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.
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.
My official statement: protein bars are not superior to high protein foods like steak or eggs; they’re just incredibly convenient. For exercisers, it is much easier to snack on a protein bar than a Tupperware bowl full of chicken (on your way TO the gym, that is). They shouldn’t be relied upon for providing substantial nutrition because, well, they don’t.
That said, while perusing the various categories of protein bars at Bodybuilding.com, I found some big differences between the “best sellers,” “newest,” and “highest rated.” So which should you buy: what everyone else is buying (best sellers)? the new kids on the block (newest)? or the favorite (highest rated)?
You wanna burn fat? ATGL (Adipocyte Triacylglycerol Lipase) is your man. ATGL is responsible for breaking down fat, a necessary precondition for fat burning. Mice lacking ATGL accumulate tons of fat: 20x more in the heart, 10x more in testis, 3x more in skeletal muscles, 2x more in the GI tract, etc., etc. Not surprisingly, they’re overweight.
Part 1. The importance of the ability to un-store fat: appetite, body composition, and insulin.
Figuring out how best to eat, physiological insulin resistance, and an homage to pioneering nutrition research.
Insulin resistance, as we know it today, is associated with poor nutrition, obesity, and the metabolic syndrome. But it’s FAR more interesting than that. Indeed, it could even save your life. At the time when the pioneering studies discussed below were occurring, the researchers had no idea insulin resistance was going to become one of the most important health maladies over the course of the following century. Furthermore, these somewhat-primitive studies also shed some light, possibly, on how weshould be eating. hint: it might all come down to physiological insulin resistance.
Rats were fed either a normal starch-based diet (low fat), or a high butter diet (low carb) for one month, then fasted overnight and injected with a whopping dose of insulin (4 U/kg). First, take a guess, what do you think happened and why. Then, click on the table below.
To make a long story short, all the starch-fed rats died while all the butter-fed rats lived.
On a high-fat zero-carb diet, plasma insulin levels are low. Insulin is low because there no carbs (i.e., it’s supposed to be low). Under conditions of low insulin, unrestrained adipose tissue lipolysis leads to a mass exodus of fatty acids from adipose tissue. These fatty acids accumulate in skeletal muscle and liver rendering these tissues insulin resistant. But this doesn’t matter, because insulin sensitivity is unnecessary when there aren’t any carbs around. So if that rogue research scientist who’s always trying to jab you with a syringe filled with insulin actually succeeds, you won’t die. The high-fat diet prevents insulin-induced hypoglycemic death. This is physiological and absolutely critical insulin resistance.
To determine if this was specific to dairy (butter) or a general effect of a high fat zero carb diet, Bainbridge repeated the experiments with lard. Lo-and-behold, lard-fed rats were just as fine as those dining on butter.
To be sure, these studies exhibited a high degree of animal cruelty… but their simplicity is laudable. And Bainbridge’s findings are not an isolated case.
Instead of starch, lard, and butter, Hynd and Rotter used milk and bread, cheese, and casein. And their findings were essentially identical to Bainbridge’s: mice, rats, or rabbits fed carbohydrate-free diets were insulin resistant and protected against insulin-induced tragedies.
The interesting finding was in kittens, who sadly maintained insulin sensitivity when fed fish (high protein) or cream (high fat).
You’re probably thinking: why would I say any state of heightened insulin sensitivity is “sad?” WELL, I say “sad” because we’re talking about physiological insulin resistance; a condition when resistance to the hypoglycemic effect of insulin is essential, and lack thereof is incompatible with survival. To be clear: 1) kittens remain insulin sensitive on high fat and protein diets; and 2) this is OK because there aren’t any rogue research scientists running around trying to jab them with insulin. While I can’t say for sure, this might have something to do with what kittens are supposed to eat, i.e., their natural diet. High protein and fat diets won’t make them insulin resistant because unlike rodents, that is their normal diet. (real mice eat fruits and seeds; laboratory mice eat pelleted rodent chow; cartoon mice eat cheese.) Lard causes ectopic lipid deposition in insulin sensitive tissues in rodents because they aren’t accustomed to it. Mice are optimized to eat a high carb diet. Kittens eat protein and fat, usually in the form of mice. But when given bread, kittens develop insulin resistance. There is no bread in mice.
While we shouldn’t base our diet around the possibility of turning a corner and being jabbed with a syringe filled with insulin, perhaps we are simply more similar to kittens. Hypercaloric diets loaded with sugar, excess carbohydrates, and empty calories cause [pathological] insulin resistance (which could theoretically save your life if a rogue research scientist jabbed you with insulin), whereas the opposite is true for diets high in fat and protein. This is repeatedly demonstrated in diet intervention studies, most recently in the notorious Ebbeling study (Missing: 300 kilocalories). When people were assigned to the very low carbohydrate diet, insulin sensitivity was significantly higher than when they were on low fat diets:Soapbox rant: I’m not saying low carb is what we are supposed to eat. Nor am I saying it is the optimal diet. IMHO any diet which excludes processed junk food and empty calories is “healthy.” The Paleo diet isn’t healthy because some nutritionista says it’s what we are supposed to eat; Paleo is healthy for the same reason as Atkins, Zone, South Beach, and a million others: no junk food.
Maybe the diet we’re supposed to eat has nothing to do with the healthiest diet. Maybe not. But it probably isn’t bad for you. just sayin’
It takes more sugar in the form of “date paste” (Cranberry Almond, 19 g sugar) to compensate for the lack of “invert evaporated cane juice” (Peanut Crunch, 14 g sugar) or “invert dried cane syrup” (Toasted Coconut, 16 g sugar). Invert sugar is basically table sugar (sucrose) that has been broken down into glucose & fructose. 1) It’s sweeter, which is why you need less of it; and 2) it’s essentially identical to high fructose corn syrup = used in everything from candy and crackers to cigarettes and soda. Not good.
Pro’s: less sugar and more fiber than ZonePerfect’s Perfectly Simple.
These bars rely on the sweetener brown rice syrup which is primarily glucose (significantly less fructose than invert sugar), but it’s complimented with agave (significantly more fructose than invert sugar)… end result? Organic high fructose corn syrup (a polished turd).
High protein, moderate sugar, and preservative-free.
These bars are sweetened with honey, brown rice syrup, invert sugar, and a little coconut sugar. These bars have more protein and less sugar than both Perfectly Simple and ActiveX.
Last but not least, my personal favorite in the “coolness” department: Chapul.
Pro #1: they owned it! “sugar” actually appears in the list of ingredients.
Pro #2: while it’s only 6 grams of protein, you’ll never guess where it comes from… crickets! Yes crickets. Baked, then ground into a fine powder.
Con: the most sugar and least protein of all.
To put this all into perspective: relative to the nutritional profile of Quest protein bars, these noobs pale in comparison.
The average western diet contains about 50 grams of fructose from a variety of sources ranging from beneficial fibrous fruits to the more insidious sugar-sweetened beverages, soda and juice. 50 grams of fructose. 2 1/2 cans of Coca-Cola.
50 grams x 4 kcal/g = 200 kcal
200 kcal / 2,000 kcal = 10%
10% of your calories are provided by fructose
Even the very high end of fructose intake rarely exceeds ~85 grams, which is still < 20%. My point? This is nowhere near the 60% used in mouse diet studies. Disclaimer: I think fructose causes leptin resistance because of data from such studies.60% fructose is the fructose that causes leptin resistance and increased susceptibility to obesity. What does this say about “normal” levels of fructose intake? Toxic doses cause leptin resistance and obesity susceptibility in mice, well, because they’re toxic, and fructose toxicity just so happens to manifest like that (in mice). 60% is toxic. 15 cans of Coca-Cola per day (depending on who’s counting); but is it relevant?
39 grams of sugar, roughly half of which is fructose
In mouse studies, toxic doses are used for practical reasons- it’s cheap. The animals can be rendered leptin resistant, glucose intolerant, and susceptible to obesity within a few months of feeding this expensive purified synthetic diet. This probably (probably) takes over 100 times longer in humans simply because it’s nearly impossible for humans to ingest mouse-toxic-levels of fructose.
1. If the dose was based on body weight (like a drug; e.g., mg/kg or mpk):
60% fructose x 12 kcal/d = 7.2 kcal. Divided by 4 kcal/g = 1.8 grams per day.
1.8 grams for a 40 g mouse = 45 g/kg. For a 70 kg (154 lb) human = 3,150 grams of fructose or roughly 12,600 kcal. I.e., 150 cans of soda or about a week’s worth of calories. In other words, you’d have to eat a hypercaloric fructose-only diet for months.
2. If the dose was based on calories:
60% fructose x 2,000 kcal/d = 300 grams = 15 cans of soda or doughnuts per day. News flash: that’s gross, but it won’t kill you.
fructose: still not as dangerous as playing in traffic
How about just lowering your lifetime sugar exposure. 39 grams of sugar is worse than 0.01 grams of stevia or sucralose. Anyone remember “water?” Even if you believe “a calorie is a calorie,” exclusively, it’s still really hard to burn off 39 grams of sugar. Try running 2 miles. Skinny kids might do this automatically after drinking a can of soda or eating a doughnut. Not most adults.
I heard a comedian say he wished exercise was like high school; once you get your diploma, that’s it. You never need to do high school again. Unfortunately, the same isn’t true with artificial nutrition. the mad food scientists are at it again.
Enter: Soluble corn fiber (SCF), mass produced by MegatronPromitor
Over a decade ago, Atkins released low carb bars. Well, they weren’t actually low carb per se, they were low sugar. This was accomplished by replacing sugar with glycerol (a sugar alcohol) and polydextrose (a pseudo-fiber). While their bars are made from cheap ingredients and low quality protein, sugar alcohols and pseudo-fibers are certainly better than sugar.
Later, sugar alcohols took off in popularity, appearing in Met-Rx Protein Plus, Detour Lean Muscle, Dymatize Elite Gourmet, etc., etc. Glycerol was prominent in Labrada and Pure Protein bars. Supreme Protein bars use glycerol and maltitol, and a LOT of ‘em. Quest took a stand against glycerol and uses the lower calorie and more stomach-friendly erythritol (if it ends in “-ol,” its probably an alcohol).
More recently, the field took a considerable philosophical leap forward and starting using real fiber, good fiber. Inulin appeared in some Atkins bars, VPX Zero Impact, and the original Quest bars. Quest has since switched to another good fiber, isomalto-oligosaccharides. Unfortunately no one is using GOS, yet, but they will … mark my words (that’s a prediction, or stock tip… not a threat).
But now the field has taken a turn and we have another artificial ingredient, a pseudo-fiber, with which to deal. “Soluble corn fiber (SCF)” first appeared in Splenda Fiber packets and then in Promax LS bars.
If you’re like me, you’re asking yourself: what is this stuff? Is it real fiber? Is it like the super fibers inulin and GOS? Hello Pubmed
Divide and conquer
Stewart (2010) compared SCF to 3 other fibers and maltodextrin, 12 g/d x 2 weeks =
Pullulan, a rather potent fiber, is not well-tolerated. Resistant starch (an insoluble fiber), soluble fiber dextrin, and SCF were all OK. The gut microbiota seemed to have no preference, as short chain fatty acid production was similar in all groups (perhaps 12 grams is subthreshold?). Similarly, health biomarkers, hunger levels, and body weight were unaffected.
Boler (2010) compared a commercially available SCF preparation to polydextrose, 21 grams per day for 21 days in 21 healthy men (cute.)
NFC, no fiber control; PDX, polydextrose; SCF, soluble corn fiber
In this study, however, SCF didn’t do so well. It caused gas and reflux. Perhaps this wasn’t observed in Stewart’s study because of the lower dose (12 vs. 21 grams). Furthermore, polydextrose reduced while SCF increased short chain fatty acid production, both of which resulting in a higher acetate:butyrate ratio. So unlike 12 grams of any of Stewart’s fibers (including SCF), the gut microbiota seems to respond to 21 grams of SCF. And they pooped more (both fiber groups).
This same group reported a more detailed analysis of the gut microbiota which unfortunately did NOT exactly confirm their earlier finding (Hooda et al., 2012):
Data presentation is different in the two publications, and if both are true, then SCF selectively increases a few specific strains of bifidobacteria but reduces many others (enough to increase the total amount but decrease the variety). The functional implications of this are unclear (to me).
In the meantime, SCF appears to be at most an OK pseudo-fiber substitute. Megatron Promitor is not likely to test it against the super fibers (e.g., inulin, GOS, etc.) any time soon, so we won’t know if it’s an advance or simply a side-step. Such is life.
People have been warned about the dangers of excess sugar consumption, but compared to the anti-smoking campaign, the recent proposal to ban XL soda’s is like bringing a cup of water to a forest fire.
In an ideal world, a proper health initiative designed to provide people (kids too) with good nutrition information would work. The new proposal takes a different route: it bans the sale of soda’s larger than 16 ounces (but you can still buy 2-12 ouncers). I see two possible outcomes: 1) someone who would’ve bought one 24 ouncer of soda might settle for 16 ounces; 2) the one in a million customer who wanted 24 ounces will walk away with two 12 ounce sodas instead. Win-win, right? In the first case, the toxic sugar burden is lessened by a third. In the second, a potentially valuable lesson on “serving size” will be on display. Serving size 2.0, in 3-D, spelling-it-out for all to see.
It might actually work. From a nutritional perspective, 90 grams of highly bioavailable sugar (HFCS) is a biological disaster. Pound for pound, there aren’t many worse things you can consume… it’s the anti-thesis of “moderation.” Regardless of your stance on the calorie debate, no one can argue that 90 grams of sugar all-at-once is more detrimental than it’s caloric content would imply. Even for skinny people (metabolic obesity?). It’s worse than dietary fat, and might be THEE cause of leptin resistance.
This isn’t a TPMC original, but this graph of soda, diabetes, and obesity is just about as compelling as epidemiology can be:
douse those sugar cubes with artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives, and we’re good to go
If the ban goes into effect and actually impacts sales, will there be a backlash? more food company lobbying? increased government subsidies (reduced HFCS consumption -> more taxpayer dollars used to cover the losses)? Who knows. If it teaches people a lesson about serving size or empty calories it might be worth it.
on the chopping block:To recharge between hunting, gathering, and avoiding predation, our Paleolithic predecessors snacked on gluten-free energy bars comprised of a variety of fruits nuts, and vegetable oils all stuck together with Mother Nature’s sweet sticky honey and dates. <end sarcasm>
For the record, I’m not a card-carrying member of the Paleo community; just looking out for a respectable nutrition movement.
NoGii proudly advertises “NO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP” and “ALL NATURAL,” but this is despicable, ESPECIALLY because these are targeted at children.
Divide and conquer
Agave syrup has MORE fructose than high fructose corn syrup (it’s like higher fructose corn syrup). Why brag about “no high fructose corn syrup” if you’re only going to include a higher fructose substitute?
Crystalline fructose. (yes, that would be 100% fructose).
Invert sugar is chemically virtually identical to high fructose corn syrup. This is deceitful… it wouldn’t be so bad if they didn’t advertise (in all capital letters) “NO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP” directly on the website.
Lastly, there’s nothing “Brown Rice” about “Brown Rice Syrup.” It’s just plain syrup. It may not have fructose, but it’s still just a blend of simple sugars.
NoGii is pulling no punches, so neither am I: they are trying to trick parents into feeding their kids something that they may not have had they known what was really in it.
NoGii. Worst company of the week. No, of the month, because they are targeting children.
is healthy for the same reason as 
, 
, 
, and a million others: no junk food.
, these noobs pale in comparison.
or 
. Anyone remember “water?” Even if you believe “a calorie is a calorie,” exclusively, it’s still really hard to burn off 39 grams of sugar. Try running 2 miles. Skinny kids might do this automatically after drinking a can of soda or eating a 
, 
? Hello Pubmed
