The Smarter Science of Slim ~ General Thoughts

A few days back a copy of this book was donated to me, and for the past months or so the occasional query has come my way for my opinion of the book.  The author, Jonathan Bailor has a website that I've read bits and pieces of -- mostly the blog.   I think I know who the mystery guru some have been hinting at these past days, and I'm pretty sure I know why -- Bailor classifies foods as SANE or inSANE based on the acronym of four factors:

S = Satiety     A = Aggression (towards body fat formation)   N = Nutrition    E = Efficiency

We'll get back to that acronym later, but as I've also blogged on quite a few of his references and science here, it makes sense to me that searches for Bailor's book/website/diet might land someone here.   That and, I suppose, this post:  And the Cherry-Picking Baton has been passed.  So I've now read through the diet section of the book and have a full critique in the works (if I can stomach it).  I may or may not get to the exercise portion.   For now some general thoughts.

First, how unfortunate that we have yet another fairly sound diet that will probably help many people, but not for the reasons stated.  It is subtitled "Scientific Proof.  Fat Loss Facts" and Bailor sure as heck delivers on the litany of scientific papers he's read and distilled down to his plan.  I've lamented here recently, that in this day and age we would have newbies on the block peddling the same old discredited TWICHOO (Taubes Wrong Insulin Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity).  It is especially disturbing in that his dietary recommendations are in contrast to TWICHOO -- basically, his is a truly high protein diet containing more carbohydrates than any card carrying TWICHOOB (B=Believer) would even look at, and in the end is  -- EEK!!! -- low fat.  Yep.  In the book you will be encouraged to eat such things as egg whites and low-or-no fat Greek yogurt and cottage cheese as protein sources.    

Bailor's schtick is that Eat Less Move More is not only wrong but dangerous.  Dangerous?  He banks this entirely on the pathetic rates with which people can maintain losses.  He likens it to the long term success rates of quitting smoking cold turkey.  So ELMM doesn't work because people regain weight, as quitting smoking doesn't work to clear up lungs because people take smoking back up???  Shoddy logic that.    Bailor says that what you really need to do is EMMLS -- Eat More and Move Less (Smarter).  This is the repackaged schtick of one Gary Taubes  and the Eades/Hahn trio.   And I'm sure someone will chastise me for repeating how this is not working all that well for so many, many people.  But the track record of reverse-insulin-engineering aside, it is more disturbing that this is endorsed for nutritional curricula!  Say wha???

In studies Bailor cites where weight is lost, they ALWAYS eat less.  Always.  If by Eat More he means merely bulk, volume, weight of foods, OK.   But that is not the message that comes across as he lists a bunch of studies showing discrepancies between mass losses, gains, macros, calories, etc.  To lose weight permanently, we should tell obese people to eat more of different foods.  What tops the list?  Whey protein.  And I get floored when I read about "eating more" when someone cites a study I've blogged on and touted repeatedly here at the Asylum:  High Protein Diet Induces Sustained Reduction in Ad Libitum Intake Despite Diurnal Leptin Compensation.  I'll save the discussion of how Bailor mangles this study in support of his plan in my review if I ever post one up.

A = Aggression, E = Efficiency and Bailor expends a lot of energy rehashing TWICHOO.  This is laughable when viewed in context of his primary example of his glorious plan.  

The smarter scientific approach to fat loss is much more effective.

For example, researchers at Skidmore College compared a traditional “eat less, exercise more— harder” program against an “eat more, exercise less—smarter” program. Let’s call the groups in the study the Harder Group and the Smarter Group.  The Harder Group ate the traditional diet of 60% carbohydrates, 15% protein, and 25% fat while doing low-quality cardiovascular exercise for forty minutes per day, six days per week.  Low-quality cardiovascular exercise refers to exercises like walking, biking, and jogging, which must be done for hours to impact our health and weight. The Smarter Group ate a higher-quality diet of 40% carbohydrate, 40% protein, and 20% fat while exercising only 60% as much, but with higher-quality.  The study lasted for 12 weeks and included 34 women and 29 men between the ages of 20 and 60.   At the end of the study, the Harder Group “successfully” ate less and exercised eighteen hours more than the Smarter Group. After examining the results though, the researchers concluded: 

The primary finding of the current study is that a lifestyle modification program consisting of high intensity cardiovascular and resistance training combined with a balanced carbohydrate and protein diet results in greater improvement in body composition, cardiovascular risk factors, and muscular strength than a program comprised of a traditional diet and moderate-intensity exercise regimen commonly recommended for weight loss.

Less academically speaking, eating more and exercising less—smarter—was more effective than the traditional approach.

Ahh, but no.  Here's the study:  Increased Dietary Protein and Combined High Intensity Aerobic and Resistance Exercise Improves Body Fat Distribution and Cardiovascular Risk Factors.   The C/P/F group of 40/40/20 <-- that's 80% insulinogenic carbohydrate and protein, VERY high protein, and QUITE low fat --  ate LESS than at baseline.   It is next to impossible to eat 40% energy as carb w/o substantial starch and/or sugar intake.   Any way you speak, Bailor is misrepresenting this study.

Here's the intake data for the study period {click to enlarge}.  Let's just compare the intervention groups as Bailor does, C/P/F  Smarter = 40/40/20, Harder = 60/15/25.  Ummm... the mean calorie deficit is actually ever so slightly greater for the Smarter "eat more" group, only reading Bailor's take you'd think they were eating more than both their counterparts and their original intake.  Both groups cut caloric intake by over 25%.  

Dare I call Bailor a LLVLC Flavor of the Month?  (That didn't end well for the last guy ... well, except he's making money off of desperate obese folks)   He'll be on the 2013 LC Cruise (as of this post), and was recently interviewed on the LLVLC Show.  Over a THOUSAND papers, ten THOUSAND pages?  Yikers.  Seems he didn't read very thoroughly ....

The better results were achieved on the LOWER FAT diet -- so much for that canard -- and very high protein (oh the gluconeogenesis!) .  They cut absolute fat intake by a whopping 60+% from roughly 80g/day to around 30g/day.  That's right ... uber low fat, 2T buttah's worth.  The "traditional" low fat approach group only cut fat intake by about 20g/day from around 70 to 50g/day.  Carbs?  The changes are relatively inconsequential.   The energy expenditures for both groups changed nominally (REE increased about 7-8%).

So how on earth can this guy tout the insulin fat-trapping GARBAGE?  But before we go for today, this is an interesting study in another way ... they did a one-year follow-up.  Ready?

Note that the Harder ended up with 3.5 kg loss vs. 3.0 kg for the Smarter folks.  Don't give me that either is really "significant" as the Smarter group just had less variability and neither was all that significant in the real world sense when push comes to shove for obese people.  Hopefully everyone can agree on that.  Still, the abdominal fat -- touted by Bailor as a superior outcome at 12 weeks -- now favors the Harder group.  Yep, at 12 weeks the Smarter group lost twice the percent abdominal fat (16% v. 8%), but at one year, only the Harder group had significantly reduced abdominal fat mass.  This is rather depressing, but it is what it is.  You cannot cherry pick the 12 week plusses and ignore the 1 year results when you're condensing the science (supposedly) out of all of these studies and citing failure rates of CICO-based approaches.  Oh, and the Harder group apparently ate more inSANE food.

I've been listening to that podcast in the background and what a load of crock.    Bailor didn't even flinch on the description of low carb as high fat.  Not even skipped a beat.  Must be all of those studies flying around in his head.  Jimmy talks about satiety of fat, Bailor talks about lipophobia but he does NOT advocate high fat unless you consider egg whites, and low-non fat diary as the new high fat.  In fact, the only time Jimmy's favorite food group, butter, is mentioned in the book, is that it's not (he mentions peanut butter though, and a fudge made with Splenda).  There is, however, an explicit prescription NOT to consume oils, and last I checked that would include coconut oil.  But rest assured, you will not die without exogenous glucose.  Phew!    I'm going to be sick pretty soon but I'll let it play.  I have a sink to unclog while this runs out.  Oooh Feinman!  The man who has openly admitted he doesn't even understand thermodynamics and authored a paper claiming that conversion of chemical to thermal energy is a 2nd law phenomenon that violates the 1st law.  It does not, it never did, it never will.

Bailor should be ashamed to inflate the stats on muscle vs. fat loss.   He says that if we eat less, our metabolisms will slow, and we'll burn muscle first.  Really?  What does his own darned classic Smarter vs. Harder study show?  EVERYONE ate less.  EVERYONE exercised more (than baseline).   The uber high protein group combined that with resistance training so they not only preserved muscle but gained some.  But how about the other group?  They lost an average of 2.8 kg of which 2.5 was fat and 0.2 was non-fat (rounding error obviously involved here)  so they lost 90% of their weight as FAT.  So much for your nonsense Mr. Bailor.  You know when you even get close to losing 70% of your weight from lean mass?  When you give obese subjects an insulin lowering drug ... or did Mr. Bailor miss that study?

This is flat out dishonest folks, and I'm going to call him on it.  Mr. Bailor -- check that Google Alert -- find me ONE -- just ONE -- study where a group of subjects was fed (in controlled feeding/accountable manner) more calories and lost weight.  Just one.  You and I, and everyone in the audience knows this study doesn't exist.  Then find me ONE -- again just ONE -- study where subjects were underfed (again in controlled/accountable manner) where they did not lose.  You and I, and everyone in the audience knows this study doesn't exist either.

I'm puzzled really.  Other than the higher protein prescription, something I've been after since forever on this blog, how Bailor's diet differs from CW.  It's LoBAG meets KimKins meets South Beach Level One.  Like all the others hyping eating more, it's still about eating less, or it won't work.  Water, fiber and lean proteins.  Check!  Lay off the oils (added fats).  Check!  Eschew sweets.  Check!  I get the whole grain stuff, but eat a dang potato!

But low fat made us fat.  At one point Bailor says "just look around" ... I wonder if he'll be doing so next May ... Meanwhile folks, just eat food.  He suggests highly processed whey protein based shakes and smoothies -- yeah, no Cheerios tree, but there is a whey cow or something out there, right?  Perhaps they can develop a chicken that lays yolkless eggs too, though I suppose that might not fit too well into the evolutionary angle of things.   Eight whites make for a great breakfast!!??  Don't tell Jonathan, but whey protein is one of THE most insulinogenic non-real foods around.