low fat diets
low carb diets
salt and blood pressure
salt and blood pressure
sunlight and cancer
sunlight and cancer
omega 6 fatty acids
omega 6 fatty acids
Decades ago, the world began applying a standard scientific model to nutrition. And we wanted to turn nutrition into something comparable to chemistry. In other words, we sought to discover what components make up food, and then catalog those components, and use expereiments to determine what the components do.
In the 1930s, we learned that vitamin C prevents and treats scurvy. There was a very simple, straightforward relationship between those two things. Which validated the idea that nutrition should be treated like chemistry.
Since then, the field of nutrition has generally stuck to a line of thinking that's consistent with the "vitamin C prevents scurvy" finding. We see food as something made up of a combination of nutrients like vitamin C, and we design experiments to determine the effects of those nutrients.
And yet, after all the research that has been done since then, very few of our findings support the idea that nutrition matches the simple, straightforward "this nutrtient has that effect" model. There are some exceptions. Vitamin C does in fact prevent scurvy. But most studies and experiments have pointed in a much different direction. Most of them try to determine the effect a nutrient has on the human body. But all in all, when you look at all the studies, the data point in different directions.
When we mix hydrogen and oxygen in a laboratory, we can observe what happens, gain an understanding of it, and know what to expect the next time we mix hydrogen and oxygen. But when we have people consume less sodium, less cholesterol, more potassium, or more oranges, we really can't figure much out much using a standard scientific model. We expected nutrition to be more or less like chemistry--especially after we learned that vitamin C prevents scurvy. But nutrition isn't chemistry, and most of nutrition doesn't fit the "this nutrient does that" model. There's no "human + 500 mg potassium" experiment comparable to "hydrogen + oxygen."
A few decades ago, the average person kind of wanted to be thin, and she made some sort of effort to be thin. These days, people have more of a desire to be thin, and they make more of an effort to be thin. More desire and more effort. And more weight. As a society, we've gained weight, despite our increased focus on doing the opposite.
Since the early 70s, the world has also produced more and more weight loss books, weight loss experts, and scientific studies on weight loss. In 1970, "weight loss" was more or less an undeveloped industry and branch of science. By the year 2000, it was a multibillion dollar industry and a prominent field of study. And once again, all of that activity hasn't yielded a thinner population. The opposite has happened.
More information, more effort, more desire. And more weight. If you look at the general population, that's what you'll see.
Nevertheless, that hasn't changed society's approach or mindset at all. The basic message is, "Let's have researchers perform more scientific studies, and let's have dieters use more willpower." We belive this, even though not so long ago, people had virtually no studies, they were not in the habit of making a grand effort to be thin, and they weighed less than we do now. Plenty of people were thin without even trying to be thin, and with no knowledge of what a carbohydrate is. But now it's more common for someone to gain weight despite the fact tht they've made a major effort to lose weight, and he has a head full of information on weight loss.
What's really making individuals gain weight when they have every intention of losing weight? Some people say it's simply a matter of calories consumed versus calories used. That ideas is somewhat valid in a certain sense. But in another sense, it's meaningless--especially when it comes to the average or typical person.
Let's consider what the conventional "calories consumed versus calories used" approach really is. It's a willpower-based apporoach. It implies that a person should use willpower to limit calories, lose weight, and maintain the weight loss. It suggests there's a strong inverse correlation between how much willpower peope use and how how overweight they are.
But my contention is that that our usage of willpower has increased dramatically since the 70s, and our weights have also increased. The typical overweight person has made repeated reasonable attempts to use willpower to limit calories--and he's repeatedly failed to actually lose weight and keep it off.
Mere willpoer might work for certain individuals--but for a population as a whole, it simply isn't effective.
How does one go about maintaining a long term caloric deficit in order to lose weight and maintain thhe weight loss? The conventional wisdom is "Eat less, move more," and the accompanying idea, "rely on willpower in order to eat less and move more." This works for some people at certain times, and society is sure to put a spotlight on those examples. However, if you really look at all examples out there, it will become apparent that "eat less, move more, rely on willpower" is not even remotely close to being an effective, one-size-fits-all approach for the general public. Right now, a countless number of people are attempting to use that very approach for the purpose of losing weight--and most of them are not going to get satisfactory results. Just because an approach has worked for certain people ate certain times, that does not mean it is always going ot work for everyone.
For some people at certain points in theri life, exercise might get in the way of weight loss. What I mean is, exercise tends to overstimulate their appetite, and sabotages thier entire mission. If they exercise regularly, they experience too much in the way of a very strong variety of hunger. This, in turn, causes them to increase their calorie consumption and gain weight or at least maintian the eight they are trying to lose. And also keep in mind that for a substantial portion of these people, the weight they gain or maintain (via exercise) is not muslce. It is mostly fat.
Let's take a second to consider how many calories exercise burns, and compare that to what it does to the appetite. First of all, exercise does not burn as many calories as most people think it does. For some people, sleeping burns 100 claories an hour, while walking at a fairly normal pace burns 200 calories an hour. In other words, the walking only burns an additional 100 calories an hour compared to doing nothing at all. If someone walks an additional hour a day, and then compensates for it by eating an extra banana a day, the net affect is zero. He burns an additional 100 calories, and he consumes an additional 100 calories. Based on what I know about the human appeitte, I would say that for a substantial percentage of people, burning a 100 extra calories a day actually makes them feel compelled to consume over 100 extra calories a day, thereby resulting in some sort of weight gain. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, for some of those people, he weight gain consists primarily of fat and not muscle.
Some people might say, "They need to use willpower." But I fell like willpower is going to have a very, very tough time controlling that kind of appetite over the long run, and sometimes even over the short run.
When someone embarks on a conventional path of weight loss (i.e. eat less, move more) and he doesn't get the intended results, we immediately think, "Oh, he just has to try harder and use more willpower in order to eat less and move more." We do that instead of adequately exploring the complexity behind the matter.
There are, however, many cases of people who struggle to lose weight while maintaining a high activity level-and then when they exercise less for a few months, they have a failry easy time losing weight. Such examples go against all conventional wisdom that I've seen. Examples like "I exercised less and lost weight" and "I exercised more and gained weight" are not properly accounted for by society when it shapes its views on how weight loss actually works and how one can design some sort of regimen that actually leads to weight loss. Instead, the world tends to place a huge spotlight on people who exercise more and lose weight. This spotlight is very misleading. A countless number of people look at the spotlighted examples, and come to the conclusion that they should exercise to lose weight. Very, very few of them properly explore the idea that exercise can lead to fat gain or fat loss, depending on the person.
Here are some examples I found of people losing weight through a path of less exercise:
Exercise never fails to bring my weight up, no it’s not muscle density either. It probably has to do with increased cortisol due to the stress of working out. Exercise also makes my sugar cravings go through the roof. People say they work out to relieve stress? Well I don’t know about you but pounding the pavement or treadmill for 45 min or lifting weights IS stressful to the body, it certainly is not relaxing. Everyone is different, but my body just does not need it, in fact it just aggravates my body more and actually makes me crave more food. I am able to maintain healthy blood pressure ,cholesterol and weight without beating myself up at the gym.
Elizabeth Sims - I started walking 2 miles a day. Nothing overly pressing. I'd do my walk before work and then I exactly watched what I ate every day as to make sure I didn't eat to make up for it. I did this 5 days a week for 2 months and gained 30 lbs and my knees and ankles started buckling. Don't get me wrong my stamina was definitely up and stuff and my breathing was fine but my whole body started swelling. People kept saying, "Oh it's muscle" when I try to explain my story but when you stop exercising for 2 weeks and drop 20! lbs that is NOT muscle. ...My doctor refuses to listen to it and my husband didn't believe me he thought I was just over eating and stuff until I started the process again this time with yoga and cardio and he was there and he started watching the scale with me.
Joanne - When I was training for and running half marathons, I was the heavier than I am now. I was hungry all the time. I was also kind of miserable - focused too much on getting faster, going further, beating everyone. Not good for my body and not good for my brain (or soul for that matter). I've been trying to relax and make exercise more about moving and getting outside.
I stopped working out 3 weeks ago because of tendinitis in my rotator cuff. Had a cortisone shot, and been to a few physical therapy sessions. In the 3 weeks since I stopped exercising, I've lost 15lbs. Prior to the injury I had been working out 6 days a week for the last 7 weeks straight.
After I stopped my daily workout regimen, where I was getting up @ 4:30Am every day, I reduced calories to compensate but also started eating more carbs (primarily fruit), and then I started to shed a pound per day for nearly 2 weeks. Prior to this I had been lamenting to a friend as to how I felt like I was carrying a lot of water weight that I could not figure why it wasn't going away.
I had a similar perplexing dilema this past fall. I was off from school in the summer and jogging anywhere between 8 to 10 miles almost every day. I was eating about 2,000 cals and my weight was maintaining/went up a bit.
When I went back to school I was so busy I stopped exercising completely and while I expected to gain weight I drastically started to LOSE it while eating basically the same exact amount. I got to a dangerous weight from this and have since gained and went back to exercising (not as much though as before) and my weight is almost restored to that before I stopped exercising. My dietician and doctor have both insisted that the weightloss was not caused by my drastic cut in exercise, but I truly believe it was.
My wife is a real life example of this, we worked out at the gym three times a week and her weight had remained steady at 52 kg (114 lbs) she was in a car accident two months ago with her major injury being a broken nose. The doctors where we live told her no exercise. With two months of no exercise she now weighs 47 kg (103 lbs) while she continued to eat the same amount of food each day. This might not seem like much weight but she is only 1.6 m (5.2 ft) tall.
Why does my body only lose weight when I take a break from exercising? I exercise three weeks, take a week off and on the week off I lose weight. ... I lose no weight during the three weeks I exercise. I take a week off to let my body heal up, and only in this week do I lose weight. I've lost 90 pounds since September 06 and still have more to lose. ... I discussed this with my doctor and he couldn't really explain it.
I used to gain weight while training for my first 10 K, though it only were 5-6 pounds really bothered since they obviously weren’t made out of muscles. Afterwards I tried various sports programs and ended only gaining a bit more. This year I consciously decided to cut back on sports and only do what’s fun for me and for the first time in two years I actually lost a few of those pounds and maintained my weight. Yoga and short runs or long walks are the only thing I do nowadays and I am happy this way.
I was totally addicted to exercise 10 months ago. I have an incredibly physical job as an ecological restoration tech where I’m out each day walking miles with 10 lb pack on through wetlands and prairies or chainsawing in a woodland and on top of that I was training for a full marathon. I was always effortlessly thin throughout college and when I hit 22 I went from 115 to 135 in a year. It was mortifying to me so that’s when I started running every day and became addicted to half marathons. It helped bring me to 129 lbs along with using MyFitnessPal religiously so I was content with being that weight so I maintained my regimen until I started dating my boyfriend. Then I ditched calorie counting and quickly after decided I’d rather spend my free time hanging out instead of running and I haven’t ran over 4 miles since. Initially I noticed that I wasn’t gaining and that was good enough for me! I am now down to 122 lbs and have no doubt in my mind that I was overdoing it and sending my body into some kind of primitive energy saving crisis mode. I’m still active everyday and I feel so balanced now, but I’ll admit I miss the mood boost from running. I may have to lace up my Asics and go for a jog, but in moderation
I recently had shoulder surgery and was unable to exercise for 9 weeks. Surprisingly, I lost weight during the downtime. In the last several weeks I resumed my normal exercise program and I put the weight back on.
For over 10 years I though the only way to “workout properly” was to follow my high school cross country routine, well at least the “light day” workouts: 45 min of elliptical/stair and a 6 mile run topped off with 45 min of intense weight training. A hard day would be all that except with an 8 mile run. ... My weight crept up every year. Scores of doctors told me the same things constantly; eat less workout more. I’d be in tears trying to explain how much I worked out and they would either shake their heads in disbelief or just not say anything. My parents paid for personal trainers, they told me that i need to work on my diet. ... The only specialists that were able to help me were my RD’s (registered dietitians). My first one told me simply that we’re gonna lose weight by quitting the workouts. I lost 15 pounds in 6 weeks.
Two years ago I was doing intense to very intense workouts (martial arts) regularly and I lost absolutely no weight - might have even put on a few pounds. Then I quit the intense workouts and replaced them with simple walks 5 times per week and accompanied that with some dieting (nothing radical, just no binge-eating ever) and saw immediate results, in weeks. I lost 20 pounds which haven't put on since.
In the heyday of aerobics, the more I exercised, the more I gained weight. I never managed to lose it and I'm pretty sure that still, no-one believes me.
I had been slim from the age of 13 until I moved to Maui at the age of 37. I moved from a mostly sedentary life-syle in New York City to an extremely active life-style, swimming miles in the ocean almost every day, running along the beach, climbing mountains a couple of times a week, gathering firewood for cooking. And I rapidly put on about 30 pound. I had never had a big interest in food, but because of all the exercise, I was starving all the time, and gobbling up food to keep pace with my hunger. Eventually, a got a staff infection in my leg and was hospitalized for 10 days. The food wasn't great, and lying on my back all the time, I wasn't hungry. I lost 12 pounds in the hospital, and the rest from the will power, encouraged by having lost 12 pounds effortlessly.
My body fat is lowest when I eat "diet foods" that provide little nutrition and barely exercise. When I lift weights 3 to 4 times a week, walk 5 times a week, and eat more nutritious foods, my body fat goes up.
I have been a regular runner (minimum of 25 miles per week) for over 20 years. I go through periods of time (generally a few years) where I run more, up to 75 miles a week, followed by periods of time when my mileage is lower. It always surprises me that my weight stays the same.
I always gain weight when I begin rigorous exercise routines. I'm simply hungrier. I figured out long ago that the additional weight wasn't more muscle. Kind of funny that it took a study to confirm that.
I'm a fairly active person. I do cardio kickboxing 3 times a week. I have a boyfriend who is a personal trainer so my eating habits aren't what most people would think of as problem. I live fairly active lifestyle and yet I can't seem to get and keep the lbs off. I'm 5'2 220lbs. and counting.
I am a 55 yr old male, just recently retired Police Officer. For years, right up until I retired a few short months ago I guess you would consider me a workout junkie. My job made me this way as one had to stay physically fit especially when there were many times I’d encounter someone less than half my age that wanted to fight. In this profession losing wasn’t an option as it could cost somebody their life including my own or another officer. Practically every day I did something. Weight training, running, cross country running, crossfit, cross training, hiking, boxing, MMA & everything inbetween. In the last couple of years all of that training and my age began catching up. Constantly tired, zero energy, problems sleeping, a lot of WEIGHT GAIN and so on.
Since retiring and no longer having a world class FREE work gym available, my workouts dropped pretty dramatically. I still have a small home gym but only workout 2-3 times a week. I have a part time job that & putter around the house or at friends houses the rest of the time. I’ve LOST twelve pounds & feel a heck of a lot better. My diet hasn’t changed too much as I was a pretty clean eater before but I to now enjoy the odd order of fries & ice cream cones!
When it comes to nutrition, most people reduce everything to a few variables, see things in absolutes, and encourage everyone else to do the same. "Just limit your intake of carbs, and ignore almost everything else." That's a common and popular message. "Stay away from saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium." That's another one. "Meet these minimum levels of vitamins, minerals, essential fats, protein, and fiber." Many people take that view. "Don't eat any cooked foods." That idea has some supporters. And the list goes on and on.
The world of nutrition has a tendency to emphasize a few things and call it a day--and sometimes it's tough to figure out why people are emphasizing A, B, and C, and just about ignoring D through Z. Why did we become so obsessed with saturated fat a few decades ago? Why are there volumes of books that ignore almost everything but protein/fat/carbohydrate ratios? Why are the US government's guidelines so focused on food groups?
There are plenty of theories out there that have their own specific emphases--and there's scientific data supporting almost all of those theories. For instance, high carb, medium carb, and low carb proponents all point to studies indicating that their ideas are best. Mr. Low Carb will tell everyone about Study 1, Mr. Medium Carb will promote Study 2, and Mr. High Carb will let you know about Study 3. Studies 1, 2, and 3 are in complete disagreement over the optimal carb intake--but that hasn't changed our attitude about the science itself, and our insistence on relying on it.
The science, taken as a whole, seldom really tells us much about which theory is right. If anything, the data we have seems to indicate that we shouldn't make a big deal about something like carbohydrates as a percentage of calories--and that maybe our basic nutritional models are highly flawed, and our whole idea of nutrition as a (traditional) science isn't so scientific at all.
We've taken a scientific view of food by breaking it down to components like vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, etc., and we've attempted to show that merely altering our intake of one or a few of them amounts to practicing good nutrition. For instance, we discovered that different foods contain different amounts of saturated fats--and, using the scientific method, we came to certain conclusions and recommended a low saturated fat diet to the general public. We also decided to assign a lot of weight to that particular nutrient, as opposed to one like zinc. Over the past few decades, plenty of people have made a point to recommend we eat a certain amount of saturated fat, but very few have done so with zinc (--presumably because, according to the scientific data, saturated fat intakes have a far more significant effect on us, and/or many people already consume the optimum or near optimum amount of zinc, but not saturated fat).
And so, the majority's recommendation is: "Pay attention to your saturated fat intake, and keep it below a certain level. Don't pay much attention to zinc."
We've been told that the scientific data supports that recommendation. But the data is mixed, and although the mainstream recommendation has remained the same, many people aren't so sure that our saturated fat intake ought to be so low, or that it's especially important and worthy of so much attention.
My main contention is that we're looking at nutrition the wrong way. The science doesn't seem to say much at all--but if it does say anything, it's that the very idea of breaking down food into nutrients, designing studies that see food as just those components, and then issuing a few recommendations that single out a few nutrients is wrong. That approach is extremely misleading. And that, in my opinion, is the main reason why research studies don't come to the same conclusions.
When similar studies point to much different conclusions, people generally conclude that some of the studies are flawed. But although that sometimes does explain the differences, sometimes it doesn't. All in all, the mixed results tend to favor the idea that our way of thinking is flawed.
The general public, however, is usually unaware that the scientific data is mixed in the first place, and that our current recommendations will almost certainly be discarded at some point in the future.
And the the world of doctors, nutritionists, etc. seems content with just going along with the most popular ideas. And why? Because it's safe. No one can blame a doctor for stating that low intakes of saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium are in fact a main component of a good diet. It's the safest recommendation in the world--even if it's not particularly effective, and it forces people away from what's really important. If you're carefully limiting how much saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium you eat, odds are you're going to ignore quite a bit.
The current scientific model of nutrition has its uses and tells us something--but all in all, it's not so great. As I mentioned before, the data is mixed, and its reduction of food to components (and its emphasis on a select few of them) is not a complete approach that leads to sound ideas.
Furthermore, it often singles out a specific effect of food, rather than observing its total effect on overall health. For instance, a study might single out the effect of a certain nutrient on colon cancer, as opposed to health in general. Colon cancer is not a measure of overall health. And that being the case, if increasing a nutrient decreases colon cancer risk but has a negative effect on overall health, the study won't show that. It'll simply imply that we should increase our intake of that nutrient.
Studies on sunlight exposure are also a good example. As of right now, studies seem to indicate that even low levels of sunlight exposure increase the risk of certain types of cancer--and thus, we should all stay out of the sun and/or use sunscreen. But there are plenty of studies that suggest moderate sunlight exposure reduces the risk of overall cancer, and that 95% of the population ought to get a significant amount of unfiltered sunlight. In other words, according to many studies, if you single out one type of cancer, sunlight is bad; but if you include other types of cancer, sunlight is good.
Not to mention the fact that diet might change the way sunlight affects our bodies and our risk of cancer.
If a study attempts to connect Nutrient A with colon cancer or sunlight with skin cancer, it might tell the general public to do the opposite of what it ought to be doing.
And finally, studies have to be financed--and they have a strong tendency to support the groups that finance them. When orange growers put together a study, odds are it'll conclude that oranges are a superfood. When sunblock manufacturers pay for a study, it usually ends up suggesting that people should use sunblock. Pharmaceutical companies produce studies that make their drugs look good, and dairy companies put together studies that show their products lead to weight loss.
All of these industries are extremely money driven--and whenever you come across a study, odds are there'll be a path of hundred dollar bills connecting it to one or more individuals and/or companies.
But even in the case of the most well designed and least corrupt studies, we still start from the same standpoint: "See food as a bunch of nutrients, measure the effect that certain levels of these nutrients have, and then determine the optimal level of each nutrient-."
In other words, even the best studies are not starting with the correct approach--and most studies are far from being the best.
But as I mentioned earlier, I look at things differently. I don't discard the science of nutrition--but I look beyond it. Food is complex. Its effects on the human body are complex. The traditional scientific model cannot come close to really accounting for that. It might be able to in the future, I suppose--but it doesn't right now. That's my theory--and the scientific data supports it. (In other words, the genuinely scientific data is telling us that much of what we consider science isn't so.)
The mainstream science of nutrition suggests that saturated fat is more or less saturated fat, sodium is more or less sodium, and vitamin C is more or less vitamin C. The specific source of the nutrient isn't especially important, the overall diet of the person consuming it isn't especially important, and whether a person consumes 0.1 grams ten times a day or 1 gram once per day isn't important.
It also suggests that we should pay close attention to certain variables like our saturated fat intake, and almost no attention to thousands of other factors.
It also suggests that, say, a 6 foot tall 205 lb. man with 18% bodyfat should focus on losing 10 or 20 pounds. He should make that a priority, as opposed to simply eating living a certain lifestyle and not being especially concerned about his bodyweight.
And it also suggests that for many nutrients, a minimum level is important, and for others, a maximum level is the key figure. Ratios are seldom taken into account--and when they are, they're usually in the form of one nutrient relative to one other nutrient--as in sodium to potassium, and omega 3 fatty acids relative to omega 6 fatty acids--, or, in rarer case, several nutrients relative to each other--as in the essential amino acids.
We're constantly assured that the ideas coming out of mainstream nutritional circles are science. But that's not quite the case. There's some science--for instance, "Vitamin C prevents scurvy." But all in all, that type of science doesn't amount to much. "We should limit our intake of saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol to these levels" is not like "Vitamin C prevents scurvy." That's my theory--and the scientific data supports it.
But the people want answers. There's demand for that. And answers have been provided--even though they're not necessarily correct. We want "Science has proven this, this, and this. So you need to do this, this, and this." But science hasn't really proven this or this, and it certainly hasn't proven this.
Now, I'm not suggesting that I have the answers. What I'm saying is that we should avoid being bound by confines of a few flawed starting ideas, we shouldn't be tied to the standard scientific field of nutrition or any narrow view of nutrition, and we shouldn't be content with merely recycling ideas that already have a major presence in the world. The main point of this work is to challenge the current model of nutrition, and encourage the world to explore alternatives to how we look at nutrition. We've held firmly to the belief that we have a scientific understanding of food--and that research studies focusing on a few nutrients tell us everything. Some groups have proposed alternative views--raw foodists, vegetarians, Fletcherists, proponents of the paleo diet, etc.--but they usually become quickly tied to a few ideas--for instance, "People didn't eat grains 20,000 years ago--therefore, we shouldn't eat them today."
We should consider the possibility that some truths might exist outside of those types of ideas. And I think most importantly, scientists need to abandon their orthodox view of nutrition. For instance, when researchers study societies renowned for their health, they should not necessarily focus on the standard measures. They should consider such variables as the variety of flavors in people's diets, an insistence on processing foods a certain way, whether foods are regularly undercooked or overcooked by our standards, the fact that certain foods are combined, etc. Or when a formerly isolated society is introduced to modern processed foods--as is often the case--and a segment of the population begins eating the new foods, while other stick to a traditional diet, scientists should examine the two groups--not just from the perspective of nutrients, disease rates, and mortality, but a wide variety of other factors.