Let's take a trip in the way back machine, shall we?
It's been exactly one year since this Gary Taubes interview with Jimmy Moore aired. In one of Gary's emails to me he stated that this was taped on June 14, 2010, two weeks after your's truly published "Da Bomb": Glyceroneogenesis v. Taubes. I'm not aware of what other bloggers were talking about this specific issue at the time. I'm going to ask you to give me about 10 minutes of your time to listen to what Gary was saying then about errors in GCBC. It is important, I think, to listen to his "voicey language" as I call it. The hesitation, high pitch at some points, throat clearing, etc. Because there can be no doubt that the question was set up between Jimmy & Gary to give him a platform to set the record straight. He was prepared for this ... he was not put on the hot seat in any way, and Jimmy would certainly not be trying to trip the guy up.
Here we are in 2011 and he's yet to set that record straight in print. We also now know, that the 1973 endocrinology text he cites in GCBC, Regulation in Metabolism by Newsholme and Start, did get it right all along. If you haven't read that post here yet, I think that more than any other post on this blog concerning Taubes' and his fantastical theories, it is the must read.
I'm happy that we've at least moved past the notion of not being able to store fat in the absence of dietary carbohydrate, but if recent discussions on the internet are any indication, there is much work yet to be done in getting this TWICHOO put rightfully back onto the scientific trash heap of failed hypotheses. That there are folks out there now wondering if a PhD from the Endocrinology and Metabolism Department at UW has gone insane or something, as they continue on in defense of a hypothesis that should simply not have reached the formulation stage, is rather disconcerting. But such is the state of science in the age of the internet I suppose. That at least one of these people was a research scientist herself is doubly disturbing.
Weight loss on low carb diets is not proof of TWICHOO which is supposed to explain not only how/why people become obese, but also why they're doing so in larger proportions in industrialized countries since the 80's. As my semester gets into swing, I can't help but think of what all has changed in our society since the early 80's when I went off to college. To use a computer back then I had to trek across campus and perhaps even stand in line to get time on a terminal. Yes, back in the dark ages of mainframes and before a PC costing $5K had 8K RAM and ran off 2 floppy disks! And there were many trips from the terminal to the central printer room to pick up outputs. Now most of my students have wireless laptops through which they can access just about anything anywhere on campus and printers in their rooms. My freshman dorm did not have phones in every room and it was pricey to get service. Long distance call? Payphone downstairs. Now everyone has a cell phone, and most have internet access with those too. There were no roads going to some of our buildings, not that we could access anyway. Everybody didn't have cars. I could go on but I'm feeling rather old reminiscing here already. But oh! The Japanese were eating white rice. Lots of white rice being heated up in the microwave in the little snack area/lounge in the library at Rensselaer. Lots.
Bottom line, the obesity epidemic is perfectly well explained by changes in our culture and the inescapable fact that we eat more (calories) and move less during the course of our daily lives. I don't believe any particular macro, or single food or food agent or deficiency or infection or gut flora or whatever will ever explain this epidemic, because we're talking sentient socialized humans.
Jillian Michaels was on Fox & Friends this morning and she answered a viewer question (I'll paraphrase): This lady had changed her diet to a healthier one, walks 3X/week and lost about 20 lbs, but she's unable to lose more. Jillian responded that she'd bet 100 to 1 the lady was not counting calories and she said she needs to work out more and she'll see the pounds start to drop again. I could hear Taubes and Fat Head mocking her all the way to the bank. How sad, really.
Comments
On top of our societal changes in both activity and eating, there is also the whole question of the effect of engineered foods. Growing up, lots of food was seasonal. We didn't get it all the time, but when it was available, it was really, really good. Now, I have access, for example, to peaches all year round. And they are always mediocre. There's no reason why I would ever now choose a peach over some chocolate. But if I could get a good, ripe Jersey peach or Georgia peach in season, I would take the peach almost every time.
It's possible that's largely cultural ... we ourselves just learn how to eat perpetually despite lack of hunger. But I do think that NADs or environmental chemicals or even epigenetics are at work in helping to break that mechanism for some of us.
Another way of clarifying the obesity epidemic is to focus on the populations in the US* that aren't particularly ravaged by it. This seems to be two groups, mainly: persons of E. Asian origin, and upper middle class whites.
I have no statistics on the subject of E. Asians, but my lying eyes tell me that they are catching up to the rest of us - depending on their class - and most of them tend to be well-educated. So there is nothing special about them, ethnically. If they are normal weight, it's because they've stuck to the moderate eating habits of their parents.
It's the class divide of the white population that fascinates me so. You simply do not see a fat white person in the Upper East Side, or SoHo. These are places in NYC where rich white people live. Every statistic I read about the rest of the country follow suit. The fittest and thinnest state is Colorado. The fittest town in Colorado is Boulder.
Why? Is there something magic about their genes? Their epigenetic mechanism? No! The answer is simple: It's not socially acceptable to be fat in those places. So if you start gaining weight, you cut back food intake, ramp up energy expenditure. And you probably weren't fat to begin with.
*not that the epidemic is confined to the US, but you have to start somewhere.
-Steve P
Reference:
Church, T., Thomas, D., Tudor-Locke, C., Katzmarzyk, P., Earnest, C., Rodarte, R., Martin, C., Blair, S., & Bouchard, C. (2011). Trends over 5 Decades in U.S. Occupation-Related Physical Activity and Their Associations with Obesity PLoS ONE, 6 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019657
Steve, I think sedentary behavior is not so much the initial cause, but it is something that snowballs with the obese spending less time standing vs. sitting compared to lean. Also, deliberate activity - aka exercise - has been shown to prevent weight gain and/or regain.
Source? That sounds like something that would be very difficult to prove.
Try google ; here's the 1st one I came up with
http://win.niddk.nih.gov/notes/SprSum97/1artcl3.htm
Actual calories burned during exercise is inconsequential, less than even the low carb metabolic advantage.
yes, the "proof" seems to be all epidemiology/observational probably there's no funding for a 20 year intervention study.
I'll settle for a rat study!
"Those who walked a certain amount gained less weight than those who didn't on average."
Evelyn,
As Sanjeev says, that sounds very epidemiology/observational.
'Travis Saunders is a PhD student researching the relationship between sedentary time and chronic disease risk in children and youth.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/nyregion/22fat.html
"Dr. Rundle, who has written several papers on neighborhood environments and obesity, has found that even when adjusting for poverty and race, at least three factors are associated with lowering obesity: proximity to supermarkets and groceries where fresh produce is sold; proximity to parks; and access to public transportation, which reduces reliance on cars.
“There are ways urban planners can impact obesity, physical activity and diet,” Dr. Rundle said.
(Dr. Rundle found that the concentration of fast-food restaurants did not seem to have a particularly strong effect on obesity rates.)
Also from above article:
"the city’s health department reported that the prosperous swath of Manhattan from the Upper East Side down to Gramercy Park had the lowest obesity rate (less than 15 percent) in the city..."
That wouldn't explain why the East Side is skinnier than the West side: they are equidistant from Central Park. I think it's the social factor. To be fat on the Upper East Side is to be a disgrace.
I'd be interested in seeing the breakdown of obesity rates on the East Side between men and women. My guess is that a bit of a paunch is much more acceptable for a Master of the Universe than it would ever be for his trophy.
Well, East siders have Schurz park, which is their version of Riverside, but Manhattan's biggest "gym" is Central Park.
Also, to confuse things further, skinny Gramercy has no really big parks in which to exercise. Alas, they are condemned to New York Sports Clubs, which are as ubiquitous in that area as SBUX.
Regarding the man/woman divide on the UES, I have often wondered about that. According to my lying eyes, the very thinnest people in NYC apart from the 90 dancers in the New York City Ballet, are UES women.
Nevertheless I think that fitness is a fetish among the Masters, whereas thinness is the ideal amongst their trophies. The trophiest trophy of 'em all, Nan Kempner, died of the effects of emphysema, being a heavy smoker most of her life.
Somewhere or other there is a WHO data map (2005), which shows that women in France have the same BMI as folks in the poorest African countries. Social pressures, anyone? I've seen it on blogs, but I can no longer find it on their website.
I hadn't heard before about the WHO data maps. The app is here:
http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp
Hey, I have another thought about the whole notion of "food reward." It strikes me that the very word "reward" is highly subjective. Perhaps the modern American interpretation of "reward" is 1000 calories bigger than it was in (for example) 1931?
Just a suggestion.
I'm not suggesting that there are NOT women living on diet coke and cigarettes [and half lines of coke maybe as well] specifically for the purpose of being slim however I have had too consistant experience with upper class white women who experience little or no pressure at all because they are and have always been very lean. Not by genetic magic either but by looking out for number one and making their self care a priority. That sounds deceptively simple, it's not easy to endure the level of conflict involved in executing that priority set.
Personally, I did not endure it well at all and believe that it contributed mightily to a weight gain I would not have believed myself capable of. I only became "overweight" and have witnessed that level of weight gain rather mocked by those who have experienced true obesity but it was enough to impact all areas of my life and change my previously unsympathetic perceptions.
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..