Matt Metzgar

The Same Old Song

I've seen a few reports on this new study(pdf) that came out comparing different diets.  The study tested low-fat, low-carb, and Mediterranean diets over a two-year period.  Some reported this as a victory for the low-carb diet, which resulted in the most total weight loss, while others noted the Mediterranean diet performed better for women.

In comparison, I see this study as evidence that traditional diets are completely ineffective for weight loss.  If you look deeper into the study, you'll find a few things.  First, subjects started out as "moderately obese" with an average weight around 200 lbs (this is a combined average for both men and women).  Second, you'll find the subjects on the low-carb diet lost only 10 pounds over a two-year period!  Third, all of the weight loss was achieved in the first year; from months 12 through 24, there was no change in weight or a slight regain.  Here's the graph that shows this:

You can see that maximum weight loss occurred around month 5, and weight was regained until somewhat leveling off.  Further, it's obvious that the diets quit working; no one lost weight in the second year meaning that there was no more weight loss to be had from the diets.

What bothers me about this study is that researchers have known about this rebound phenomenon for decades.  If you continually restrict calories (no matter what the type of diet), the metabolism slows.  After around six months, this lowered metabolic rate leads to weight regain.  This has been shown in studies dating back at least 30 years, and probably longer.

So the question is, why do researchers keep wasting their time comparing one diet versus another when they know (or should know) that diets are bound to fail in the long-run?  Does this study provide any new, useful information to the general public? No.  Does this study provide anyone with a blueprint for healthy eating and weight control?  No.  Does this study just add to the confusion within the general public about how to lose weight?  Yes. 

If decades of research show that continually restricting calories fails, then the obvious next step is to try something different.  A logical choice would be some type of intermittent calorie restriction, where calories are restricted some days and not others.  This can allow for gradual weight loss, and more importantly, it will not lead to a slowing of the metabolic rate.

Another logical choice is to eat a similar amount of food each day, and exercise more and create a calorie deficit through the exercise.  This is another approach that can lead to weight loss that will not slow the metabolic rate.  Of course, a combination of exercise and healthy eating is optimal.

It's frustrating that studies like this are even performed.  Subjects followed the various diets, counting carbs or what not, for two years to lose only 10 pounds.  If I was a subject in this study, I would want my money back so to speak.  For comparison's sake, the subjects could have done a good bit of exercise and lost 16 pounds in only 12 weeks, like in this study. 

And people wonder why we have an obesity epidemic.  We have top researchers wasting their time comparing ineffective diets, and the government promoting their bogus food pyramid.  Beyond all this nonsense is a simple solution: a return to our roots of Paleolithic eating and exercising. 

Cooked Food

I have been reading through this brand-new paper on cooked food.  An experiment tested whether great apes have a preference for cooked food.  The result showed that there is a statisticially significant relationship with apes choosing cooked food over non-cooked food.

Why is this impotant?  A major hypothesis is that humans first utilized fire for warmth, and then much later learned to use fire for cooking.  This new research on apes suggests there was already a pre-existing preference for cooked food as humans evolved.  This would mean that soon after fire was controlled by humans, cooking became prevalent.

The study shows that apes preferred both cooked meat and cooked vegetables over the non-cooked counterparts.  This gives more support to the idea that cooked tubers were an important part of human evolution and the Paleolithic diet.  Back in 1999, researchers proposed that cooked tubers played a bigger role than most thought.  The new study on apes lends support to their hypothesis.

One small thing I was curious about was how apes would encounter any type of cooked food in the first place.  The paper notes that chimpanzees prefer seeds that are heated from wild fires.  This means that apes encountered cooked/heated food on a random basis, when fires on the savannah heated existing foods.

Weird Science

I saw this article about "feel good eating" on MSN the other day.  It's one of those articles that probably confuses the average person even more about what is proper eating.

The article notes that scientists have shown that snacking on quickly digested carbohydrates elevates levels of serotonin in the brain.  From this, the article then advises snacking on simple carbs in order to feel better.  But the article also notes that "you won't want to try this regimen if you have diabetes or are prediabetic." 

Why doesn't the article mention that this type of high-glycemic eating can increase the risk of diabetes?  Instead, it makes it sound like this type of quick-fix eating has no potential downsides.  Why not just recommend that people eat pure sugar in order to feel better?  That's way you'll get the boost in serotonin even quicker.

This type of journalism seems irresponsible to me.  If you're going to recommend certain eating practices, at least look at the research concering what will happen when people actually follow such advice.  

Intermittent Calorie Restriction

In the long run, diets don't work.  In this study that I've mentioned previously, any of four diets (Atkins, Ornish, Zone, or Weight Watchers) led to only a 5 or 6 lb weight loss over a year's time.  Other studies show the same result when they extend the time horizon out to a year or more.

In contrast, you can look at studies where calories were intermittently restricted and you see much better results.  By intermittently restricted, I mean that calories are cut fairly low on some days with normal eating on the rest of the days.  In the book, "The Alternate Day Diet", the idea is to restrict calories one day and have unlimited eating the next (as the title implies).  Others recommend different frequencies as to how often calories should be reduced.

It's important to distinguish between intermittent calorie restriction and intermittent fasting.  If intermittent fasting turns into eating a full day's calories in one meal, then there may not be much benefit.  For example, if you look at studies on Ramadan fasting where a person fasts until evening but then has a large meal, there often isn't much change in body composition.

I think some of the intermittent fasting studies show benefits only because they indirectly restrict calories on fasting days.  If a study has alternate-day fasting, then obviously a person will have no calories on one day.  Or if someone fasts until 6 pm, it may be hard to eat enough calories as would normally be consumed in a day's eating. 

In "The Alternate Day Diet", the author makes the case that the real benefits come from a 36-hour period of low calories.  That is, eating much less one day and then sleeping on it.  The benefits aren't dependent on not eating food for some many hours per se, as in one study subjects sipped on a protein shake throughout the day.  It's the 36-hour period of low calories that triggers weight loss, and also lessens oxidative stress and inflammation.

What I wonder is why this approach is not more widely known.  If you continually restrict calories, your metabolism will slow and the lost weight will come back.  If you restrict calories every other day (or every third day or twice a week), then you can lose weight but the metabolism will not adapt and slow down.

It has to be easier psychologically to restrict calories only part-time as well.  A lot of times on diets, people too much pressure on themselves and then they break down.  With intermittent calorie restriction, you only have to control calories on some days, not all.  This seems like a much more livable approach over the long term.

Calories Count Only One Way?

I was reading this interesting post by Michael Eades this weekend.  The post discusses how people on a low-carb diet can still have trouble losing weight if their overall calories are too high.  What interested me more though was this paragraph by Eades in the comments section:

"When insulin levels stay down, the fat cells open, but fat doesn’t really come out unless it needs to. With enough dietary calories to provide for energy needs, the fat stays in the fat cells. The other side of this equation says that if insulin is down, fat won’t go into the fat cells either. So people can consume large amounts of calories on low-carb diets and not gain weight either, which is what is happening to the subjects in your links."

I think this is so neat because it contrasts with the normal calorie in-calorie out model.  Usually, they say if you cut calories you'll lose weight, and if you increase them you'll gain.  But when you add hormonal effects into the picture (via insulin), you get a situation where things are different on either side of the equation.

I can certainly vouch for the fact that if you eating in a way that keeps insulin low (Paleo or low-carb) that extra protein and fat calories do not necessarily lead to weight gain.  I wrote about this a couple months ago.

As for decreasing calories when in a low-insulin state, I think there's more to the story.  I will write about this in the next post.

Fear of Food

In terms of weight control, I feel many people think of food as the enemy, and that's unfortunate.  The truth is that individuals have become overweight because of eating the wrong foods, not necessarily because of gluttony.  It's the poor food choices that lead to a distorted appetite and the associated calorie excess.

Instead of reversing this cycle at the core, by making correct food choices, many try to reduce food intake and count calories.  Of course, this type of short-term fix has repeatedly failed for millions.  It also leads to a distorted sense of how food fits into a person's lifestyle.

In a natural sense, food is good.  Food is nourishment and food is the reward of labor.  Almost all celebrations and family events involve food.  In this way, food is not to be feared - instead, it is something to be embraced.

Given only natural foods, I'm not even sure if it's possible to become overweight.  By natural, I mean a pure Paleo diet (or at least the modern version of it).  Maybe if someone was very sedentary and ate all the time, but I'm still not sure.

If any foods should be treated as the enemy, it would be bad carbohydrates.  But again, I don't think this way of looking at things is correct.  Instead, bad carbs would be something a person would consume in a limited amount, only when they felt it was acceptable to do so.

A few cookies at Christmas never killed anybody.  Pounding the body on a daily basis with bad carbs will.  Natural food is something to be savored and enjoyed, not feared.  If you choose the right foods, you will be rewarded with the right physical outcomes.

Cinnamon

The last month or two I've been making good use of the crockpot, mainly cooking vegetables and meat.  To jazz things up a bit, I added some cinnamon to a meal I made last night.  The cinnamon really seemed to mix well with the chicken and yams.  I was surprised how much better everything tasted by adding just a bit of spice.

It turns out that cinnamon actually helps lessen the metabolic syndrome.  This new study shows cinnamon has beneficial on insulin and other related factors.  I will continue using cinnamon and also try to branch out into other spices.

Palm Oil

I bought some palm oil at the store this weekend.  I've read that it's used more in Europe and other countries, and so it seemed worth a try.  I actually had trouble finding it - there was only one brand in the organic section of the grocery.

Here's a New York Times article about a recent controversy involving palm oil.  It appears the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is against palm oil due to the saturated fat content.  From what I recall, this Center is some joke organization that I think may even be against meat in general.  They just seem to be plowing ahead with the ineffective low-fat message that hasn't worked the last 30-plus years.  Someone even got mad enough to put up this website, CSPI Scam, that shows all the inconsistencies and problems with the CSPI. 

At any rate, I tried the palm oil on some meat tonight, and it tasted pretty good.  At the very least, it's a way to provide a little diversity in flavors and micronutrients.  With the phasing out of trans fat, palm oil use seems to be on the rise.  More background information on palm oil in America is available at this site. 

Paleo Cooking II

The crockpot has definitely turned out to be a winner, as far as cooking.  It's very ease to use, and I have been putting it to good use.  You just load in some vegetables and meat, add in some liquid, and turn the switch. 

The picture above is a simple Paleo dinner of chicken, carrots, yams, lettuce, and some spices.  It took just a few minutes of prep time and produced a great meal.

A Pound of Vegetables

I read on another website where a person starts off each day with a pound of vegetables.  This seemed like a lot, but I thought I would give it a try.  So along with my usual breakfast the other day, I ate a pound of carrots afterwards.

First, it really didn't seem like that much to eat.  A pound of vegetables sounds scarier than it really is.  Second, I felt it helped even out my energy levels a little better than usual.

Third, this newer study (described in this press article) shows that vegetable but not fruit consumption significantly reduces the risk of diabetes.  Those with the highest consumption of vegetables had an almost 30 percent reduction in their risk of diabetes.  It pays to eat those veggies.