Tag Archives: fat

Exenatide and tapeworms, Op. 116

The great Dr. Schoeller can polish a turd like no other.  Dale Schoeller’s claim to fame is his extensive work on one of the best ways to measure total energy expenditure in free-living individuals: doubly-labeled water.  In doubly-labeled water, subjects drink stable isotope-labeled water; instead of hydrogen + oxygen = H20, the stable isotope-labeled water is deuterium + oxygen-18 = D218O.  Deuterium is excreted just like hydrogen, in water as urine & sweat.  Oxygen-18 is excreted just like oxygen, in water and carbon dioxide.  So the subjects lose deuterium & oxygen-18 in water at equal rates, but only oxygen-18 in carbon dioxide; so this technique basically measures carbon dioxide production, which is proportional to energy expenditure.  Clever. 

Being that Schoeller practically invented the technique, his interpretation of these total energy expenditure data are not flawed, but that’s not where he went astray.

Alterations in energy balance following exenatide administration (Bradley et al., 2012)

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

Metabolic rate per se

I’m switching to a new email sign-up service and have no idea how to transfer my current list of subscribers.  If you’d like to continue receiving updates, please sign-up again on the right.

Admittedly, the effect of diet on metabolic rate is small (i.e. statistically non-significant in most cases), but its incredible consistency across space and time suggest it could be true.  And given the difficulty of maintaining a reduced body weight after dieting, it might even be important.  The following studies are examples of widely differing subject populations in various metabolic conditions; yet the effects of diet on metabolic rate exhibit a phenomenal degree of similarity.

disclaimer: I don’t know what’s more important – metabolic rate per se, the diet behind it, or the resulting hormonal adaptations.  All of the diets that are associated with a higher metabolic rate are also predicted to result in lower insulin levels and higher fat oxidation.  Thus, we are left with a triumvirate of diet, hormonal milieu, and energy expenditure… all of which are important for body composition and quality of life.

Continue reading

[ketogenic] elite artistic gymnasts

Before you say anything, “elite artistic gymnasts” could probably beat you in a race running backwards.  (with you running forwards.)  They are elite athletes.  And given a sufficient keto-adaptation period, they perform better sans carbs.

Ketogenic diet does not affect strength performance in elite artistic gymnasts  (Paoli et al., 2012)

This study looked at body composition and various performance measures before and after 30 days of a very low carbohydrate ketogenic diet (“VLCKD,” < 25 grams of carbohydrate per day) or a normal diet (“WD,” > 250 grams of carbs per day).  25 grams of carbs is very very low, less than Atkins and Kwasniewski.  On the other hand, 41% protein is pretty high.

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

BPA

Though they won’t kill you [instantly], environmental and dietary xenoestrogens warrant a bit of attention, especially considering their theoretical mechanism of action is, among other things, augmenting insulin secretion.  This is of particular importance given the growing body of evidence of a causal role for insulin hypersecretion in the obesity epidemic (see Barbara Corkey’s 2011 Banting Lecture for an overview).

And this is the SECOND time this year BPA has made headlines.

BPA. Looks like some kind of medieval weapon or something.

Continue reading

Soda vs. childhood obesity

What happens if you give skinny kids a can of fully sugared regular soda to drink every day for a year?

What happens if you take the soda away from overweight kids for a year?

The answer to these two questions should be a definitive user’s guide to the question: how bad is soda for my children?   And we got those answers this week.

 

A set of powerful studies were recently published, the likes of which I thought we’d never see.  It’s unethical to assign anyone to start smoking so we can properly study the effects of cigarettes; and before today, I would’ve thought it unethical to assign young children to start drinking fully sugared regular soda.  And not just one or two cans…  over 350.  For the 4 year olds the first study, by the end of the trial they had been on soda for almost a third of their life… during a critical period of development.  Ethics schmethics.  Hopefully this study will never be repeated.

Continue reading

Why diets fail, Op. 106

Correction: diets don’t fail, dieters do.  And don’t take that the wrong way; adhering to a restrictive diet is one of the most difficult tasks for ANYone; thus, the obesity epidemic.  Some recent insights into diet-induced weight loss success, or lack thereof, have shed a new light on why some dieters adhere and others don’t.

In Insulin resistance, I discussed how insulin sensitivity may influence how well someone responds to a diet.  In brief, insulin resistant obese people do much better on low carb than low fat in a closely controlled clinical setting.  If you’re one of the lucky few insulin sensitive obese people, then simply reducing calories works.  Unfortunately, however, most obese are insulin resistant.

When it comes to devising a weight loss strategy, I’m willing to cut every corner and use every trick in the book to achieve success.  Data in this new analysis came from Chris Gardner’s notorious A to Z study, where patients were given diet books and told to have at it.  It was the weakest intervention in the history of diet studies, but it is exactly what everyone who wants to lose weight does.  And just like in Gardner’s study, most people fail.

Continue reading

Insulin resistance

Why it is important and what you can do about it, Op. 105

 

This post was largely inspired by a recent manuscript by Chris Gardner.  He’s an outside-the-box thinker and if you haven’t heard of him, check out this YouTube video: The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

Part I.  

Type II diabetes is the clinical manifestation of insulin resistance.  It is preceded by obesity (except in the cases of MONW & NOD), and caused by poor nutrition.  Markers of insulin resistance are: 1) impaired fasting glucose; 2) impaired glucose tolerance; and 3) elevated HbA1c.  THIS is why it is important: in 2009, Barr and colleagues showed a linear relationship between all three of these risk factors and all-cause mortality in the AusDiab study.  All.  Cause.  Mortality.

Continue reading

A historical argument against caloric equality

80 years later, a calorie still isn’t a calorie.

Exhibit A.

The treatment of obesity   (Lyon and Dunlop, 1932)

As early as 1932, Lyon and Dunlop recognized that the calories from as little as one slice of bread every day could result in pounds of fat mass gained every year.  For whatever reason, this doesn’t happen to lean people; so they decided to study the effect of different diets on obese subjects in a metabolic ward at the Royal Infirmary.

Their idea of a “diet:” If they could only see how much times have changed!  (this is a hotly debated topic.)

Lyon and Dunlop first tested weight loss vs. total calorie intake.  The diet was roughly 40% carbs, 24% protein, and 36% fat.  Not surprisingly, people fed 800 kcal/d lost more weight than those given 1,000 or 1,200 kcal/d (200 vs. 172 vs. 157 grams of body weight lost per day over the period of 7 – 10 days), confirming that the less you eat, the more weight you lose (duh).  A calorie is a calorie after all, right? …

Continue reading