Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's group has published a new paleolithic diet paper in the journal Nutrition and Metabolism, titled "A Paleolithic Diet is More Satiating per Calorie than a Mediterranean-like Diet in Individuals with Ischemic Heart Disease" (1).
The data in this paper are from the same intervention as his group's 2007 paper in Diabetologia (2). To review the results of this paper, 12 weeks of a Paleolithic-style diet caused impressive fat loss and improvement in glucose tolerance, compared to 12 weeks of a Mediterranean-style diet, in volunteers with pre-diabetes or diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Participants who started off with diabetes ended up without it. A Paleolithic diet excludes grains, dairy, legumes and any other category of food that was not a major human food source prior to agriculture. I commented on this study a while back (3, 4).
One of the most intriguing findings in his 2007 study was the low calorie intake of the Paleolithic group. Despite receiving no instruction to reduce calorie intake, the Paleolithic group only ate 1,388 calories per day, compared to 1,823 calories per day for the Mediterranean group*. That's a remarkably low ad libitum calorie intake in the former (and a fairly low intake in the latter as well).
With such a low calorie intake over 12 weeks, you might think the Paleolithic group was starving. Fortunately, the authors had the foresight to measure satiety, or fullness, in both groups during the intervention. They found that satiety was almost identical in the two groups, despite the 24% lower calorie intake of the Paleolithic group. In other words, the Paleolithic group was just as full as the Mediterranean group, despite a considerably lower intake of calories. This implies to me that the body fat "set point" decreased, allowing a reduced calorie intake while body fat stores were burned to make up the calorie deficit. I suspect it also decreased somewhat in the Mediterranean group, although we can't know for sure because we don't have baseline satiety data for comparison.
There are a few possible explanations for this result. The first is that the Paleolithic group was eating more protein, a highly satiating macronutrient. However, given the fact that absolute protein intake was scarcely different between groups, I think this is unlikely to explain the reduced calorie intake.
A second possibility is that certain potentially damaging Neolithic foods (e.g., wheat and refined sugar) interfere with leptin signaling**, and removing them lowers fat mass by allowing leptin to function correctly. Dr. Lindeberg and colleagues authored a hypothesis paper on this topic in 2005 (5).
A third possibility is that a major dietary change of any kind lowers the body fat setpoint and reduces calorie intake for a certain period of time. In support of this hypothesis, both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diet trials show that overweight people spontaneously eat fewer calories when instructed to modify their diets in either direction (6, 7). More extreme changes may cause a larger decrease in calorie intake and fat mass, as evidenced by the results of low-fat vegan diet trials (8, 9). Chris Voigt's potato diet also falls into this category (10, 11). I think there may be something about changing food-related sensory cues that alters the defended level of fat mass. A similar idea is the basis of Seth Roberts' book The Shangri-La Diet.
If I had to guess, I would think the second and third possibilities contributed to the finding that Paleolithic dieters lost more fat without feeling hungry over the 12 week diet period.
*Intakes were determined using 4-day weighed food records.
**Leptin is a hormone produced by body fat that reduces food intake and increases energy expenditure by acting in the brain. The more fat a person carries, the more leptin they produce, and hypothetically this should keep body fat in a narrow window by this form of "negative feedback". Clearly, that's not the whole story, otherwise obesity wouldn't exist. A leading hypothesis is that resistance to the hormone leptin causes this feedback loop to defend a higher level of fat mass.
Showing posts with label hyperphagia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hyperphagia. Show all posts
Monday, January 3, 2011
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Potato Diet Interpretation
If you read my post on December 16th, you know that Chris Voigt saw remarkable fat loss and improvements in health markers as a result of two months of eating almost nothing but potatoes. This has left many people scratching their heads, because potatoes are not generally viewed as a healthy food. This is partially due to the fact that potatoes are very rich in carbohydrate, which also happens to be a quickly digested type, resulting in a high glycemic index. The glycemic index refers to the degree to which a particular food increases blood glucose when it's eaten, and I've questioned the relevance of this concept to health outcomes in the past (1, 2, 3). I think Mr. Voigt's results once again argue against the importance of the glycemic index as a diet-health concept.
It's often pointed out that potatoes are low in vitamins and minerals compared to vegetables on a per-calorie basis, but I think it's a misleading comparison because potatoes are much more calorie-dense than most vegetables. Potatoes compare favorably to other starchy staples such as bread, rice and taro.
Over the course of two months, Mr. Voigt lost 21 pounds. No one knows exactly how much of that weight came out of fat and how much out of lean mass, but the fact that he reported a decrease in waist and neck circumference indicates that most of it probably came out of fat. Previous long-term potato feeding experiments have indicated that it's possible to maintain an athletic muscle mass on the amount of protein in whole potatoes alone (4). So yes, Mr. Voigt lost fat on a very high-carbohydrate diet (75-80% carbohydrate, up to 440g per day).
On to the most interesting question: why did he lose fat? Losing fat requires that energy leaving the body exceed energy entering the body. But as Gary Taubes would say, that's obvious but it doesn't get us anywhere. In the first three weeks of his diet, Mr. Voigt estimates that he was only eating 1,600 calories per day. Aha! That's why he lost weight! Well, yes. But let's look into this more deeply. Mr. Voigt was not deliberately restricting his calorie intake at all, and he did not intend this as a weight loss diet. In my interview, I asked him if he was hungry during the diet. He said that he was not hungry, and that he ate to appetite during this period, realizing only after three weeks that he was not eating nearly enough calories to maintain his weight*. I also asked him how his energy level was, and he said repeatedly that it was very good, perhaps even better than usual. Those were not idle questions.
Calorie restriction causes a predictable physiological response in humans that includes hunger and decreased energy. It's the starvation response, and it's powerful in both lean and overweight people, as anyone knows who has tried to lose fat by decreasing calorie intake alone. The fact that he didn't experience hunger or fatigue implies that his body did not think it was starving. Why would that be?
I believe Mr. Voigt's diet lowered his fat mass 'setpoint'. In other words, for whatever reason, the diet made his body 'want' to be leaner that it already was. His body began releasing stored fat that it considered excess, and therefore he had to eat less food to complete his energy needs. You see this same phenomenon very clearly in rodent feeding studies. Changes in diet composition/quality can cause dramatic shifts in the fat mass setpoint (5, 6). Mr. Voigt's appetite would eventually have returned to normal once he had stabilized at a lower body fat mass, just as rodents do.
Rodent studies have made it clear that diet composition has a massive effect on the level of fat mass that the body will 'defend' against changes in calorie intake (5, 6). Human studies have shown similar effects from changes in diet composition/quality. For example, in controlled diet trials, low-carbohydrate dieters spontaneously reduce their calorie intake quite significantly and lose body fat, without being asked to restrict calories (7). In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's Paleolithic diet trials, participants lost a remarkable amount of fat, yet a recent publication from his group shows that the satiety (fullness) level of the Paleolithic group was not different from a non-Paleolithic comparison group despite a considerably lower calorie intake over 12 weeks (8, 9). I'll discuss this important new paper soon. Together, this suggests that diet composition/quality can have a dominant impact on the fat mass setpoint.
One possibility is that cutting the wheat, sugar, most vegetable oil and other processed food out of Mr. Voigt's diet was responsible for the fat loss. I think that's likely to have contributed. Many people find, for example, that they lose fat simply by eliminating wheat from their diet.
Another possibility that I've been exploring recently is that changes in palatability (pleasantness of flavor) influence the fat mass setpoint. There is evidence in rodents that it does, although it's not entirely consistent. For example, rats will become massively obese if you provide them with chocolate flavored Ensure (a meal replacement drink), but not with vanilla or strawberry Ensure (10). They will defend their elevated fat mass against calorie restriction (i.e. they show a physiological starvation response when you try to bring them down to a lower weight by feeding them less chocolate Ensure) while they're eating chocolate Ensure, but as soon as you put them back on unpurified rodent pellets, they will lose fat and defend the lower fat mass. Giving them food in liquid or paste form often causes obesity, while the same food in solid pellet form will not. Eating nothing but potatoes is obviously a diet with a low overall palatability.
So I think that both a change in diet composition/quality and a decrease in palatability probably contributed to a decrease in Mr. Voigt's fat mass setpoint, which allowed him to lose fat mass without triggering a starvation response (hunger, fatigue).
The rest of his improvements in health markers were partially due to the fat loss, including his decreased fasting glucose, decreased triglycerides, and presumably increased insulin sensitivity. They may also have been partially due to a lack of industrial food and increased intake of certain micronutrients such as magnesium.
One of the most striking changes was in his calculated LDL cholesterol ("bad" cholesterol), which decreased by 41%, putting him in a range that's more typical of healthy non-industrial cultures including hunter-gatherers. Yet hunter-gatherers didn't eat nothing but potatoes, often didn't eat much starch, and in some cases had a high intake of fat and saturated fat, so what gives? It's possible that a reduced saturated fat intake had an impact on his LDL, given the relatively short timescale of the diet. But I think there's something mysterious about this setpoint mechanism that has a much broader impact on metabolism than is generally appreciated. For example, calorie restriction in humans has a massive impact on LDL, much larger than the impact of saturated fat (11). And in any case, the latter appears to be a short-term phenomenon (12). It's just beginning to be appreciated that energy balance control systems in the brain influence cholesterol metabolism.
Mr. Voigt's digestion appeared to be just fine on his potato diet, even though he generally ate the skins. This makes me even more skeptical of the idea that potato glycoalkaloids in common potato varieties are a health concern, especially if you were to eliminate most of the glycoalkaloids by peeling.
I asked Mr. Voigt about what foods he was craving during the diet to get an idea of whether he was experiencing any major deficiencies. The fact that Mr. Voigt did not mention craving meat or other high-protein foods reinforces the fact that potatoes are a reasonable source of complete protein. The only thing he craved was crunchy/juicy food, which I'm not sure how to interpret.
He also stopped snoring during the diet, and began again immediately upon resuming his normal diet, perhaps indicating that his potato diet reduced airway inflammation. This could be due to avoiding food allergies and irritants (wheat anyone?) and also fat loss.
Overall, a very informative experiment! Enjoy your potatoes.
*Until the last 5.5 weeks, when he deliberately stuffed himself beyond his appetite because his rapid weight loss worried him. Yet, even with deliberate overfeeding up to his estimated calorie requirement of 2,200 calories per day, he continued to lose weight. He probably was not quite reaching his calorie goal, or his requirement is higher than he thought.
It's often pointed out that potatoes are low in vitamins and minerals compared to vegetables on a per-calorie basis, but I think it's a misleading comparison because potatoes are much more calorie-dense than most vegetables. Potatoes compare favorably to other starchy staples such as bread, rice and taro.
Over the course of two months, Mr. Voigt lost 21 pounds. No one knows exactly how much of that weight came out of fat and how much out of lean mass, but the fact that he reported a decrease in waist and neck circumference indicates that most of it probably came out of fat. Previous long-term potato feeding experiments have indicated that it's possible to maintain an athletic muscle mass on the amount of protein in whole potatoes alone (4). So yes, Mr. Voigt lost fat on a very high-carbohydrate diet (75-80% carbohydrate, up to 440g per day).
On to the most interesting question: why did he lose fat? Losing fat requires that energy leaving the body exceed energy entering the body. But as Gary Taubes would say, that's obvious but it doesn't get us anywhere. In the first three weeks of his diet, Mr. Voigt estimates that he was only eating 1,600 calories per day. Aha! That's why he lost weight! Well, yes. But let's look into this more deeply. Mr. Voigt was not deliberately restricting his calorie intake at all, and he did not intend this as a weight loss diet. In my interview, I asked him if he was hungry during the diet. He said that he was not hungry, and that he ate to appetite during this period, realizing only after three weeks that he was not eating nearly enough calories to maintain his weight*. I also asked him how his energy level was, and he said repeatedly that it was very good, perhaps even better than usual. Those were not idle questions.
Calorie restriction causes a predictable physiological response in humans that includes hunger and decreased energy. It's the starvation response, and it's powerful in both lean and overweight people, as anyone knows who has tried to lose fat by decreasing calorie intake alone. The fact that he didn't experience hunger or fatigue implies that his body did not think it was starving. Why would that be?
I believe Mr. Voigt's diet lowered his fat mass 'setpoint'. In other words, for whatever reason, the diet made his body 'want' to be leaner that it already was. His body began releasing stored fat that it considered excess, and therefore he had to eat less food to complete his energy needs. You see this same phenomenon very clearly in rodent feeding studies. Changes in diet composition/quality can cause dramatic shifts in the fat mass setpoint (5, 6). Mr. Voigt's appetite would eventually have returned to normal once he had stabilized at a lower body fat mass, just as rodents do.
Rodent studies have made it clear that diet composition has a massive effect on the level of fat mass that the body will 'defend' against changes in calorie intake (5, 6). Human studies have shown similar effects from changes in diet composition/quality. For example, in controlled diet trials, low-carbohydrate dieters spontaneously reduce their calorie intake quite significantly and lose body fat, without being asked to restrict calories (7). In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's Paleolithic diet trials, participants lost a remarkable amount of fat, yet a recent publication from his group shows that the satiety (fullness) level of the Paleolithic group was not different from a non-Paleolithic comparison group despite a considerably lower calorie intake over 12 weeks (8, 9). I'll discuss this important new paper soon. Together, this suggests that diet composition/quality can have a dominant impact on the fat mass setpoint.
One possibility is that cutting the wheat, sugar, most vegetable oil and other processed food out of Mr. Voigt's diet was responsible for the fat loss. I think that's likely to have contributed. Many people find, for example, that they lose fat simply by eliminating wheat from their diet.
Another possibility that I've been exploring recently is that changes in palatability (pleasantness of flavor) influence the fat mass setpoint. There is evidence in rodents that it does, although it's not entirely consistent. For example, rats will become massively obese if you provide them with chocolate flavored Ensure (a meal replacement drink), but not with vanilla or strawberry Ensure (10). They will defend their elevated fat mass against calorie restriction (i.e. they show a physiological starvation response when you try to bring them down to a lower weight by feeding them less chocolate Ensure) while they're eating chocolate Ensure, but as soon as you put them back on unpurified rodent pellets, they will lose fat and defend the lower fat mass. Giving them food in liquid or paste form often causes obesity, while the same food in solid pellet form will not. Eating nothing but potatoes is obviously a diet with a low overall palatability.
So I think that both a change in diet composition/quality and a decrease in palatability probably contributed to a decrease in Mr. Voigt's fat mass setpoint, which allowed him to lose fat mass without triggering a starvation response (hunger, fatigue).
The rest of his improvements in health markers were partially due to the fat loss, including his decreased fasting glucose, decreased triglycerides, and presumably increased insulin sensitivity. They may also have been partially due to a lack of industrial food and increased intake of certain micronutrients such as magnesium.
One of the most striking changes was in his calculated LDL cholesterol ("bad" cholesterol), which decreased by 41%, putting him in a range that's more typical of healthy non-industrial cultures including hunter-gatherers. Yet hunter-gatherers didn't eat nothing but potatoes, often didn't eat much starch, and in some cases had a high intake of fat and saturated fat, so what gives? It's possible that a reduced saturated fat intake had an impact on his LDL, given the relatively short timescale of the diet. But I think there's something mysterious about this setpoint mechanism that has a much broader impact on metabolism than is generally appreciated. For example, calorie restriction in humans has a massive impact on LDL, much larger than the impact of saturated fat (11). And in any case, the latter appears to be a short-term phenomenon (12). It's just beginning to be appreciated that energy balance control systems in the brain influence cholesterol metabolism.
Mr. Voigt's digestion appeared to be just fine on his potato diet, even though he generally ate the skins. This makes me even more skeptical of the idea that potato glycoalkaloids in common potato varieties are a health concern, especially if you were to eliminate most of the glycoalkaloids by peeling.
I asked Mr. Voigt about what foods he was craving during the diet to get an idea of whether he was experiencing any major deficiencies. The fact that Mr. Voigt did not mention craving meat or other high-protein foods reinforces the fact that potatoes are a reasonable source of complete protein. The only thing he craved was crunchy/juicy food, which I'm not sure how to interpret.
He also stopped snoring during the diet, and began again immediately upon resuming his normal diet, perhaps indicating that his potato diet reduced airway inflammation. This could be due to avoiding food allergies and irritants (wheat anyone?) and also fat loss.
Overall, a very informative experiment! Enjoy your potatoes.
*Until the last 5.5 weeks, when he deliberately stuffed himself beyond his appetite because his rapid weight loss worried him. Yet, even with deliberate overfeeding up to his estimated calorie requirement of 2,200 calories per day, he continued to lose weight. He probably was not quite reaching his calorie goal, or his requirement is higher than he thought.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Body Fat Setpoint, Part II: Mechanisms of Fat Gain
The Timeline of Fat Gain
Modern humans are unusual mammals in that fat mass varies greatly between individuals. Some animals carry a large amount of fat for a specific purpose, such as hibernation or migration. But all individuals of the same sex and social position will carry approximately the same amount of fat at any given time of year. Likewise, in hunter-gatherer societies worldwide, there isn't much variation in body weight-- nearly everyone is lean. Not necessarily lean like Usain Bolt, but not overweight.
Although overweight and obesity occurred forty years ago in the U.S. and U.K., they were much less common than today, particularly in children. Here are data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control NHANES surveys (from this post):
Together, this shows that a) leanness is the most natural condition for the human body, and b) something about our changing environment, not our genes, has caused our body fat to grow.
Fat Mass is Regulated by a Feedback Circuit Between Fat Tissue and the Brain
In the last post, I described how the body regulates fat mass, attempting to keep it within a narrow window or "setpoint". Body fat produces a hormone called leptin, which signals to the brain and other organs to decrease appetite, increase the metabolic rate and increase physical activity. More fat means more leptin, which then causes the extra fat to be burned. The little glitch is that some people become resistant to leptin, so that their brain doesn't hear the fat tissue screaming that it's already full. Leptin resistance nearly always accompanies obesity, because it's a precondition of significant fat gain. If a person weren't leptin resistant, he wouldn't have the ability to gain more than a few pounds of fat without heroic overeating (which is very very unpleasant when your brain is telling you to stop). Animal models of leptin resistance develop something that resembles human metabolic syndrome (abdominal obesity, blood lipid abnormalities, insulin resistance, high blood pressure).
The Role of the Hypothalamus
The hypothalamus is on the underside of the brain connected to the pituitary gland. It's the main site of leptin action in the brain, and it controls the majority of leptin's effects on appetite, energy expenditure and insulin sensitivity. Most of the known gene variations that are associated with overweight in humans influence the function of the hypothalamus in some way (1). Not surprisingly, leptin resistance in the hypothalamus has been proposed as a cause of obesity. It's been shown in rats and mice that hypothalamic leptin resistance occurs in diet-induced obesity, and it's almost certainly the case in humans as well. What's causing leptin resistance in the hypothalamus?
There are three leading explanations at this point that are not mutually exclusive. One is cellular stress in the endoplasmic reticulum, a structure inside the cell that's used for protein synthesis and folding. I've read the most recent paper on this in detail, and I found it unconvincing (2). I'm open to the idea, but it needs more rigorous support.
A second explanation is inflammation in the hypothalamus. Inflammation inhibits leptin and insulin signaling in a variety of cell types. At least two studies have shown that diet-induced obesity in rodents leads to inflammation in the hypothalamus (3, 4)*. If leptin is getting to the hypothalamus, but the hypothalamus is insensitive to it, it will require more leptin to get the same signal, and fat mass will creep up until it reaches a higher setpoint.
The other possibility is that leptin simply isn't reaching the hypothalamus. The brain is a unique organ. It's enclosed by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which greatly restricts what can enter and leave it. Both insulin and leptin are actively transported across the BBB. It's been known for a decade that obesity in rodents is associated with a lower rate of leptin transport across the BBB (5, 6).
What causes a decrease in leptin transport across the BBB? Triglycerides are a major factor. These are circulating fats going from the liver and the digestive tract to other tissues. They're one of the blood lipid measurements the doctor makes when he draws your blood. Several studies in rodents have shown that high triglycerides cause a reduction in leptin transport across the BBB, and reducing triglycerides allows greater leptin transport and fat loss (7, 8). In support of this theory, the triglyceride-reducing drug gemfibrozil also causes weight loss in humans (9)**. Guess what else reduces triglycerides and causes weight loss? Low-carbohydrate diets, and avoiding sugar and refined carbohydrates in particular.
In the next post, I'll get more specific about what factors could be causing hypothalamic inflammation and/or reduced leptin transport across the BBB. I'll also discuss some ideas on how to reduce leptin resistance sustainably through diet and exercise.
* This is accomplished by feeding them sad little pellets that look like greasy chalk. They're made up mostly of lard, soybean oil, casein, maltodextrin or cornstarch, sugar, vitamins and minerals (this is a link to the the most commonly used diet for inducing obesity in rodents). Food doesn't get any more refined than this stuff, and adding just about anything to it, from fiber to fruit extracts, makes it less damaging.
** Fibrates are PPAR agonists, so the weight loss could also be due to something besides the reduction in triglycerides.
Modern humans are unusual mammals in that fat mass varies greatly between individuals. Some animals carry a large amount of fat for a specific purpose, such as hibernation or migration. But all individuals of the same sex and social position will carry approximately the same amount of fat at any given time of year. Likewise, in hunter-gatherer societies worldwide, there isn't much variation in body weight-- nearly everyone is lean. Not necessarily lean like Usain Bolt, but not overweight.
Although overweight and obesity occurred forty years ago in the U.S. and U.K., they were much less common than today, particularly in children. Here are data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control NHANES surveys (from this post):
Together, this shows that a) leanness is the most natural condition for the human body, and b) something about our changing environment, not our genes, has caused our body fat to grow.Fat Mass is Regulated by a Feedback Circuit Between Fat Tissue and the Brain
In the last post, I described how the body regulates fat mass, attempting to keep it within a narrow window or "setpoint". Body fat produces a hormone called leptin, which signals to the brain and other organs to decrease appetite, increase the metabolic rate and increase physical activity. More fat means more leptin, which then causes the extra fat to be burned. The little glitch is that some people become resistant to leptin, so that their brain doesn't hear the fat tissue screaming that it's already full. Leptin resistance nearly always accompanies obesity, because it's a precondition of significant fat gain. If a person weren't leptin resistant, he wouldn't have the ability to gain more than a few pounds of fat without heroic overeating (which is very very unpleasant when your brain is telling you to stop). Animal models of leptin resistance develop something that resembles human metabolic syndrome (abdominal obesity, blood lipid abnormalities, insulin resistance, high blood pressure).
The Role of the Hypothalamus
The hypothalamus is on the underside of the brain connected to the pituitary gland. It's the main site of leptin action in the brain, and it controls the majority of leptin's effects on appetite, energy expenditure and insulin sensitivity. Most of the known gene variations that are associated with overweight in humans influence the function of the hypothalamus in some way (1). Not surprisingly, leptin resistance in the hypothalamus has been proposed as a cause of obesity. It's been shown in rats and mice that hypothalamic leptin resistance occurs in diet-induced obesity, and it's almost certainly the case in humans as well. What's causing leptin resistance in the hypothalamus?
There are three leading explanations at this point that are not mutually exclusive. One is cellular stress in the endoplasmic reticulum, a structure inside the cell that's used for protein synthesis and folding. I've read the most recent paper on this in detail, and I found it unconvincing (2). I'm open to the idea, but it needs more rigorous support.
A second explanation is inflammation in the hypothalamus. Inflammation inhibits leptin and insulin signaling in a variety of cell types. At least two studies have shown that diet-induced obesity in rodents leads to inflammation in the hypothalamus (3, 4)*. If leptin is getting to the hypothalamus, but the hypothalamus is insensitive to it, it will require more leptin to get the same signal, and fat mass will creep up until it reaches a higher setpoint.
The other possibility is that leptin simply isn't reaching the hypothalamus. The brain is a unique organ. It's enclosed by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which greatly restricts what can enter and leave it. Both insulin and leptin are actively transported across the BBB. It's been known for a decade that obesity in rodents is associated with a lower rate of leptin transport across the BBB (5, 6).
What causes a decrease in leptin transport across the BBB? Triglycerides are a major factor. These are circulating fats going from the liver and the digestive tract to other tissues. They're one of the blood lipid measurements the doctor makes when he draws your blood. Several studies in rodents have shown that high triglycerides cause a reduction in leptin transport across the BBB, and reducing triglycerides allows greater leptin transport and fat loss (7, 8). In support of this theory, the triglyceride-reducing drug gemfibrozil also causes weight loss in humans (9)**. Guess what else reduces triglycerides and causes weight loss? Low-carbohydrate diets, and avoiding sugar and refined carbohydrates in particular.
In the next post, I'll get more specific about what factors could be causing hypothalamic inflammation and/or reduced leptin transport across the BBB. I'll also discuss some ideas on how to reduce leptin resistance sustainably through diet and exercise.
* This is accomplished by feeding them sad little pellets that look like greasy chalk. They're made up mostly of lard, soybean oil, casein, maltodextrin or cornstarch, sugar, vitamins and minerals (this is a link to the the most commonly used diet for inducing obesity in rodents). Food doesn't get any more refined than this stuff, and adding just about anything to it, from fiber to fruit extracts, makes it less damaging.
** Fibrates are PPAR agonists, so the weight loss could also be due to something besides the reduction in triglycerides.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Body Fat Setpoint
One pound of human fat contains about 3,500 calories. That represents roughly 40 slices of toast. So if you were to eat one extra slice of toast every day, you would gain just under a pound of fat per month. Conversely, if you were to eat one fewer slice per day, you'd lose a pound a month. Right? Not quite.
How is it that most peoples' body fat mass stays relatively stable over long periods of time, when an imbalance of as little as 5% of calories should lead to rapid changes in weight? Is it because we do complicated calculations in our heads every day, factoring in basal metabolic rate and exercise, to make sure our energy intake precisely matches expenditure? Of course not. We're gifted with a sophisticated system of hormones and brain regions that do the calculations for us unconsciously*.
When it's working properly, this system precisely matches energy intake to expenditure, ensuring a stable and healthy fat mass. It does this by controlling food seeking behaviors, feelings of fullness and even energy expenditure by heat production and physical movements. If you eat a little bit more than usual at a meal, a properly functioning system will say "let's eat a little bit less next time, and also burn some of it off." This is why animals in their natural habitat are nearly always at an appropriate weight, barring starvation. The only time wild animals are overweight enough to compromise maximum physical performance is when it serves an important purpose, such as preparing for hibernation.
I recently came across a classic study that illustrates these principles nicely in humans, titled "Metabolic Response to Experimental Overfeeding in Lean and Overweight Healthy Volunteers", by Dr. Erik O. Diaz and colleagues (1). They overfed lean and modestly overweight volunteers 50% more calories than they naturally consume, under controlled conditions where the investigators could be confident of food intake. Macronutrient composition was 12-42-46 % protein-fat-carbohydrate.
After 6 weeks of massive overfeeding, both lean and overweight subjects gained an average of 10 lb (4.6 kg) of fat mass and 6.6 lb (3 kg) of lean mass. Consistent with what one would expect if the body were trying to burn off excess calories and return to baseline fat mass, the metabolic rate and body heat production of the subjects increased.
Following overfeeding, subjects were allowed to eat however much they wanted for 6 weeks. Both lean and overweight volunteers promptly lost 6.2 of the 10 lb they had gained in fat mass (61% of fat gained), and 1.5 of the 6.6 lb they had gained in lean mass (23%). Here is a graph showing changes in fat mass for each individual that completed the study:
.png)
We don't know if they would have lost the remaining fat mass in the following weeks because they were only followed for 6 weeks after overfeeding, although it did appear that they were reaching a plateau slightly above their original body weight. Thus, nearly all subjects "defended" their original body fat mass irrespective of their starting point. Underfeeding studies have shown the same phenomenon: whether lean or overweight, people tend to return to their original fat mass after underfeeding is over. Again, this supports the idea that the body has a body fat mass "set point" that it attempts to defend against changes in either direction. It's one of many systems in the body that attempt to maintain homeostasis.
OK, so why do we care?
We care because this has some very important implications for human obesity. With such a powerful system in place to keep body fat mass in a narrow range, a major departure from that range implies that the system isn't functioning correctly. In other words, obesity has to result from a defect in the system that regulates body fat, because a properly functioning system would not have allowed that degree of fat gain in the first place.
So yes, we are gaining weight because we eat too many calories relative to energy expended. But why are we eating too many calories? Because the system that should be defending a low fat mass is now defending a high fat mass. Therefore, the solution is not simply to restrict calories, or burn more calories through exercise, but to try to "reset" the system that decides what fat mass to defend. Restricting calories isn't necessarily a good solution because the body will attempt to defend its setpoint, whether high or low, by increasing hunger and decreasing its metabolic rate. That's why low-calorie diets, and most diets in general, typically fail in the long term. It's miserable to fight hunger every day.
This raises two questions:
* The hormone leptin and the hypothalamus are the ringleaders, although there are many other elements involved, such as numerous gut-derived peptides, insulin, and a number of other brain regions.
How is it that most peoples' body fat mass stays relatively stable over long periods of time, when an imbalance of as little as 5% of calories should lead to rapid changes in weight? Is it because we do complicated calculations in our heads every day, factoring in basal metabolic rate and exercise, to make sure our energy intake precisely matches expenditure? Of course not. We're gifted with a sophisticated system of hormones and brain regions that do the calculations for us unconsciously*.
When it's working properly, this system precisely matches energy intake to expenditure, ensuring a stable and healthy fat mass. It does this by controlling food seeking behaviors, feelings of fullness and even energy expenditure by heat production and physical movements. If you eat a little bit more than usual at a meal, a properly functioning system will say "let's eat a little bit less next time, and also burn some of it off." This is why animals in their natural habitat are nearly always at an appropriate weight, barring starvation. The only time wild animals are overweight enough to compromise maximum physical performance is when it serves an important purpose, such as preparing for hibernation.
I recently came across a classic study that illustrates these principles nicely in humans, titled "Metabolic Response to Experimental Overfeeding in Lean and Overweight Healthy Volunteers", by Dr. Erik O. Diaz and colleagues (1). They overfed lean and modestly overweight volunteers 50% more calories than they naturally consume, under controlled conditions where the investigators could be confident of food intake. Macronutrient composition was 12-42-46 % protein-fat-carbohydrate.
After 6 weeks of massive overfeeding, both lean and overweight subjects gained an average of 10 lb (4.6 kg) of fat mass and 6.6 lb (3 kg) of lean mass. Consistent with what one would expect if the body were trying to burn off excess calories and return to baseline fat mass, the metabolic rate and body heat production of the subjects increased.
Following overfeeding, subjects were allowed to eat however much they wanted for 6 weeks. Both lean and overweight volunteers promptly lost 6.2 of the 10 lb they had gained in fat mass (61% of fat gained), and 1.5 of the 6.6 lb they had gained in lean mass (23%). Here is a graph showing changes in fat mass for each individual that completed the study:
.png)
We don't know if they would have lost the remaining fat mass in the following weeks because they were only followed for 6 weeks after overfeeding, although it did appear that they were reaching a plateau slightly above their original body weight. Thus, nearly all subjects "defended" their original body fat mass irrespective of their starting point. Underfeeding studies have shown the same phenomenon: whether lean or overweight, people tend to return to their original fat mass after underfeeding is over. Again, this supports the idea that the body has a body fat mass "set point" that it attempts to defend against changes in either direction. It's one of many systems in the body that attempt to maintain homeostasis.OK, so why do we care?
We care because this has some very important implications for human obesity. With such a powerful system in place to keep body fat mass in a narrow range, a major departure from that range implies that the system isn't functioning correctly. In other words, obesity has to result from a defect in the system that regulates body fat, because a properly functioning system would not have allowed that degree of fat gain in the first place.
So yes, we are gaining weight because we eat too many calories relative to energy expended. But why are we eating too many calories? Because the system that should be defending a low fat mass is now defending a high fat mass. Therefore, the solution is not simply to restrict calories, or burn more calories through exercise, but to try to "reset" the system that decides what fat mass to defend. Restricting calories isn't necessarily a good solution because the body will attempt to defend its setpoint, whether high or low, by increasing hunger and decreasing its metabolic rate. That's why low-calorie diets, and most diets in general, typically fail in the long term. It's miserable to fight hunger every day.
This raises two questions:
- What caused the system to defend a high fat mass?
- Is it possible to reset the fat mass setpoint, and how would one go about it?
* The hormone leptin and the hypothalamus are the ringleaders, although there are many other elements involved, such as numerous gut-derived peptides, insulin, and a number of other brain regions.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part IV
Dr. Staffan Lindeberg has published a new study using the "paleolithic diet" to treat type II diabetics (free full text). Type II diabetes, formerly known as late-onset diabetes until it began appearing in children, is typically thought to develop as a result of insulin resistance (a lowered tissue response to the glucose-clearing function of insulin). This is often followed by a decrease in insulin secretion due to degeneration of the insulin-secreting pancreatic beta cells.
After Dr. Lindeberg's wild success treating patients with type II diabetes or glucose intolerance, in which he normalized the glucose tolerance of all 14 of his volunteers in 12 weeks, he set out to replicate the experiment. This time, he began with 13 men and women who had been diagnosed with type II diabetes for an average of 9 years.
Patients were put on two different diets for 3 months each. The first was a "conventional diabetes diet". I read a previous draft of the paper in which I believe they stated it was based on American Diabetes Association guidelines, but I can't find that statement in the final draft. In any case, here are the guidelines from the methods section:
As has been reported in other studies, paleolithic dieters ate fewer total calories than the comparison group. This is part of the reason why I believe that something in the modern diet causes hyperphagia, or excessive eating. According to the paleolithic diet studies, this food or combination of foods is neolithic, and probably resides in grains, refined sugar and/or dairy. I have my money on wheat and sugar, with a probable long-term contribution from industrial vegetable oils as well.
Were the improvements on the paleolithic diet simply due to calorie restriction? Maybe, but keep in mind that neither group was told to restrict its caloric intake. The reduction in caloric intake occurred naturally, despite the participants presumably eating to fullness. I suspect that the paleolithic diet reset the dieters' body fat set-point, after which fat began pouring out of their fat tissue. They were supplementing their diets with body fat-- 13 pounds (6 kg) of it over 3 months.
The other notable difference between the two diets, besides food types, was carbohydrate intake. The diabetes diet group ate 56% more carbohydrate than the paleo diet group, with 42% of their calories coming from it. The paleolithic group ate 32% carbohydrate. Could this have been the reason for the better outcome of the paleolithic group? I'd be surprised if it wasn't a factor. Advising a diabetic to eat a high-carbohydrate diet is like asking someone who's allergic to bee stings to fetch you some honey from your bee hive. Diabetes is a disorder of glucose intolerance. Starch is a glucose polymer.
Although to be fair, participants on the diabetes diet did improve in a number of ways. There's something to be said for eating whole foods.
This trial was actually a bit of a disappointment for me. I was hoping for a slam dunk, similar to Lindeberg's previous study that "cured" all 14 patients of glucose intolerance in 3 months. In the current study, the paleolithic diet left 8 out of 13 patients diabetic after 3 months. What was the difference? For one thing, the patients in this study had well-established diabetes with an average duration of 9 years. As Jenny Ruhl explains in her book Blood Sugar 101, type II diabetes often progresses to beta cell loss, after which the pancreas can no longer secrete an adequate amount of insulin.
This may be the critical finding of Dr. Lindeberg's two studies: type II diabetes can be prevented when it's caught at an early stage, such as pre-diabetes, whereas prolonged diabetes may cause damage that cannot be completely reversed though diet. I think this is consistent with the experience of many diabetics who have seen an improvement but not a cure from changes in diet. Please add any relevant experiences to the comments.
Collectively, the evidence from clinical trials on the "paleolithic diet" indicate that it's a very effective treatment for modern metabolic dysfunction, including excess body fat, insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. Another way of saying this is that the modern industrial diet causes metabolic dysfunction.
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II
One Last Thought
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part III
After Dr. Lindeberg's wild success treating patients with type II diabetes or glucose intolerance, in which he normalized the glucose tolerance of all 14 of his volunteers in 12 weeks, he set out to replicate the experiment. This time, he began with 13 men and women who had been diagnosed with type II diabetes for an average of 9 years.
Patients were put on two different diets for 3 months each. The first was a "conventional diabetes diet". I read a previous draft of the paper in which I believe they stated it was based on American Diabetes Association guidelines, but I can't find that statement in the final draft. In any case, here are the guidelines from the methods section:
The information on the Diabetes diet stated that it should aim at evenly distributed meals with increased intake of vegetables, root vegetables, dietary fiber, whole-grain bread and other whole-grain cereal products, fruits and berries, and decreased intake of total fat with more unsaturated fat. The majority of dietary energy should come from carbohydrates from foods naturally rich in carbohydrate and dietary fiber. The concepts of glycemic index and varied meals through meal planning by the Plate Model were explained [18]. Salt intake was recommended to be kept below 6 g per day.The investigators gave the paleolithic group the following advice:
The information on the Paleolithic diet stated that it should be based on lean meat, fish, fruit, leafy and cruciferous vegetables, root vegetables, eggs and nuts, while excluding dairy products, cereal grains, beans, refined fats, sugar, candy, soft drinks, beer and extra addition of salt. The following items were recommended in limited amounts for the Paleolithic diet: eggs (≤2 per day), nuts (preferentially walnuts), dried fruit, potatoes (≤1 medium-sized per day), rapeseed or olive oil (≤1 tablespoon per day), wine (≤1 glass per day). The intake of other foods was not restricted and no advice was given with regard to proportions of food categories (e.g. animal versus plant foods). The evolutionary rationale for a Paleolithic diet and potential benefits were explained.Neither diet was restricted in calories. After comparing the effects of the two diets for 3 months, the investigators concluded that the paleolithic diet:
- Reduced HbA1c more than the diabetes diet (a measure of average blood glucose)
- Reduced weight, BMI and waist circumference more than the diabetes diet
- Lowered blood pressure more than the diabetes diet
- Reduced triglycerides more than the diabetes diet
- Increased HDL more than the diabetes diet
As has been reported in other studies, paleolithic dieters ate fewer total calories than the comparison group. This is part of the reason why I believe that something in the modern diet causes hyperphagia, or excessive eating. According to the paleolithic diet studies, this food or combination of foods is neolithic, and probably resides in grains, refined sugar and/or dairy. I have my money on wheat and sugar, with a probable long-term contribution from industrial vegetable oils as well.
Were the improvements on the paleolithic diet simply due to calorie restriction? Maybe, but keep in mind that neither group was told to restrict its caloric intake. The reduction in caloric intake occurred naturally, despite the participants presumably eating to fullness. I suspect that the paleolithic diet reset the dieters' body fat set-point, after which fat began pouring out of their fat tissue. They were supplementing their diets with body fat-- 13 pounds (6 kg) of it over 3 months.
The other notable difference between the two diets, besides food types, was carbohydrate intake. The diabetes diet group ate 56% more carbohydrate than the paleo diet group, with 42% of their calories coming from it. The paleolithic group ate 32% carbohydrate. Could this have been the reason for the better outcome of the paleolithic group? I'd be surprised if it wasn't a factor. Advising a diabetic to eat a high-carbohydrate diet is like asking someone who's allergic to bee stings to fetch you some honey from your bee hive. Diabetes is a disorder of glucose intolerance. Starch is a glucose polymer.
Although to be fair, participants on the diabetes diet did improve in a number of ways. There's something to be said for eating whole foods.
This trial was actually a bit of a disappointment for me. I was hoping for a slam dunk, similar to Lindeberg's previous study that "cured" all 14 patients of glucose intolerance in 3 months. In the current study, the paleolithic diet left 8 out of 13 patients diabetic after 3 months. What was the difference? For one thing, the patients in this study had well-established diabetes with an average duration of 9 years. As Jenny Ruhl explains in her book Blood Sugar 101, type II diabetes often progresses to beta cell loss, after which the pancreas can no longer secrete an adequate amount of insulin.
This may be the critical finding of Dr. Lindeberg's two studies: type II diabetes can be prevented when it's caught at an early stage, such as pre-diabetes, whereas prolonged diabetes may cause damage that cannot be completely reversed though diet. I think this is consistent with the experience of many diabetics who have seen an improvement but not a cure from changes in diet. Please add any relevant experiences to the comments.
Collectively, the evidence from clinical trials on the "paleolithic diet" indicate that it's a very effective treatment for modern metabolic dysfunction, including excess body fat, insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. Another way of saying this is that the modern industrial diet causes metabolic dysfunction.
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II
One Last Thought
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part III
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Letter to the Editor
I just got a letter to the editor published in the journal Obesity. It's a comment on an article published in October titled "Efficiency of Intermittent Exercise on Adiposity and Fatty Liver in Rats Fed With High-fat Diet."
In the study, they placed rats on a diet composed of "commercial rat chow plus peanuts, milk chocolate, and sweet biscuit in a proportion of 3:2:2:1," and then proceeded to simply call it a "high-fat diet" in the title and text body, with no reference to its actual composition outside the methods section. We can't tolerate this kind of fudging if we want real answers from nutrition science. Rats eating the "high-fat diet" developed abdominal obesity, fatty liver and hyperphagia, but this was attenuated by exercise.
As I like to say, the problem isn't usually in the data, it's in the interpretation of the data. The result is interesting and highly relevant. But you can't use terminology that tars and feathers all fat when your diet was in fact high in linoleic acid (omega-6), low in omega-3 and high in sugar and refined grains. Especially when butter and coconut oil don't cause the same pathology. I pointed out in the letter that we need to be more precise about how we define "high-fat diets". I also pointed out that the study is highly relevant to the modern U.S., because it supports the hypothesis that a junk food diet high in linoleic acid and sugar causes metabolic disturbances and fatty liver, and exercise may be protective.
In the study, they placed rats on a diet composed of "commercial rat chow plus peanuts, milk chocolate, and sweet biscuit in a proportion of 3:2:2:1," and then proceeded to simply call it a "high-fat diet" in the title and text body, with no reference to its actual composition outside the methods section. We can't tolerate this kind of fudging if we want real answers from nutrition science. Rats eating the "high-fat diet" developed abdominal obesity, fatty liver and hyperphagia, but this was attenuated by exercise.
As I like to say, the problem isn't usually in the data, it's in the interpretation of the data. The result is interesting and highly relevant. But you can't use terminology that tars and feathers all fat when your diet was in fact high in linoleic acid (omega-6), low in omega-3 and high in sugar and refined grains. Especially when butter and coconut oil don't cause the same pathology. I pointed out in the letter that we need to be more precise about how we define "high-fat diets". I also pointed out that the study is highly relevant to the modern U.S., because it supports the hypothesis that a junk food diet high in linoleic acid and sugar causes metabolic disturbances and fatty liver, and exercise may be protective.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Leptin Resistance and Sugar
Leptin is a major hormone regulator of fat mass in vertebrates. It's a frequent topic on this blog because I believe it's central to overweight and modern metabolic disorders. Here's how it works. Leptin is secreted by fat tissue, and its blood levels are proportional to fat mass. The more fat tissue, the more leptin. Leptin reduces appetite, increases fat release from fat tissue and increases the metabolic rate. Normally, this creates a "feedback loop" that keeps fat mass within a fairly narrow range. Any increase in fat tissue causes an increase in leptin, which burns fat tissue at an accelerated rate. This continues until fat mass has decreased enough to return leptin to its original level.
Leptin was first identified through research on the "obese" mutant mouse. The obese strain arose by a spontaneous mutation, and is extremely fat. The mutation turned out to be in a protein investigators dubbed leptin. When researchers first discovered leptin, they speculated that it could be the "obesity gene", and supplemental leptin a potential treatment for obesity. They later discovered (to their great chagrin) that obese people produce much more leptin than thin people, so a defeciency of leptin was clearly not the problem, as it was in the obese mouse. They subsequently found that obese people scarcely respond to injected leptin by reducing their food intake, as thin people do. They are leptin resistant. This makes sense if you think about it. The only way a person can gain significant fat mass is if the leptin feedback loop isn't working correctly.
Another rodent model of leptin resistance arose later, the "Zucker fatty" rat. Zucker rats have a mutation in the leptin receptor gene. They secrete leptin just fine, but they don't respond to it because they have no functional receptor. This makes them an excellent model of complete leptin resistance. What happens to Zucker rats? They become obese, hypometabolic, hyperphagic, hypertensive, insulin resistant, and they develop blood lipid disturbances. It should sound familiar; it's the metabolic syndrome and it affects 24% of Americans (CDC NHANES III). Guess what's the first symptom of impending metabolic syndrome in humans, even before insulin resistance and obesity? Leptin resistance. This makes leptin an excellent contender for the keystone position in overweight and other metabolic disorders.
I've mentioned before that the two most commonly used animal models of the metabolic syndrome are both sugar-fed rats. Fructose, which accounts for 50% of table sugar and 55% of high-fructose corn syrup, is probably the culprit. Glucose, which is the remainder of table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, and the product of starch digestion, does not have the same effects. I think it's also relevant that refined sugar contains no vitamins or minerals whatsoever. Sweetener consumption in the U.S. has increased from virtually nothing in 1850, to 84 pounds per year in 1909, to 119 pounds in 1970, to 142 pounds in 2005 (source).
In a recent paper, Dr. Philip Scarpace's group (in collaboration with Dr. Richard Johnson), showed that a high-fructose diet causes leptin resistance in rats. The diet was 60% fructose, which is extreme by any standards, but it caused a complete resistance to the effect of leptin on food intake. Normally, leptin binds receptors in a brain region called the hypothalamus, which is responsible for food intake behaviors (including in humans). This accounts for leptin's ability to reduce food consumption. Fructose-fed rats did not reduce their food intake at all when injected with leptin, while rats on a normal diet did. When subsequently put on a high-fat diet (60% lard), rats that started off on the fructose diet gained more weight.
I think it's worth mentionong that rodents don't respond to high-fat diets in the same way as humans, as judged by the efficacy of low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss. Industrial lard also has a very poor ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats (especially if it's hydrogenated), which may also contribute to the observed weight gain.
Fructose-fed rats had higher cholesterol and twice the triglycerides of control-fed rats. Fructose increases triglycerides because it goes straight to the liver, which makes it into fat that's subsequently exported into the bloodstream. Elevated triglycerides impair leptin transport from the blood to the hypothalamus across the blood-brain barrier, which separates the central nervous system from the rest of the body. Fructose also impaired the response of the hypothalamus to the leptin that did reach it. Both effects may contribute to the leptin resistance Dr. Scarpace's group observed.
Just four weeks of fructose feeding in humans (1.5g per kg body weight) increased leptin levels by 48%. Body weight did not change during the study, indicating that more leptin was required to maintain the same level of fat mass. This may be the beginning of leptin resistance.
Leptin was first identified through research on the "obese" mutant mouse. The obese strain arose by a spontaneous mutation, and is extremely fat. The mutation turned out to be in a protein investigators dubbed leptin. When researchers first discovered leptin, they speculated that it could be the "obesity gene", and supplemental leptin a potential treatment for obesity. They later discovered (to their great chagrin) that obese people produce much more leptin than thin people, so a defeciency of leptin was clearly not the problem, as it was in the obese mouse. They subsequently found that obese people scarcely respond to injected leptin by reducing their food intake, as thin people do. They are leptin resistant. This makes sense if you think about it. The only way a person can gain significant fat mass is if the leptin feedback loop isn't working correctly.
Another rodent model of leptin resistance arose later, the "Zucker fatty" rat. Zucker rats have a mutation in the leptin receptor gene. They secrete leptin just fine, but they don't respond to it because they have no functional receptor. This makes them an excellent model of complete leptin resistance. What happens to Zucker rats? They become obese, hypometabolic, hyperphagic, hypertensive, insulin resistant, and they develop blood lipid disturbances. It should sound familiar; it's the metabolic syndrome and it affects 24% of Americans (CDC NHANES III). Guess what's the first symptom of impending metabolic syndrome in humans, even before insulin resistance and obesity? Leptin resistance. This makes leptin an excellent contender for the keystone position in overweight and other metabolic disorders.
I've mentioned before that the two most commonly used animal models of the metabolic syndrome are both sugar-fed rats. Fructose, which accounts for 50% of table sugar and 55% of high-fructose corn syrup, is probably the culprit. Glucose, which is the remainder of table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, and the product of starch digestion, does not have the same effects. I think it's also relevant that refined sugar contains no vitamins or minerals whatsoever. Sweetener consumption in the U.S. has increased from virtually nothing in 1850, to 84 pounds per year in 1909, to 119 pounds in 1970, to 142 pounds in 2005 (source).
In a recent paper, Dr. Philip Scarpace's group (in collaboration with Dr. Richard Johnson), showed that a high-fructose diet causes leptin resistance in rats. The diet was 60% fructose, which is extreme by any standards, but it caused a complete resistance to the effect of leptin on food intake. Normally, leptin binds receptors in a brain region called the hypothalamus, which is responsible for food intake behaviors (including in humans). This accounts for leptin's ability to reduce food consumption. Fructose-fed rats did not reduce their food intake at all when injected with leptin, while rats on a normal diet did. When subsequently put on a high-fat diet (60% lard), rats that started off on the fructose diet gained more weight.
I think it's worth mentionong that rodents don't respond to high-fat diets in the same way as humans, as judged by the efficacy of low-carbohydrate diets for weight loss. Industrial lard also has a very poor ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats (especially if it's hydrogenated), which may also contribute to the observed weight gain.
Fructose-fed rats had higher cholesterol and twice the triglycerides of control-fed rats. Fructose increases triglycerides because it goes straight to the liver, which makes it into fat that's subsequently exported into the bloodstream. Elevated triglycerides impair leptin transport from the blood to the hypothalamus across the blood-brain barrier, which separates the central nervous system from the rest of the body. Fructose also impaired the response of the hypothalamus to the leptin that did reach it. Both effects may contribute to the leptin resistance Dr. Scarpace's group observed.
Just four weeks of fructose feeding in humans (1.5g per kg body weight) increased leptin levels by 48%. Body weight did not change during the study, indicating that more leptin was required to maintain the same level of fat mass. This may be the beginning of leptin resistance.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
U.S. Weight, Lifestyle and Diet Trends, 1970- 2007
For this post, I compiled statistics on U.S. weight, health and lifestyle trends, and graphed them as consistently as possible. They span the period from 1970 to 2007, during which the obesity rate doubled. The data come from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Some of the graphs are incomplete, either because the data don't exist, or because I wasn't able to find them. 
Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30+; overweight is a BMI of 25+. Yes, it's frightening. It has affected adults and children (NHANES).
The percentage of Americans who report exercising in their spare time has actually increased since 1988 (BRFSS).
We're eating about 250 more calories per day, according to NHANES.
The 250 extra calories are coming from carbohydrate (NHANES).
We're eating more vegetables and fruit (USDA).
We're eating more meat by weight, although calories from meat have probably gone down because the meat has gotten leaner (USDA). This graph represents red meat, fish and poultry. The increase comes mostly from poultry. Boneless, skinless chicken breasts anyone?
We're eating more sugar (USDA). The scale of the graph doesn't allow you to fully appreciate that sweetener consumption had increased by a full 100 calories per day by 1999, although it has dropped a bit since then. This is based on food disappearance data. In other words, the amount consumed is estimated using the amount sold domestically, minus a percentage that approximates waste. High-fructose corn syrup has seized nearly 50% of the sweetener market since 1970.
Again, the scale of the graph doesn't allow you to fully appreciate the magnitude of the change here. In 2000, we ate approximately 2.5 ounces, or 280 calories, more processed grains per day than in 1970 (USDA). That has since decreased slightly (34 calories). You might be saying to yourself right now "hey, that plus the 100 calories from sugar adds up to more of an increase than the NHANES data show!" Yes, and I think that points to the fact that the data sets are not directly comparable. NHANES data are self-reported whereas USDA data are collected from vendors. Regardless of the absolute numbers, our processed grain consumption has gone way up since 1970.
Wheat is still king. Although we grow a lot of corn in this country, most of it gets fed to animals. We prefer eating wheat without first feeding it to an intermediary. In absolute quantity, wheat consumption has increased more than any other grain (not including corn syrup).
Bye bye whole milk. Hello skim milk (USDA).
This graph represents "added fats", as opposed to fats that occur naturally in meat or milk (the USDA does not track the latter). Added fats include salad oil, cooking oil, deep fry oil, butter, lard, tallow, etc. We are eating a lot more vegetable oil than we were in 1970. It comes chiefly from the industrial, omega-6 rich oils such as soybean, corn and canola. Added animal fats have increased slightly, but it's pretty insignificant in terms of calories.
There is an artifact in this graph that I have to point out. In 2000, the USDA changed the way it gathered vegetable oil data. This led to an abrupt, apparent increase in its consumption that is obvious on the graph. So it's difficult to make any quantitative conclusions, but I think it's clear nevertheless that vegetable oil intake has increased considerably.
Between 1970 and 1980, something changed in the U.S. that caused a massive increase in obesity and other health problems. Some combination of factors reached a critical mass that our metabolism could no longer tolerate. The three biggest changes in the American diet since 1970:
Obesity is defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30+; overweight is a BMI of 25+. Yes, it's frightening. It has affected adults and children (NHANES).
The percentage of Americans who report exercising in their spare time has actually increased since 1988 (BRFSS).
We're eating about 250 more calories per day, according to NHANES.
The 250 extra calories are coming from carbohydrate (NHANES).
We're eating more vegetables and fruit (USDA).
We're eating more meat by weight, although calories from meat have probably gone down because the meat has gotten leaner (USDA). This graph represents red meat, fish and poultry. The increase comes mostly from poultry. Boneless, skinless chicken breasts anyone?
We're eating more sugar (USDA). The scale of the graph doesn't allow you to fully appreciate that sweetener consumption had increased by a full 100 calories per day by 1999, although it has dropped a bit since then. This is based on food disappearance data. In other words, the amount consumed is estimated using the amount sold domestically, minus a percentage that approximates waste. High-fructose corn syrup has seized nearly 50% of the sweetener market since 1970.
Again, the scale of the graph doesn't allow you to fully appreciate the magnitude of the change here. In 2000, we ate approximately 2.5 ounces, or 280 calories, more processed grains per day than in 1970 (USDA). That has since decreased slightly (34 calories). You might be saying to yourself right now "hey, that plus the 100 calories from sugar adds up to more of an increase than the NHANES data show!" Yes, and I think that points to the fact that the data sets are not directly comparable. NHANES data are self-reported whereas USDA data are collected from vendors. Regardless of the absolute numbers, our processed grain consumption has gone way up since 1970. Wheat is still king. Although we grow a lot of corn in this country, most of it gets fed to animals. We prefer eating wheat without first feeding it to an intermediary. In absolute quantity, wheat consumption has increased more than any other grain (not including corn syrup).
Bye bye whole milk. Hello skim milk (USDA).
This graph represents "added fats", as opposed to fats that occur naturally in meat or milk (the USDA does not track the latter). Added fats include salad oil, cooking oil, deep fry oil, butter, lard, tallow, etc. We are eating a lot more vegetable oil than we were in 1970. It comes chiefly from the industrial, omega-6 rich oils such as soybean, corn and canola. Added animal fats have increased slightly, but it's pretty insignificant in terms of calories.There is an artifact in this graph that I have to point out. In 2000, the USDA changed the way it gathered vegetable oil data. This led to an abrupt, apparent increase in its consumption that is obvious on the graph. So it's difficult to make any quantitative conclusions, but I think it's clear nevertheless that vegetable oil intake has increased considerably.
Between 1970 and 1980, something changed in the U.S. that caused a massive increase in obesity and other health problems. Some combination of factors reached a critical mass that our metabolism could no longer tolerate. The three biggest changes in the American diet since 1970:
- An increase in cereal grain consumption, particularly wheat.
- An increase in sweetener consumption
- The replacement of meat and milk fat with industrial vegetable oils, with total fat intake remaining the same.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II
There were a number of remarkable changes in both trials. I'll focus mostly on Dr. Lindeberg's trial because it was longer and better designed. The first thing I noticed is that caloric intake dropped dramatically in both trials, -36% in the first trial and a large but undetermined amount in Dr Lindeberg's. The Mediterranean diet group ended up eating 1,795 calories per day, while the paleolithic dieters ate 1,344. In both studies, participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, so those reductions were purely voluntary.
This again agrees with the theory that certain grains (wheat) promote hyperphagia, or excessive eating. It's the same thing you see in low-carbohydrate diet trials, such as this one, which also reduce grain intake. The participants in Lindeberg's study were borderline obese. When you're overweight and your body resets its fat mass set-point due to an improved diet, fatty acids come pouring out of fat tissue and you don't need as many calories to feel satisfied. Your diet is supplemented by generous quantities of lard. Your brain decreases your calorie intake until you approach your new set-point.
That's what I believe happened here. The paleolithic group supplemented their diet with 3.9 kg of their own rump fat over the course of 12 weeks, coming out to 30,000 additional calories, or 357 calories a day. Not quite so spartan when you think about it like that.
The most remarkable thing about Lindeberg's trial was the fact that the 14 people in the paleolithic group, 2 of which had moderately elevated fasting blood glucose and 10 of which had diabetic fasting glucose, all ended up with normal fasting glucose after 12 weeks. That is truly amazing. The mediterranean diet worked also, but only in half as many participants.
If you look at their glucose tolerance by an oral glocose tolerance test (OGTT), the paleolithic diet group improved dramatically. Their rise in blood sugar after the OGTT (fasting BG subtracted out) was 76% less at 2 hours. If you look at the graph, they were basically back to fasting glucose levels at 2 hours, whereas before the trial they had only dropped slightly from the peak at that timepoint. The mediterranean diet group saw no significant improvement in fasting blood glucose or the OGTT. Lindeberg is pretty modest about this finding, but he essentially cured type II diabetes and glucose intolerance in 100% of the paleolithic group.
Fasting insulin, the insulin response to the OGTT and insulin sensitivity improved in the paleolithic diet whereas only insulin sensitivity improved significantly in the Mediterranean diet. Fasting insulin didn't decrease as much as I would have thought, only 16% in the paleolithic group.
Another interesting thing is that the paleolithic group lost more belly fat than the Mediterranean group, as judged by waist circumference. This is the most dangerous type of fat, which is associated with, and contributes to, insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. Guess what food belly fat was associated with when they analyzed the data? The strongest association was with grain consumption (probably mostly wheat), and the association remained even after adjusting for carbohydrate intake. In other words, the carbohydrate content of grains does not explain their association with belly fat because "paleo carbs" didn't associate with it. The effect of the paleolithic diet on glucose tolerance was also not related to carbohydrate intake.
So in summary, the "Mediterranean diet" may be healthier than a typical Swedish diet, while a diet loosely modeled after a paleolithic diet kicks both of their butts around the block. My opinion is that it's probably due to eliminating wheat, substantially reducing refined vegetable oils and dumping the processed junk in favor of real, whole foods. Here's a zinger from the end of the paper that sums it up nicely (emphasis mine):
This again agrees with the theory that certain grains (wheat) promote hyperphagia, or excessive eating. It's the same thing you see in low-carbohydrate diet trials, such as this one, which also reduce grain intake. The participants in Lindeberg's study were borderline obese. When you're overweight and your body resets its fat mass set-point due to an improved diet, fatty acids come pouring out of fat tissue and you don't need as many calories to feel satisfied. Your diet is supplemented by generous quantities of lard. Your brain decreases your calorie intake until you approach your new set-point.
That's what I believe happened here. The paleolithic group supplemented their diet with 3.9 kg of their own rump fat over the course of 12 weeks, coming out to 30,000 additional calories, or 357 calories a day. Not quite so spartan when you think about it like that.
The most remarkable thing about Lindeberg's trial was the fact that the 14 people in the paleolithic group, 2 of which had moderately elevated fasting blood glucose and 10 of which had diabetic fasting glucose, all ended up with normal fasting glucose after 12 weeks. That is truly amazing. The mediterranean diet worked also, but only in half as many participants.
If you look at their glucose tolerance by an oral glocose tolerance test (OGTT), the paleolithic diet group improved dramatically. Their rise in blood sugar after the OGTT (fasting BG subtracted out) was 76% less at 2 hours. If you look at the graph, they were basically back to fasting glucose levels at 2 hours, whereas before the trial they had only dropped slightly from the peak at that timepoint. The mediterranean diet group saw no significant improvement in fasting blood glucose or the OGTT. Lindeberg is pretty modest about this finding, but he essentially cured type II diabetes and glucose intolerance in 100% of the paleolithic group.
Fasting insulin, the insulin response to the OGTT and insulin sensitivity improved in the paleolithic diet whereas only insulin sensitivity improved significantly in the Mediterranean diet. Fasting insulin didn't decrease as much as I would have thought, only 16% in the paleolithic group.
Another interesting thing is that the paleolithic group lost more belly fat than the Mediterranean group, as judged by waist circumference. This is the most dangerous type of fat, which is associated with, and contributes to, insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. Guess what food belly fat was associated with when they analyzed the data? The strongest association was with grain consumption (probably mostly wheat), and the association remained even after adjusting for carbohydrate intake. In other words, the carbohydrate content of grains does not explain their association with belly fat because "paleo carbs" didn't associate with it. The effect of the paleolithic diet on glucose tolerance was also not related to carbohydrate intake.
So in summary, the "Mediterranean diet" may be healthier than a typical Swedish diet, while a diet loosely modeled after a paleolithic diet kicks both of their butts around the block. My opinion is that it's probably due to eliminating wheat, substantially reducing refined vegetable oils and dumping the processed junk in favor of real, whole foods. Here's a zinger from the end of the paper that sums it up nicely (emphasis mine):
The larger improvement of glucose tolerance in the Paleolithic group was independent of energy intake and macronutrient composition, which suggests that avoiding Western foods is more important than counting calories, fat, carbohydrate or protein. The study adds to the notion that healthy diets based on whole-grain cereals and low-fat dairy products are only the second best choice in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials
If Dr. Ancel Keys (of diet-heart hypothesis fame) had been a proponent of "paleolithic nutrition", we would have numerous large intervention trials by now either confirming or denying its ability to prevent health problems. In this alternate reality, public health would probably be a lot better than it is today. Sadly, we have to settle for our current reality where the paleolithic diet has only been evaluated in two small trials, and medical research spends its (our) money repeatedly conducting failed attempts to link saturated fat to every ill you can think of. But let's at least take a look at what we have.
Both trials were conducted in Sweden. In the first one, lead by Dr. Per Wändell, 14 healthy participants (5 men, 9 women) completed a 3-week dietary intervention in which they were counseled to eat a "paleolithic diet". Calories were not restricted, only food categories were. Participants were told to eat as much as they wanted of fruit, vegetables, fish, lean meats, nuts, flax and canola oil, coffe and tea (without dairy). They were allowed restricted quantities of dried fruit, potatoes (2 medium/day) salted meat and fish, fat meat and honey. They were told not to eat dairy, grain products, canned food, sugar and salt.
After three weeks, the participants had:
The second study was conducted by the author of the Kitava study, Dr. Staffan Lindeberg. The study design was very interesting. He randomly assigned 29 men with ischemic heart disease, plus type II diabetes or glucose intolerance, to either a "Mediterranean diet" or a "paleolithic diet". Neither diet was calorie-restricted. Here's the beauty of the study design: the Mediterranean diet was the control for the paleo diet. The reason that's so great is it completely eliminates the placebo effect. Both groups were told they were being assigned to a healthy diet to try to improve their health. Each group was educated on the health benefits of their diet but not the other one. It would have been nice to see a regular non-intervention control group as well, but this design was adequate to see some differences.
Participants eating the Mediterranean diet were counseled to focus on whole grains, low-fat dairy, potatoes, legumes, vegetables, fruit, fatty fish and vegetable oils rich in monounsaturated fats and alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3). I'm going to go on a little tangent here. This is truly a bizarre concept of what people eat in the Mediterranean region. It's a fantasy invented in the US to justify the mainstream concept of a healthy diet. My father is French and I spent many summers with my family in southern France. They ate white bread, full-fat dairy at every meal, legumes only if they were smothered in fatty pork, sausages and lamb chops. In fact, full-fat dairy wasn't fat enough sometimes. Many of the yogurts and cheeses we ate were made from milk with extra cream added. Want to get a lecture from Grandmere? Try cutting the fat off your pork chop!
The paleolithic group was counseled to eat lean meat, fish, fruit, leafy and cruciferous vegetables, root vegetables (including moderate amounts of potatoes), eggs and nuts. They were told to avoid dairy, grain products, processed food, sugar and beer.
Both groups were bordering on obese at the beginning of the study. All participants had cardiovascular disease and moderate to severe glucose intolerance (i.e. type II diabetes). After 12 weeks, both groups improved on several parameters. That includes fat mass and waist circumference. But the paleolithic diet trumped the Mediterranean diet in many ways:
This post is getting long, so I think I'll save the interpretation for the next post.
Both trials were conducted in Sweden. In the first one, lead by Dr. Per Wändell, 14 healthy participants (5 men, 9 women) completed a 3-week dietary intervention in which they were counseled to eat a "paleolithic diet". Calories were not restricted, only food categories were. Participants were told to eat as much as they wanted of fruit, vegetables, fish, lean meats, nuts, flax and canola oil, coffe and tea (without dairy). They were allowed restricted quantities of dried fruit, potatoes (2 medium/day) salted meat and fish, fat meat and honey. They were told not to eat dairy, grain products, canned food, sugar and salt.
After three weeks, the participants had:
- Decreased their caloric intake from 2,478 to 1,584 kcal
- Increased their percentage protein and fat, while decreasing carbohydrate
- Decreased saturated fat, increased dietary cholesterol, decreased sodium intake, increased potassium
- Lost 2.3 kg (5 lb)
- Decreased waist circumference, blood pressure and PAI-1
The second study was conducted by the author of the Kitava study, Dr. Staffan Lindeberg. The study design was very interesting. He randomly assigned 29 men with ischemic heart disease, plus type II diabetes or glucose intolerance, to either a "Mediterranean diet" or a "paleolithic diet". Neither diet was calorie-restricted. Here's the beauty of the study design: the Mediterranean diet was the control for the paleo diet. The reason that's so great is it completely eliminates the placebo effect. Both groups were told they were being assigned to a healthy diet to try to improve their health. Each group was educated on the health benefits of their diet but not the other one. It would have been nice to see a regular non-intervention control group as well, but this design was adequate to see some differences.
Participants eating the Mediterranean diet were counseled to focus on whole grains, low-fat dairy, potatoes, legumes, vegetables, fruit, fatty fish and vegetable oils rich in monounsaturated fats and alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3). I'm going to go on a little tangent here. This is truly a bizarre concept of what people eat in the Mediterranean region. It's a fantasy invented in the US to justify the mainstream concept of a healthy diet. My father is French and I spent many summers with my family in southern France. They ate white bread, full-fat dairy at every meal, legumes only if they were smothered in fatty pork, sausages and lamb chops. In fact, full-fat dairy wasn't fat enough sometimes. Many of the yogurts and cheeses we ate were made from milk with extra cream added. Want to get a lecture from Grandmere? Try cutting the fat off your pork chop!
The paleolithic group was counseled to eat lean meat, fish, fruit, leafy and cruciferous vegetables, root vegetables (including moderate amounts of potatoes), eggs and nuts. They were told to avoid dairy, grain products, processed food, sugar and beer.
Both groups were bordering on obese at the beginning of the study. All participants had cardiovascular disease and moderate to severe glucose intolerance (i.e. type II diabetes). After 12 weeks, both groups improved on several parameters. That includes fat mass and waist circumference. But the paleolithic diet trumped the Mediterranean diet in many ways:
- Greater fat loss in the the midsection and a trend toward greater weight loss
- Greater voluntary reduction in caloric intake (total intake paleo= 1,344 kcal; Med= 1,795)
- A remarkable improvement in glucose tolerance that did not occur significantly in the Mediterranean group
- A decrease in fasting glucose
- An increase in insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR)
This post is getting long, so I think I'll save the interpretation for the next post.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Rats on Junk Food
If diet composition causes hyperphagia, we should be able to see it in animals. I just came across a great study from the lab of Dr. Neil Stickland that explored this in rats. They took two groups of pregnant rats and fed them two different diets ad libitum, meaning the rats could eat as much as they wanted. Here's what the diets looked like:
The rest of the paper is interesting as well. Pups born to mothers who ate junk food while pregnant and lactating had a greater tendency to eat junk than pups born to mothers who ate rat chow during the same period. This underscores the idea that poor nutrition can set a child up for a lifetime of problems.
The animals were fed two types of diet throughout the study. They were fed either RM3 rodent chow alone ad libitum (SDS Ltd, Betchworth, Surrey, UK) or with a junk food diet, also known as cafeteria diet, which consisted of eight different types of palatable foods, purchased from a British supermarket. The palatable food included biscuits, marshmallows, cheese, jam doughnuts, chocolate chip muffins, butter flapjacks, potato crisps and caramel/chocolate bars.It's important to note that the junk food-fed rats had access to rat chow as well. Now here's where it gets interesting. Rats with access to junk food in addition to rat chow ate 56% more calories than the chow-only group! Here's what they had to say about it:
These results clearly show that pregnant rats, given ad libitum access to junk food, exhibited hyperphagia characterised by a marked preference for foods rich in fat, sucrose and salt at the expense of protein-rich foods, when compared with rats that only had access to rodent chow. Although the body mass of dams was comparable among all groups at the start of the experiment, the increased energy intake in the junk food group throughout gestation was accompanied by an increase in body mass at G20 [gestational day 20] with the junk food-fed dams being 13 % heavier than those fed chow alone.Hmm, this is remarkably reminiscent of what's happening to a certain group of humans in North America right now: give them access to food made mostly of refined grains, sugar, and industrially processed vegetable oil. They will prefer it to healthier food, to the point of overeating. The junk food then drives hyperphagia by interfering with the body's feedback loops that normally keep feeding behaviors and body fat within the optimal range. These data support the hypothesis that metabolic damage is the cause of, not the result of, "super-sized" food portions and other similar cultural phenomena.
The rest of the paper is interesting as well. Pups born to mothers who ate junk food while pregnant and lactating had a greater tendency to eat junk than pups born to mothers who ate rat chow during the same period. This underscores the idea that poor nutrition can set a child up for a lifetime of problems.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Hyperphagia
One of the things I didn't mention in the last post is that Americans are eating more calories than ever before. According to Centers for Disease Control NHANES data, in 2000, men ate about 160 more calories per day, and women ate about 340 more than in 1971. That's a change of 7% and 22%, respectively. The extra calories come almost exclusively from refined grains, with the largest single contribution coming from white wheat flour (correction: the largest single contribution comes from corn sweeteners, followed by white wheat flour).
Some people will see those data and decide the increase in calories is the explanation for the expanding American waistline. I don't think that's incorrect, but I do think it misses the point. The relevant question is "why are we eating more calories now than we were in 1971?"
We weren't exactly starving in 1971. And average energy expenditure, if anything, has actually increased. So why are we eating more? I believe that our increased food intake, or hyperphagia, is the result of metabolic disturbances, rather than the cause of them.
Humans, like all animals, have a sophisticated system of hormones and brain regions whose function is to maintain a proper energy balance. Part of the system's job is to keep fat mass at an appropriate level. With a properly functioning system, feedback loops inhibit hunger once fat mass has reached a certain level, and also increase resting metabolic rate to burn excess calories. If the system is working properly, it's very difficult to gain weight. There have been a number of overfeeding studies in which subjects have consumed huge amounts of excess calories. Some people gain weight, many don't.
The fact that fat mass is hormonally regulated can be easily seen in other mammals. When was the last time you saw a fat squirrel in the springtime? When was the last time you saw a thin squirrel in the fall? These events are regulated by hormones. A squirrel in captivity will put on weight in the fall, even if its daily food intake is not changed.
A key hormone in this process is leptin. Leptin levels are proportional to fat mass, and serve to inhibit hunger and eating behaviors. Under normal conditions, the more fat tissue a person has, the more leptin they will produce, and the less they will eat until the fat mass has reached the body's preferred 'set-point'. The problem is that overweight Westerners are almost invariably leptin-resistant, meaning their body doesn't respond to the signal to stop eating!
Leptin resistance leads to hyperphagia, overweight and the metabolic syndrome (a common cluster of symptoms that implies profound metabolic disturbance). It typically precedes insulin resistance during the downward slide towards metabolic syndrome.
I suspect that wheat, sugar and perhaps other processed foods cause hyperphagia. It's the same thing you see when wheat is first introduced to a culture, even if it's replacing another refined carbohydrate. I believe hyperphagia is secondary to a disturbed metabolism. There's something about the combination of refined wheat, sugar, processed vegetable oils and other industrial foods that reached a critical mass in the mid-70s. The shift in diet composition disturbed our normal hormonal profile (even more than it was already disturbed), and sent us into a tailspin of excessive eating and unprecedented weight gain.
Some people will see those data and decide the increase in calories is the explanation for the expanding American waistline. I don't think that's incorrect, but I do think it misses the point. The relevant question is "why are we eating more calories now than we were in 1971?"
We weren't exactly starving in 1971. And average energy expenditure, if anything, has actually increased. So why are we eating more? I believe that our increased food intake, or hyperphagia, is the result of metabolic disturbances, rather than the cause of them.
Humans, like all animals, have a sophisticated system of hormones and brain regions whose function is to maintain a proper energy balance. Part of the system's job is to keep fat mass at an appropriate level. With a properly functioning system, feedback loops inhibit hunger once fat mass has reached a certain level, and also increase resting metabolic rate to burn excess calories. If the system is working properly, it's very difficult to gain weight. There have been a number of overfeeding studies in which subjects have consumed huge amounts of excess calories. Some people gain weight, many don't.
The fact that fat mass is hormonally regulated can be easily seen in other mammals. When was the last time you saw a fat squirrel in the springtime? When was the last time you saw a thin squirrel in the fall? These events are regulated by hormones. A squirrel in captivity will put on weight in the fall, even if its daily food intake is not changed.
A key hormone in this process is leptin. Leptin levels are proportional to fat mass, and serve to inhibit hunger and eating behaviors. Under normal conditions, the more fat tissue a person has, the more leptin they will produce, and the less they will eat until the fat mass has reached the body's preferred 'set-point'. The problem is that overweight Westerners are almost invariably leptin-resistant, meaning their body doesn't respond to the signal to stop eating!
Leptin resistance leads to hyperphagia, overweight and the metabolic syndrome (a common cluster of symptoms that implies profound metabolic disturbance). It typically precedes insulin resistance during the downward slide towards metabolic syndrome.
I suspect that wheat, sugar and perhaps other processed foods cause hyperphagia. It's the same thing you see when wheat is first introduced to a culture, even if it's replacing another refined carbohydrate. I believe hyperphagia is secondary to a disturbed metabolism. There's something about the combination of refined wheat, sugar, processed vegetable oils and other industrial foods that reached a critical mass in the mid-70s. The shift in diet composition disturbed our normal hormonal profile (even more than it was already disturbed), and sent us into a tailspin of excessive eating and unprecedented weight gain.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
New Low-carb Study
I know you’ve all heard the news about the new low-carb study in the New England Journal of Medicine by now, but I have to chime in. I‘m going to try to offer you a different perspective of the study that you may not have found elsewhere. First of all, this is a Rolls Royce of a study. It was large, well-controlled, and two years long. It was partly funded by the Atkins foundation, but it's a peer-reviewed study in a good journal and if anything the study design is slanted against the low-carbohydrate diet.
The study compared the weights and various health parameters of 322 overweight subjects put on one of three diets: a “low-fat diet”, a Mediterranean diet and a “low-carbohydrate diet”. The first two were calorie-restricted while the low-carb diet was not. First of all, the “low-fat” diet was not particularly low in fat. It was 30% fat by calories, only a few percent short of the US average. What they call low-fat in the study is actually a calorie-restricted version of the American Heart Association diet recommendation, which suggests:
“…30% of calories from fat, 10% calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day. The Participants were counseled to consume low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high-fat snacks.”
So henceforth, I’ll refer to it as the AHA diet rather than the low-fat diet.
The “low-carb” diet wasn’t particularly low in carbohydrate either. The low-carb group was only getting 10% fewer calories from carbohydrate than the low-fat or Mediterranean diet groups. Despite these problems, the low-carbohydrate diet was the most effective overall. It caused a weight loss of 5.5 kg (12 lb), compared to 4.6 kg (10 lb) and 3.3 kg (7.4 lb) for the Mediterranean and AHA diets, respectively.
One of the most amazing aspects of the study is that the low-carb diet was the only one that wasn’t calorie-restricted, yet it caused the most weight loss. People in the low-carb group naturally reduced their calorie intake over the course of the study, ending up with an intake similar to the AHA group.
The low-carb diet also came out on top in most of the markers of health they examined. It caused the largest drop in HbA1c, a measure of average blood glucose level. It caused the largest drop in C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation (the Mediterranean diet also did well). And finally, it caused the biggest improvement in the triglyceride:HDL ratio. This ratio is the best blood lipid predictor of heart disease risk I’m aware of in modern Western populations. The lower, the better. They didn't calculate it in the study so I had to do it myself. Here's a graph of the change in trig:HDL ratio for each group over the course of the study:
Other interesting findings: despite the calorie restriction, diabetic participants on the AHA group actually saw a significant increase in fasting blood glucose.
I've speculated before that wheat and sugar may cause hyperphagia, or excessive eating. We can see from these results that reducing carbohydrate (and probably wheat) reduces overall caloric intake quite significantly. This squares with the findings of the recent Chinese study that showed an increase in calorie intake and weight, correlating with the replacement of rice with wheat as the primary carbohydrate. It also squares with diet trends in the US, where wheat consumption has risen alongside calorie intake and weight.
I'd love to know what the results would have looked like if they had gone on a true low-carbohydrate diet, or even simply eliminated grains and sugar.
The study compared the weights and various health parameters of 322 overweight subjects put on one of three diets: a “low-fat diet”, a Mediterranean diet and a “low-carbohydrate diet”. The first two were calorie-restricted while the low-carb diet was not. First of all, the “low-fat” diet was not particularly low in fat. It was 30% fat by calories, only a few percent short of the US average. What they call low-fat in the study is actually a calorie-restricted version of the American Heart Association diet recommendation, which suggests:
“…30% of calories from fat, 10% calories from saturated fat, and an intake of 300 mg of cholesterol per day. The Participants were counseled to consume low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and to limit their consumption of additional fats, sweets and high-fat snacks.”
So henceforth, I’ll refer to it as the AHA diet rather than the low-fat diet.
The “low-carb” diet wasn’t particularly low in carbohydrate either. The low-carb group was only getting 10% fewer calories from carbohydrate than the low-fat or Mediterranean diet groups. Despite these problems, the low-carbohydrate diet was the most effective overall. It caused a weight loss of 5.5 kg (12 lb), compared to 4.6 kg (10 lb) and 3.3 kg (7.4 lb) for the Mediterranean and AHA diets, respectively.
One of the most amazing aspects of the study is that the low-carb diet was the only one that wasn’t calorie-restricted, yet it caused the most weight loss. People in the low-carb group naturally reduced their calorie intake over the course of the study, ending up with an intake similar to the AHA group.
The low-carb diet also came out on top in most of the markers of health they examined. It caused the largest drop in HbA1c, a measure of average blood glucose level. It caused the largest drop in C-reactive protein, a measure of inflammation (the Mediterranean diet also did well). And finally, it caused the biggest improvement in the triglyceride:HDL ratio. This ratio is the best blood lipid predictor of heart disease risk I’m aware of in modern Western populations. The lower, the better. They didn't calculate it in the study so I had to do it myself. Here's a graph of the change in trig:HDL ratio for each group over the course of the study:
Other interesting findings: despite the calorie restriction, diabetic participants on the AHA group actually saw a significant increase in fasting blood glucose.
I've speculated before that wheat and sugar may cause hyperphagia, or excessive eating. We can see from these results that reducing carbohydrate (and probably wheat) reduces overall caloric intake quite significantly. This squares with the findings of the recent Chinese study that showed an increase in calorie intake and weight, correlating with the replacement of rice with wheat as the primary carbohydrate. It also squares with diet trends in the US, where wheat consumption has risen alongside calorie intake and weight.
I'd love to know what the results would have looked like if they had gone on a true low-carbohydrate diet, or even simply eliminated grains and sugar.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Another China Tidbit
A final note about the Chinese study in the previous post: the overweight vegetable-eaters (read: wheat eaters) exercised more than their non-vegetable-eating, thin neighbors. So although their average calorie intake was a bit higher, their expenditure was as well. So much for 'calories in, calories out'...
Although I speculated in the last post that affluent people might be eating more wheat and fresh vegetables, the data don't support that. Participants with the highest income level actually adhered to the wheat and vegetable-rich pattern the least, while low-income participants were most likely to eat this way.
Interestingly, education showed a (weaker) trend in the opposite direction. More educated participants were more likely to eat the wheat-vegetable pattern, while the opposite was true of less educated participants. Thus, it looks like wheat makes people more educated. Just kidding, that's exactly the logic we have to avoid when interpreting this type of study!
Although I speculated in the last post that affluent people might be eating more wheat and fresh vegetables, the data don't support that. Participants with the highest income level actually adhered to the wheat and vegetable-rich pattern the least, while low-income participants were most likely to eat this way.
Interestingly, education showed a (weaker) trend in the opposite direction. More educated participants were more likely to eat the wheat-vegetable pattern, while the opposite was true of less educated participants. Thus, it looks like wheat makes people more educated. Just kidding, that's exactly the logic we have to avoid when interpreting this type of study!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Wheat in China
Dr. Michael Eades linked to an interesting study yesterday on his Health and Nutrition blog. It's entitled "Vegetable-Rich Food Pattern is Related to Obesity in China."
It's one of these epidemiological studies where they try to divide subjects into different categories of eating patterns and see how health problems associate with each one. They identified four patterns: the 'macho' diet high in meat and alcohol; the 'traditional' diet high in rice and vegetables; the 'sweet tooth' pattern high in cake, dairy and various drinks; and the 'vegetable rich' diet high in wheat, vegetables, fruit and tofu. The only pattern that associated with obesity was the vegetable-rich diet. The 25% of people eating closest to the vegetable-rich pattern were more than twice as likely to be obese as the 25% adhering the least.
The authors of the paper try to blame the increased obesity on a higher intake of vegetable oil from stir-frying the vegetables, but that explanation is juvenile and misleading. A cursory glance at table 3 reveals that the vegetable-eaters weren't eating any more fat than their thinner neighbors. Dr. Eades suggests that their higher carbohydrate intake (+10%) and higher calorie intake (+120 kcal/day) are responsible for the weight gain, but I wasn't satisfied with that explanation so I took a closer look.
One of the most striking elements of the 'vegetable-rich' food pattern is its replacement of rice with wheat flour. The 25% of the study population that adhered the least to the vegetable-rich food pattern ate 7.3 times more rice than wheat, whereas the 25% sticking most closely to the vegetable-rich pattern ate 1.2 times more wheat than rice! In other words, wheat flour had replaced rice as their single largest source of calories. This association was much stronger than the increase in vegetable consumption itself!
All of a sudden, the data make perfect sense. Wheat seems to destroy the metabolism of cultures wherever it goes. I think the reason we don't see the same type of association in American epidemiological studies is that everyone eats wheat. Only in a culture that has a true diversity of diet can you find a robust association like this. The replacement of rice with wheat may have caused the increase in calorie intake as well, subsequent to metabolic dysfunction. Clinical trials of low-carbohydrate diets as well as 'paleolithic diets' have shown good metabolic outcomes from wheat avoidance, although one can't be sure that wheat is the only culprit from those data.
I don't think the vegetables had anything to do with the weight gain, they were just incidentally associated with wheat consumption. But I do think these data argue against the commonly-held idea that vegetables protect against overweight.
It's one of these epidemiological studies where they try to divide subjects into different categories of eating patterns and see how health problems associate with each one. They identified four patterns: the 'macho' diet high in meat and alcohol; the 'traditional' diet high in rice and vegetables; the 'sweet tooth' pattern high in cake, dairy and various drinks; and the 'vegetable rich' diet high in wheat, vegetables, fruit and tofu. The only pattern that associated with obesity was the vegetable-rich diet. The 25% of people eating closest to the vegetable-rich pattern were more than twice as likely to be obese as the 25% adhering the least.
The authors of the paper try to blame the increased obesity on a higher intake of vegetable oil from stir-frying the vegetables, but that explanation is juvenile and misleading. A cursory glance at table 3 reveals that the vegetable-eaters weren't eating any more fat than their thinner neighbors. Dr. Eades suggests that their higher carbohydrate intake (+10%) and higher calorie intake (+120 kcal/day) are responsible for the weight gain, but I wasn't satisfied with that explanation so I took a closer look.
One of the most striking elements of the 'vegetable-rich' food pattern is its replacement of rice with wheat flour. The 25% of the study population that adhered the least to the vegetable-rich food pattern ate 7.3 times more rice than wheat, whereas the 25% sticking most closely to the vegetable-rich pattern ate 1.2 times more wheat than rice! In other words, wheat flour had replaced rice as their single largest source of calories. This association was much stronger than the increase in vegetable consumption itself!
All of a sudden, the data make perfect sense. Wheat seems to destroy the metabolism of cultures wherever it goes. I think the reason we don't see the same type of association in American epidemiological studies is that everyone eats wheat. Only in a culture that has a true diversity of diet can you find a robust association like this. The replacement of rice with wheat may have caused the increase in calorie intake as well, subsequent to metabolic dysfunction. Clinical trials of low-carbohydrate diets as well as 'paleolithic diets' have shown good metabolic outcomes from wheat avoidance, although one can't be sure that wheat is the only culprit from those data.
I don't think the vegetables had anything to do with the weight gain, they were just incidentally associated with wheat consumption. But I do think these data argue against the commonly-held idea that vegetables protect against overweight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)