las

Welcome all seeking refuge from low carb dogma!

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”
~ Charles Darwin (it's evolutionary baybeee!)

Monday, November 28, 2016

Are the Super-Obese the Ones Who Are Metabolically Adapted?

Introduction


The current theme of metabolic research seems to have settled on physiological changes, post-weight-loss in the obese, that set the person up for almost assured failure and regain.  It has been reported that the super-obese (usually a term for BMI>40) tend to have REEs that are higher than would be predicted by standard, generally accepted models such as Harris-Benedict or Mifflin-St.Jeor.  This is both what was seen in the Biggest Losers "before" weight loss, and was reported in comments on this blog by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who measures REE in the obese he treats.  

In order for a super-obese person to fully reverse their obesity, they will need to lose large amounts of weight -- 100, 200 or more pounds.   To do so, most will need to dramatically cut calories to lose at a rate that is motivating enough to sustain a fairly lengthy time period.  Even "fast" weight loss, reported by many, and especially gastric bypass patients, occurs over several months to a year ... or more.

It is well documented that REE will decline in most, and it will decline more precipitously in response to more drastic cuts in intake.  The individual variation in this response is often glossed over.  It has also been well documented that REE returns to normal levels once maintenance calories are consumed.  This is something that has now been replaced by the results after 6 years for 14 former contestants on The Biggest Loser.  The abysmal media reporting on that study has now placed a *fact* into the general discourse that the reason obesity is so difficult to reverse is a physiological one -- as the New York Times blared, "Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight".  This was followed by an editorial by a neuroscientist, cautioning in the subtitle "The problem isn't willpower. It's neuroscience. Why you can't -- and shouldn't -- fight back. ".

In this blog, I will discuss how what Kevin Hall actually says about the Biggest Loser study clashes with interpretations, and where we agree.  I will then address where we disagree.   His bottom line appears to be that metabolic adaptation is defined as measuring REE when obese and then calculating what it should be at 100, 150, 200, etc. lbs lighter.  He focuses on change in REE being greater than would be predicted for the individual based on their super-obese metabolic starting point.  I disagree that this is an appropriate measure, and especially how this interpretation has been portrayed in the media.  As it turns out, the "after" subjects did not have depressed REEs when compared to others at that weight!  

I propose a "what if it's all been a big fat super-obese lie" question.  What if -- instead of the body fighting to maintain some re-set super-obese setpoint by "adapting" to calorie restriction and weight loss with a depressed metabolic rate  ... What if it is the super-obese who are exhibiting a metabolic adaptation to their chronically overfed state?


Friday, November 18, 2016

Is Metabolic Adaptation Real? Study 1 of ?

I am (STILL) working on a comprehensive post addressing "The Biggest Loser Regain" study and fallout.  But as I was going along the way, I'm finding some gems that really just need posts of their own.  This is one of them.  I'm also going to do my best to clean out the draft bin for the remainder of 2016!    [If you haven't seen the previous entry referencing this topic, here is a link.  If it is some time past the publish date of this current post, this link should be active for the TBLR post.]




Friday, October 28, 2016

The #LCHF Weight Loss Industry & Evangelizing Low Carb

I recently stumbled across this video.  It's a tough watch, but *this* epitomizes ALL that is wrong with the low carb weight loss industry.    For starters, diet really is religion for these folks as this get-together, marketing stunt for Dr. Eric Westman's HEAL Clinics/care, was held in a church.  There was prayer, there were references to God, and a collection, and paying it forward.   If you can't stomach too much of it (I don't blame you), I'll list a few time-stamps.  If anyone cares to give time stamps for various gems and ridiculous claims, please do so in comments!


11:35 Prayer ... 17:25 Melanie Miller takes the stage ... 17:33 Introduces Dr. Mark Cucuzzella ... 20:36 Dr. Mark speaks, thanks Jimmy Moore, talks about the movement, calls obese people in audience paradoxes! ... 23:30 Dr. Mark shares analogy that losing weight is like holding a beachball under water, don't try to hold it too far down!  ... 30:00 Success Story parade up on stage ... 43:37 Melanie introduces Jimmy Moore -- he's blessing us!  ... 44:23 Jimmy gets on stage to do his spiel ... 1:19:00 Melanie talks about HEAL (This is worth listening to if you can to get the full effect of an obese woman yelling at the audience to take control of their health and lives) ... 1:20:00 talks about sugar being the same as opioids for pain!!!!   ... 1:25:12  Melanie Miller "You gotta be honest with yourself".

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Should we worry so much about preserving "Lean Mass" in people who got obese on the SAD?

A few years ago now, researchers led by George Bray of Pennington did a classic overfeeding study, to interesting result.  I blogged on that study in some depth here, but I'll include a brief summary now:
  • Metabolic ward study
  • Determined weight maintaining caloric intake over a period of 13-25 days on a standard diet P/F/C% of 15/25/60%
  • The average maintenance calories for all participants was 2414 cals. 
  • Overfed ~40% of calories or ~950 cal/day for 8 weeks.
  • Carbs in the overfeed were slightly less than absolute amount at baseline, and were 40% of total overfeed calories.
  • Total caloric intake for overfeed averaged 3375 cal/day, where excess calories came from fat and protein only.
  •  The macro ratios of the overfeed diets in P/F/C% were: LP-6/52/42, NP-15/44/41 and HP-26/33/41.
Below is the summary table I made for the calories and absolute quantities (grams) of the three macros:



Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Nina Teicholz Reports in the British Medical Journal ~ The Conflicts & Funding

BUMP!

In working on a follow-up to The Slimey Truth About Sugar Slammers ~ Links & Background, I've received a few tweets that reminded me of this post from almost exactly a year ago.   Eventually we got answers to the questions below, and those will be discussed in the follow-up.  People are going bonkers over a pittance split between three scientists 50 years ago who published an article in a *professional* *peer-review* journal.  This was done at a time when such journals would publish articles countering and debating the findings of previous articles.  So in the intervening years it is the sugar industry that is solely responsible for confusing people?  I am not carrying water for that or any industry here, but I don't think so!

This article came before some answers were unearthed by yours truly in Nina Teicholz, The BMJ, The Nutrition Coalition and nutrition science's George Soros: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation.  Specifically that the Nutrition Coalition was finally revealed and it is not affiliated with Adele Hite's organization.  It is, however, also completely funded by the lobbying arm of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.

In the end, it turns out that LJAF paid the BMJ directly for the publication of the article.   It is no surprise that the BMJ's crusading editor Fiona Godlee is of no inclination to retract it.  So we have an unprecedented action here that is going unscrutinized by those who are touting this latest JAMA piece  (written by two LJAF-funded individuals).   You have direct payment to the journal itself.  If unprecedented, it raises eyebrows as to the objectivity of that journal in its choice of people to commission for the investigation.  They didn't seek out an independent, unbiased (to the extent one can be), professional in the field.  They chose Teicholz.    So really it matters more that there are ties with Teicholz so that the LJAF paid the publishing fee for a Nina Teicholz hit piece, they didn't pay the BMJ to commission a scientific investigation.  The Nutrition Coalition has since been revealed, and no sooner than it was, its makeup began changing dramatically.  As such it no longer bears much resemblance to its initial form.   And the LJAF flagship NuSI is, well, flagging.  More to come.




Friday, September 23, 2016

The Slimey Truth About Sugar Slammers ~ Links & Background

This was initially going to be a monster post, but I'm still struggling to organize it all!  The things uncovered at every turn last week and continuing through this one are astounding, and the hypocrisy of those touting this as some "smoking gun" of great importance is seemingly boundless.  This was all still swirling in my head when I went on Angelo Coppola's Latest in Paleo podcast ... in retrospect not a good idea when I'm wound up!

I decided to break this in two to publish something up.  This installment will be linking to background to get something that blogging rock rolling on this.  Unless you've been living under a rock, this happened in the JAMA Internal Medicine:

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents

Cristin E. Kearns, DDS, MBA1,2; Laura A. Schmidt, PhD, MSW, MPH1,3,4; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD1,5,6,7,8



Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Latest in Paleo Podcast Appearance

Last Friday (Sept. 16, 2016 for those who may stumble upon this in the future), I had the pleasure of being a guest on Angelo Coppola's Latest in Paleo podcast.

  
I had/have a post on the main topic discussed -- the *SMOKING GUN* that the sugar industry funded a study 50 years ago, and *O*M*G* -- in the works, and was not even half done by the time recording came around.  I was also trying to get in the last bit of summer.  

This link  will go live when that post is finally published (hopefully later today or tonight):  The Slimey Truth About Sugar Slammers


I have not had a chance to listen yet, so hopefully this isn't even necessary.  But, due to my passion on the topic and being mid blogging swirl, I'm sure I was quite animated at times.  It was a new format for Angelo's podcast, and for me as a guest as well.   I may well have talked over the other guest, Meredith Rhodes (a.k.a The Forward Health Coach; Forward Health Coach ; Twitter: @geomert ; Podcast: Adventures in Humaning ; Facebook: Adventures in Humaning ).   If that happened, I extend my sincere apologies to her for doing so, and to Angelo as well for making his job harder.  Let's hope I didn't do too badly!

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Recent Podcast Appearance!

Hey all!  Last week I had the pleasure of being a guest on two podcasts.  Will let you know about the second one when it comes out, but for now, I was on the Revolutionary You podcast with Jason Leenaarts.  We chatted about all things carbohydrates and a bit of other stuff.  

I met Jason through the fitness peeps I hang out with on Facebook, and actually had a chance to meet him in person at his studio in the Cleveland area a few weeks back.  

Just a heads up that the part about medium chain fatty acids was edited together nicely by Jason, but sounds a bit choppy because my headset cut out in the middle of the first response.  So I wasn't sure exactly where it happened, tried to repeat some of it, and got my words mixed up.  When you consume a fat like coconut oil, with a lot of medium chain fatty acids, those dietary fats are preferentially burned as they are not usually incorporated into chylomicrons   (12C lauric is somewhat of an exception as it does make its way into body fat).   The long chain fats consumed with these MCFAs -- either from coconut oil, or say, butter in Bulletproof Coffee -- are destined to go straight into your fat tissue!  

So that said, here's your links:  Revolutionary You! #31-Before You Go Low Carb With Evelyn Carbsane

or direct links:  iTunes OR Stitcher OR iHeartRadio

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Serving Sizes and Visual Schemes

A bit of a random thought post ... one I meant to make at the time, but got distracted.  I've talked a lot about the USDA Food Pyramid, and less so about My Plate, both of which are intended to "translate" dietary recommendations to a visual form.  In this regard, My Plate is a great improvement, but still lacking.   I don't wish to rehash the whole guidelines again in this post, but I believe if certain foods were "properly" classified -- e.g.  potatoes and corn grouped with the grains/starches -- the recommendations are hardly radical.  If Americans actually followed them as intended, we wouldn't be in this pickle, but we don't, and we are.

Here is the original food pyramid