It has to do with the duration of time spent being sedentary.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but luckily enough today you get both.
Sarcopenia: “poverty of flesh,” or the age-induced loss of skeletal muscle mass, strength, and function = reduced quality of life. Sorry old-timers, but I hereby officially revise the definition from “aging-induced” to “sedentary-induced.” Herein, I present evidence that sarcopenia is not a phenomenon of aging per se, but rather of disuse atrophy. Dear Webster’s & Britannica, please revise accordingly.
This study evaluated “high-level recreational athletes.” “Masters” just means they were over 40. And “high-level” doesn’t mean “elite,” it just means they exercised 4-5 times per week. These weren’t super-obsessed gym rats… it’s probably who I’ll be in 7 years [sigh].
The regulation of energy balance is a long-term process, and it can’t be maintained by counting calories on a day-to-day basis. Taubes once wrote that exercise doesn’t cause weight loss because it builds up an appetite, so you end up sucking down a Starbuck’s Jumbo Calorie Bomb on the way home from doing Yoga at the gym. This is probably somewhat true, but this little gem from 1955 exposes some very interesting nuances.
These researchers rigorously measured food intake and did a comprehensive assessment of energy expenditure during a wide variety of activities – lying down, standing, walking, gun cleaning, stair climbing, dressing, etc., etc.
Divide and conquer
The individual differences: big people expend more energy on life. most of the time.
It’s law in some places. It’s a burden on restaurants. And it will do nothing for the cause – like trying to put out a candle by pressing the off button on your remote control. In other words, a waste.
Here’s some of the “science” behind it.
Exhibit A. In a study by Dumanovsky, fast-food customers were surveyed prior to and after mandatory calorie labeling in New York. 25% of the people reported “seeing calorie information,” and 10% of them said it affected their buying decision (ie, 2.5% of all fast-food consumers surveyed thought they knew enough about “calories” to be scared of them). After the law went into effect, 64% of people noticed the calorie information, and 20% of them were affected by it (=12.8% of all fast-food consumers thought they knew enough about “calories” to be scared of them). Sooo, the proportion of people making misinformed decisions quintupled. Calorie Labeling = Nutrition Disinformation. It’s misleading, and usually wrong.
The day you’ve all been waiting for has finally arrived. Results from the Look AHEAD study have been published. When I first wrote about this study (HERE), it had been prematurely halted because the intervention was providing no benefits. Everybody was in a state of shock and awe because Low Fat didn’t save lives. But that was before we even had the data.
Reminder: the “intensive lifestyle intervention” consisted of a Low Fat Diet & exercise. The results? Yes, they lost more weight than control, but they also took more Orlistat (of which I’m not a fan, see HERE for why):
Their normal diets were not healthy, but neither was low fat –>
Medication use increased drastically in both groups. The pundits have gone wild because medication use was lower in the intensive Low Fat group at the end of the study, but this is Nutrition Disinformation 2.0. Eerily reminiscent of the recent Mediterranean Diet study, the conclusions are the same: keep eating poorly and the need for medications will increase. You can call it a lot of things, but not “healthy.” The alternative –> How to define a “healthy” diet. Period.
Significant adverse events:
The only thing to reach statistical significance was more fractures in the intensive Low Fat group, but you didn’t read any headlines that said “Low Fat breaks bones.” Imagine if that happened on low carb [sigh] The next closest thing to statistical significance was increased amputations in the intensive Low Fat group :/
gem:
Translation: if you were healthy at baseline, then you could tolerate a low fat diet. Otherwise, not so much. This is exactly what happened in the Women’s Health Initiative.
needless to say, none of the “possible explanations” they considered were Low fat diet Fail.
Some people think Westside makes some of the strongest athletes in the world because unlike most other training regimes, they are constantly lifting very heavy weight. Other protocols restrict heavy lifting to certain times of the year, in-season / off-season, etc. At Westside, you’re going heavy on an exercise that changes very frequently (every 1 – 3 weeks). And it’s this latter point that provides the basis for why other people think Westside works. By constantly changing which exercise is lifted at maximal intensity, the body never fully adapts, or gets into a rut – this is part of Westside’s ‘Conjugate Method.’
The principle is embraced by Crossfit, as per their random workouts-of-the-day, and also follows a tangent of the Hormesis theory: small doses of individual exercises, eg, conventional deadlifts one week, good mornings the next, sumo deads the next week, and so on and so forth – will improve your squats; the body never knows what’s coming (even though you might have planned it weeks in advance, or at least planned to check The WOD Shop). Also discussed albeit briefly, in Taleb’s Antifragile, wherein being prepared for “random” shocks seem to benefit the system as a whole, or make it stronger. Sedentary makes you fragile, weak, and soft; exercise makes you robust; Westside is Antifragile.
Lots of metabolism talk below, but first a brief intro. My “muse,” if you will.
Taubes’ recent article in the BMJ (Taubes, 2013; full text) generated some interesting feedback.
In the original article, Taubes basically re-states his philosophy on obesity. Nothing new. But one rebuttal by Cottrell got under my skin (Cottrell, 2013), and Taubes’ response was woefully inadequate.
Cottrell [sic]: “A third incorrect assertion is that obesity can be attributed to the conversion of carbohydrate to fat. This is an unsatisfactory explanation of obesity, because this route is a minor pathway to depot fat in humans, even under conditions of substantial overfeeding of sugars to obese subjects. An unproved assumption is that the hypothetical diversion of carbohydrate energy into fat storage leaves the subject hungry, thus stimulating overeating.”
Cottrell set up a straw man and handily took it down. The primary mechanism whereby excess carbs contribute to obesity is via insulin’s effects on adipose tissue. Even if you’re eating very little fat, insulin will cause it to get stored. Insulin is very good at this – it is actually far more potent at stimulating fat storage than it is at stimulating glucose uptake (eg, Insulin vs. fat metabolism FTW). Cottrell’s straw man is that excess carbs themselves are stored as fat. This does not occur to any appreciable extent in humans. Here is why I believe that to be true, from one of most insightful and informative studies on the topic IMHO.
MCTs provide a respectable boost in diet-induced thermogenesis (in some studies [eg, Kasai 2002 & Clegg 2012], but not others [Alexandrou 2007]), but I don’t think that’s what does it.
The alternative? MCTs aren’t “linoleate.” (sorry for lack of suspense)
Further, feed rats a diet rich in either coconut oil, olive oil, safflower oil, evening primrose oil, or menhaden oil… and eventually the fat stored in their bodies reflect those fats – eg, linoleate only accumulated in the tissues of those fed safflower & evening primrose oils (Yaqoob 1995) (expect similar results with soybean & corn oils).
Researchers constantly refer to MCTs & coconut oil as “saturated fats,” but I always thought the chain length should be recognized. Perhaps. But with regard to certain benefits (eg, hepatoprotection), perhaps not.
Cacao butter has a lot of stearate (a fully saturated 18-carbon fatty acid) but not much linoleate or MCTs. This linoleate may very well be more of a detriment than stearate or MCTs are a benefit… (with regard to certain benefits [eg, hepatoprotection])
Once thought to be the holy grail of energy expenditure manipulators and a potential cure for obesity – fail. I don’t have great evidence for this; it’s really just a hunch.
A new mouse study has provided some additional fodder for speculation, however.
In a slurry of publications in 2009, researchers re-ignited the quest by showing cold-induced BAT activation in healthy humans (Virtanen et al., 2009):
As previously discussed, DRINK was a randomized intervention study that gave children either regular or diet soda for a year and surprise surprise, the regular soda drinkers gained about more body fat than the diet soda drinkers (de Ruyter et al., 2012). And in the follow-up, with an opposite study design, overweight & obese children who continued to drink regular soda gained twice as much weight as those who cut their intake (Ebbeling et al., 2012). There was no apparent black box in the latter study as the kids who stopped drinking soda also decreased their intake of other foods…
-does not compute-
wait a minute … By switching from regular soda to diet, you just end up compensating by eating more of something else, right? My initial response to that has always been that it doesn’t matter – ANYTHING else is better than a straight shot of 100% HFCS (+ some other chemicals). But those kids didn’t do that. they ate less of other foods.
Does HFCS soda make you eat more?
A recent study has put a little more fuel on this fire. Similar to the abovementioned two, it’s not a sophisticated study designed to accurately assess the impact of regular soda on appetite, satiety, hunger, etc., but it supports the theory that diet soda negative calories are NOT compensated for by eating more of something else.
It was another big cross-sectional NHANES study that simply asked how much regular soda, diet soda, and other foods kids were eating.
They showed that as soda intake increased, so did total calories, which could simply mean the soda was adding calories to their diets. This would indirectly support the opposite of the above mentioned theory, namely, that soda calories aren’t compensated for. But it gets better (or worse, depending how you look at it):
soda didn’t simply add to the total calorie intake. More often than not, calorie intake increased above and beyond that contributed by the soda. And it wasn’t just that bigger kids were drinking more soda and eating more food – these data were controlled for body weight. The authors estimated that for every 100 kcal of soda drank, an additional 36 – 86 kcal of food was eaten.
salt makes you thirsty, and now soda makes you hungry?
Take a group of obese people (> 250 lbs) and put them on a massive calorie restricted diet. They lose weight and metabolic rate plummets. Weight loss fail? In most cases, yes. But a recent study showed that the decrepit post-weight loss metabolic rate gradually improves in parallel with an increase in dietary fat ingestion to such a degree that even after two long years: totally food intake was almost back to normal, energy expenditure improved, and all this happened despite continual weight loss. In other words, obesity is not permanent.
Statistically speaking, no diet on Earth comes close to RYGB in terms of weight loss success. Long term. Seemingly permanent. It’s the closest thing to a cure we’ve got.
Body weight is down by 30%, and energy expenditure is rising faster than a speeding bullet. because food intake is increasing while body weight is dropping – they’re probably more active too ** weight loss than more exercise –
But there’s a more mystical aspect to RYGB that warrants attention. (it could be the increasing fat intake, but for now let’s just say it’s RYGB per se). According to this pearl, weight loss of only 10% via diet alone causes energy expenditure crash by 394-500 kcal/d, and physiological replacement of leptin via subcutaneous injection can increase this by 234-454 kcal/d (Rosenbaum, Murphy, Heymsfield, Matthews, and Leibel, 2002).