think sugar and empty calories, and the associated hyperinsulinemia are the bane of anyone with obesity or any sort of hyperplastic fat tissue disorder.  And yes, this is the worst type of evidence to support such a stance, but when you’ve got lemons, well…

Make no mistake, diabulemia may as well be spelled DIE-abulemia.  It’s not a laughing matter.  But yeah, well, lemonade, etc.  So here it goes

Diabulemia

Type I diabetics have low insulin and are lean; type II diabetics have high insulin and are not.  Insulin injections in either population promotes hyperplastic fat growth.  Sounds scary, right?  It is:

insulin

This poor soul unfortunately restricted his insulin injections to only two sites.  Make all the jokes you want, but the effect is obvious…  this is happening everywhere in hyperinsulinemic heavyweights (not just two specific sites).

CHO III Picture 279

 So what do Type I’s do when they want to lose some fat mass?  Stop jabbing themselves with insulin. Unfortunately, it’s really that simple.  Type II’s and anyone with excess or hyperplastic fat tissue can do the same with low carb or keto, although this would be a great benefit to their overall health.  But for Type I’s… not so much – they need insulin to prevent the horrific manifestations of ketoacidosis, which includes but is not limited to: death.

Type I’s are hyperglycemic because of low insulin; insulin therapy prevents diabetic ketoacidosis, a deadly condition.  But for those who simply choose to selectively reduce their insulin dosage, they: 1) don’t die; 2) lose fat; and 3) get hyperglycemic and incur all the damage that ensues (retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy).  Furthermore, they’re walking on thin ice – DKA is lurking.  It is just as stupid yet more dangerous than using tapeworms to lose weight.

tape-worms

Type II’s are hyperglycemic because of insulin resistance; a condition that is pathologically neutered via carbohydrate restriction.  Type I’s who reduce insulin injections to decrease fat mass are doing just as much damage as Type II’s who DON’T reduce carbohydrate intake.


Diabulemia is akin to an eating disorder.  Biologically, the lack of insulin allows fat to be released from adipose tissue with gravitas, and it prevents glucose from being stored in any meaningful capacity.  You’re literally pissing calories here, burning ’em like crazy there; all of which is a helluva lot easier than “eating less moving more” … which is why diabulemics do it (because they have the option [unlike the rest of us]).  Diabulemia is good from a fat loss perspective, but will most definitely contribute to severe and possibly deadly complications down the line.   Carbohydrate restriction, however, is a win-win-win… (for everyone except The Man, so perhaps it’s a win-win-win… fail)

This isn’t a “magic bullet,” it’s a buckshot aimed at a barn door.


Humans aren’t big rats, but here it is again, anyway:

Leptin deficiency causes insulin resistance induced by uncontrolled diabetes (German et al., 2010)

I’m ignoring the brunt of this paper and only focusing on the positive control groups.  [Positive controls… meaning they were included because they would definitely exhibit the expected response.]

Force rats into a state of diabulemia, and their insulin levels plummet, blood glucose soars, and they become ravenously hungry (open squares in the graphs below).German I

But lo and behold, fat mass atrophy ->German II

Eat less move more?  Well, they certainly didn’t “eat less…” (see above) … and:German III

nor were they “moving more.”  Low insulin seems to have a way to bypass that whole “eat less move more” thing (eg, Metabolic rate per se).

 

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater works if the baby is fat and the bathwater is insulin.  (no, not a fat baby.)

 

calories proper

 

 

Biohacking holiday weight gain

What should you eat before the big feast?  (hint: eggs.)  And don’t try to compensate in advance by eating less, this will only make you hungrier.  Furthermore, foods in your regular diet are probably healthier than holiday fare, so you definitely don’t want to eat fewer healthy foods to make room for empty calories.

Tip 1. 

Variation in the effects of three different breakfast meals on subjective satiety and subsequent intake of energy at lunch and evening meal (Fallaize et al., 2012)

Participants were served only one of these for breakfast:

And given unlimited amounts of these for lunch and dinner:

Continue reading

The faux-low carb mouse and a diatribe

The faux-low carb mouse

Hyperinsulinemia drives diet-induced obesity blah blah blah (Mehran et al., 2012)

The researchers generated a mouse with half as much insulin as normal mice.  Physiological insulin levels remain intact, but hyperinsulinemia is genetically inhibited.  For the sake of simplicity, we’ll call them “InsKO.”

When fed a high fat diet, normal mice become markedly hyperinsulinemic (pink line) whereas InsKO mice maintain relatively normal insulin levels (red line).  Blue lines are chow-fed mice; similar trend but less interesting.

divide and conquer

InsKO mice don’t get fat,

Continue reading

“An adult conversation” about the Look AHEAD study

Extra! Extra!    Read all about it!  (after you sign up for the new EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS on the right)

Moderate weight loss alone doesn’t lower heart disease risk in diabetics, study shows
Diabetes study ends early with a surprising result
NIH trial of lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes stopped for futility after 11 years

Notice none of the headlines read “Low fat diet is not heart-healthy for diabetics,” but that’s exactly what the latest epic fail demonstrated.  Reminiscent of the Women’s Health Initiative (circa 2006), the Look Ahead study tested a long-term low fat diet in diabetics.  If a protective effect had been shown, this study would’ve gone done in the history books as definitive proof that a low fat diet is superior.  But it wasn’t, and unfortunately that probably won’t count as anything for the opposition.  In brief, the planned 14 year study was stopped after 11.5 years because cardiovascular events weren’t lowered by the low fat diet (and might even have been increased; the manuscript hasn’t been published [yet?]).

The Women’s Health Initiative, which cost taxpayers something in the ballpark of $625,000,000 (six hundred twenty five million dollars > a half billion), showed that reducing dietary fat by 8 percentage points (from 37.8% to 28.8%; a 23.8% reduction) for 8 years had no effect on heart health and was even detrimental for people with CVD at baseline.  I repeat: CVD patients assigned to the low fat dietary intervention experienced more cardiovascular events than those in the control group (you heard it here first).  But for some reason, the Look AHEAD researchers thought they might get a different result if they tried this in diabetics?  A low fat high carb diet in patients with bona fide carbohydrate intolerance?  really?

REALLY?

Continue reading

The Laws of Energy Balance FTW!

Weight loss maintenance is not determined by calorie intake… or physical activity… but by The Laws of Energy Balance FTW!!!

Odd, the sensation I felt when reading this news release (gloating?).  As reported at a meeting of the Obesity Society, results from the Utah Obesity Study of gastric bypass patients 2 and 6 years after surgery.  By the 2 year mark, they lost over 100 pounds, or 36% of their starting weight (went from 296 to 189 pounds).  Energy expenditure declined from 2201 to 1736 kcal/day.  Food intake went from 2085 to 1638 kcal/day.  (Hint: it’s no coincidence that energy expenditure and food intake declined to the exact same degree.)  Physical activity and fitness levels increased.

By the 6 year mark, they still weighed 29% less than their starting weight.  N.B. that’s an amazing level of success, it’s virtually unheard of in diet intervention studies.  +1 for gastric bypass; -1 for nutrition.

Here’s what piqued my interest: during the gradual increase from 189 pounds to 210 pounds, which occurred between years 2 and 6 post-surgery, the most significant factor associated with weight regain was not calorie intake or physical activity… it was metabolic rate.  This represents another fail for “eat less move more,” and a win for the Laws of Energy Balance.

So what’s this got to do with The poor, misunderstood calorie?

what we know about metabolic rate:

1)      It’s invisible.

2)      Fructose vs. The Laws of Energy Balance (circa December, 2011): sugar-sweetened beverages can cause fat gain, not by providing excess calories, but by reducing metabolic rate.

3)      Holiday feasts, the freshman 15, and damage control (circa January 2012): overeating a high protein diet causes less fat gain than overeating anything else because it increases metabolic rate.

4)      Missing: 300 kilocalories (circa July 2012):  after losing weight, subjects assigned to the low carb diet maintained a higher metabolic rate than those on an isocaloric low fat diet.

“Eat less move more” is not the answer.  But eating less sugar, more protein, and fewer carbs might be.  Nutrition matters.

calories proper

Protein bar takedown, part III (or V)

No more pretense or cute backstory; I just like reviewing ingredient profiles of protein bars.  It’s a hobby of mine:
Candy in disguise, Op. 73 (circa April 2012)
Decepticon Promicor (soluble corn fiber), Op. 81 (June 2012)
Candy in disguise II, Op. 87 (July 2012)
Protein bar round-up, take II (September 2012)

See?

This is a review of Netrition’s “highest rated” bars.  Important notes about this category: these are not necessarily “new” protein bars, or even the bars everyone buy (“best sellers”).  They are the bars everyone who votes like the most.  They’re not the healthiest either… but some come close.   Continue reading

Corn. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Utterly.  Shocked.  is how I feel gazing upon the ingredients listed on one particular popular snack food.  And it isn’t one of those fancy gourmet all-natural whole food snacks, it is a classic that is probably in the kitchen of every child-wielding household.

Corn, corn oil, and salt.  And salt doesn’t even count, so it might just as well have said corn and corn oil, which could be summarized as “corn.”  Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the reigning champion of snack food sorcery, the red-headed stepchild (no offense) of international superpower PepsiCo… Fritos.  Using only corn, the wizards of Frito-Lay are turning this:into this:

and that’s without the use of trans fat, gluten, artificial additives, dairy, msg, onions, or soy.  They’re Kosher too.

Continue reading

These nutters ate only meat for a year. Place your bets!

Who defines “moderation,” anyway?  An homage to pioneering nutrition research III, Op. 100.  Keep an open mind!  (and remember these words: “no clinical evidence of vitamin deficiency was noted.”)

MY LIFE WITH THE ESKIMO (Stefansson, 1913)

The effects on human beings of a twelve months’ exclusive meat diet (Lieb, 1929)

Prolonged meat diets with a study of kidney function and ketosis (McClellan and Du Bois, 1930)

Vilhjalmur Stefansson traveled with Eskimos in the Arctic for 9 years and lived almost exclusively on meat.  Then he and a fellow expeditioner (Andersen) decided to recapitulate this in a well-controlled, albeit warmer (New York), laboratory setting so they could document the metabolic insanity that ensued. At the time, the Eskimo diet was moderate protein, very high fat, yet they had no heart or kidney problems, were glucose tolerant, and exhibited no signs of ketoacidosis.  So the scientists said: “why not?”  (they were really hoping this apparent healthiness wasn’t due to the frigid Arctic temperatures.)

The studies describe the Central Plains’ Indians who subsisted almost entirely of buffalo meat, which they called the “staff of life,” and South American tribes which eat solely beef and water, then go on to say [sic]: “All of these races are noted for their endurance of exertion and hardships.”  They cite two tribes of Eskimos:  Greenlanders, who ate the typical diet (described above) and showed no signs of rickets or scurvey; and the Labradors, who had both diseases but ate more potatoes, flour, and cereals.  While traversing the Arctic, Andersen developed scurvy at a time when he was eating canned foods and very little meat; this was immediately cured by with raw meat :/

Food for thought: this diet is seriously deficient in vitamin C by today’s standards, but they exhibited NO symptoms.  Perhaps vitamin requirements vary based on the background diet?  Maybe our vitamin C requirement is increased by a Western diet (>50% carbs and lots of vegetable oils).  just sayin’

Continue reading