A reader writes:
One thing I remember seeing in the news is that children in the US are much more overweight than in past generations.
Actually, the problem is much worse than children. The whole US population is much more overweight than in past generations. According to current statistics, two thirds of the American population is overweight (having a Body Mass Index [BMI] of 25 or more) and one third of the population is obese (having a BMI of 30 or more). This means that only a third of the population has a healthy weight by BMI reckoning [Source]. Now, there are some problems with the BMI scale (it doesn’t take into account muscular people or people who have suffered muscle loss), but it provides enough of a benchmark to show that there is a huge problem. Further, the problem is getting worse, and the trend toward obesity has been dramatically accellerating in recent years.
If your explanation of weight gain is true, and it may very well be, how does one also explain the much greater incidence of obesity among children (as well as adults) than in past generations? If the problem of obesity is primary biological, why would we see such a large increase in the percentage of obesity in today’s generations?
Actually, I haven’t thus far commented on why people gain weight. I’ve merely pointed out that the body tries to maintain a particular weight level homeostatically, which is why people find significant weight loss so difficult: Your body fights you as you start trying to lose. Under most diet strategies, the body will simply up your hunger level and give you cravings to get you to make up the calories that you are trying to avoid by following your diet program. How a person got to being overweight is a different question.
As far as why our generation is so much more overweight than prior ones, there are three basic reasons:
- The first reason is that we exercise less than former generations did. A hundred years ago, most people worked outdoors, which meant much more physical activity than we office-dwellers get today.
- The second reason is that we take in more calories per day than prior generations
- The third reason has to do with your question concerning the nature of the food we eat:
Perhaps it is not only a function of how many calories one eats, but also what kinds of calories one eats. Does a person gain more weight from eating 500 calories worth of donuts than they would from eating 500 calories worth of fruit, for example?
The form of the calories don’t matter that much in and of themselves. A thousand calories of protein or fat or carbohydrates is still a thousand calories. But the type of calories does have an effect on the body’s metabolism because the body has to do different things in order to burn different macro-nutrients (i.e., protein, fat, and carbohydrates). If you change the ratio of the macro-nutrients you are eating, your body’s metabolism changes in order to digest and/or store them.
And that’s where part of the problem comes in: One of the macro-nutrients–carbohydrates–triggers an insulin response in the body that can send your blood sugar skyrocketing (which is why diabetics have to regulate their carbohydrate intake and often need to take insulin to help control their blood sugar). But blood sugar will quickly fall again, and when that happens your body starts to get weak (which is why people get sleepy in the hour after lunch), and your body triggers a new hunger response in order to get you to eat more and thus raise the blood sugar level back to where it was (which is why you get hungry an hour after eating carbyhodrate-rich Asian food). The result is that eating too many carbohydrates puts you on a blood sugar roller-coaster that keeps leaving you weak and hungry, and when you eat to get your blood sugar back up, you take in more calories.
Now, guess what the big change has been in the last hundred years in our diets? That’s right: We take in way more carbohydrates, particularly refined carbohydrates that will make your blood sugar go nuts. Wherever this high-calorie, high-carb, high-refined carb “Western diet” gets introduced in the world, the problems of overweight, diabetes, and heart disease quickly follow. It’s simply not what our species is meant to eat. We’re hunter-gatherers by nature, and hunter-gatherers have a diet rich in protein and fat but not carbs, and especially not refined carbs.
Now, why has the weight problem been accellerating in America? Here’s part of the reason:
I’m sure you recognize the famous “Food Pyramid” or, as I prefer to call it, the “PYRAMID OF EVIL.” Like everbody else, I assumed when the pyramid first came out that it represented the diet you were supposed to eat to be healthy, but back then I hadn’t studied diet and nutrition. After my weight situation forced me to do so, I came back, looked at the pyramid again, and was shocked. “Man! This is the Give-Your-Children-Diabetes Pyramid!” I exclaimed.
The recommendations it makes are absolutely insane. It’s way out of whack with what our species is designed to eat. Six to eleven servings of grain a day is completely crazy for a hunter-gatherer species. The additional two to four servings of fruit only makes the problem worse.
People have the idea that fruit is a healthy food that ought to be eaten in large quantities, but this falls apart when one applies a little common sense. Ask yourself: What is the one foodstuff that everybody (hi-carb dieters, lo-carb dieters, the Food Pyramid, everbody) agrees needs to be eaten in very limited quantities? Sugar. Now, what is it that makes up prefer to eat fruit over vegetables? Sugar. Fruit has lots of sugar in it. In fact, that’s the main difference between a fruit and a vegetable: What we call a fruit has more sugar than what we call a vegetable. Biologically, they tend to perform the same function (they both tend to be the seed-bearing parts of a plant). One simply tastes better to us because it has more sugar in it, and so we have a different word for it.
If you compare the amount of sugar and other carbohydrates in fruits to the amount in manmade confections, the differences are not that great. They can even stand your expectations on their head. A typical 8″ banana that you’d buy in a store has 31 grams of carbohydrates in it. By contrast, a Hostess powdered sugar donut has only 19 grams of carbs. There are some advantages of fruit over pastry, but not near as much as people have been led to believe. About the best that I can say for most fruits is that they are less unhealthy as a major component of your diet (though, as with anything, in limited quantities they’re fine).
Now, here’s something you probably didn’t know about the Food Pyramid: Know which government agency puts it out? You’d think that it would be one of the ones that monitors public health, like the Food and Drug Administration or the National Institutes of Health or even the Center for Disease Control, right? Wrong. It’s a creature of the United States Department of Agriculture–the body tasked with monitoring and (in practice) looking after the interests of the farm industry.
The Food Pyramid is a marketing ploy designed to get people to eat the foods that the farm industry wants them to eat.
Why does the farm industry want people to eat certain foods? Look at the ones at the base of the food pyramid and compare them to those at the top. Except for the “use sparingly” category, the foods at the top almost all (a) come from animals and (b) require refrigeration. The ones at the bottom almost all (a) come from plants and (b) don’t require refrigeration. The significance of those facts is that the ones at the bottom of the pyramid are all low-cost to manufacture (plants don’t require as much investment to raise as animals) and high-profit items (because the cost of the end product doesn’t have things like refrigeration coming out of its profit margin).
Getting people to eat low-cost, high-profit foods may serve the interests of agribusiness, but those aren’t the foods our species was designed to rely upon, and making them the principal components of our diet is bound to lead to problems–like overweight, diabetes, and heart disease.
Actually, eating fruit is not as much of a problem as drinking juice. By the time one has peeled and eaten an orange, the satiety factor kicks in and prevents overeating. I tell my patients (many hispanic who drink LOTS of juice) to squeeze an orange and look at how many oranges are actually in that glass of juice that they are drinking every morning.
For bread eaters, I suggest Ezekial bread (Very dense, made with sprouted wheat, spelt, barley, lentils). One slice of that takes a while to chew and eat, and again the satiety factor kicks in. Also, the legumes are helpful at slowing down the insulin response.
You might find the links about food on this page interesting – especially the stuff on the glycemic index and the satiety index.
and thanks for pointing this out to your readers.
An additional factor that you don’t mention in your excellent article is that the BMI levels for “overweight” and “obese” have been defined downward at least twice in the past 30 years. That -alone- would produce the ‘obesity epidemic’, not counting the highly counter-productive ‘food pyramid’.
It turns out, from what I’ve read, anyway, that the healthiest BMI range is to be between 25 and 30. Not the anorexic 20 that the fedgov and nutritionists (technicians, not thinkers) promote.
In order for my BMI to be under 25, I would have to be a 6’4″ man of 204 lbs. It’s insane, really.
Carbs aren’t the problem as much as the Glycemic index (how quickly you get an insulin rise after eating the food). Complex carbs are much better for you than sugars. Simple sugars (refined) are the worst. Fruit is good, because the sugars tend to be more complex.
I have felt better being on the ‘eat right for your type’ diet, which links what foods to eat to your blood type. My wife the biologist/biochemist likes it too. We’re eating a lot more good, lean meat.
Another thing we’re trying to do as far as our food intake, especially meat, is to reduce (hopefully eventually to 0) the amount of meat we eat that has had artifical growth hormones or antibiotics in it.
This article is misleading. It is easy to see problems with any system, but where are the solutions? I can tell you all day that the food guide pyramid is missing elements, but without sound advice that guides the reader, what am I? Nothing. What is your recommendation for our diet? Is it based on sound science? The food guide pyramid (recently updated) probably does reflect some bias, but the principles are there.
The “hunter gatherer” that you speak of was quickly changed to a farmer and also did not live very long. He ate foods that were in his environment and not what was best for him. So that argument makes no sense.
As far as fruit being bad for us, think again, fructose (a simple-unlike a comment before me-monosaccharide) is absorbed much slower than glucose because it is absorbed through a process known as passive diffusion. This process does not require energy and so the molecule can go in and out of a cell for a while before it is actually absorbed. Over consumption of fruits is not a problem anyway. The problem lies in the added sugar and fat items that plaque our diets; items that, may I remind you, are to be eaten in small amounts as according to the Food Guide Pyramid.
As far as fruit being bad for us, think again, fructose (a simple-unlike a comment before me-monosaccharide) is absorbed much slower than glucose because it is absorbed through a process known as passive diffusion. This process does not require energy and so the molecule can go in and out of a cell for a while before it is actually absorbed. Over consumption of fruits is not a problem anyway. The problem lies in the added sugar and fat items that plaque our diets;
Matt,
Excellent comment here!
Do you happen to have a background in biochem.?
You seem to be familiar with its concepts.
It almost reminded me of concepts examined in the biochemical pathways I studied way back when oh so long ago!
Buy vicodin online without a prescription.
Forum vicodin buy vicodin online. Buy vicodin online without.