Are we just gluttons and sloths - as the Surgeon General implied?
"Overweight and obesity result from excess calorie consumption and/or inadequate physical activity." -U.S. Surgeon General, 2001.
And from the USDA: "Eating fewer calories while increasing physical activity are keys to controlling body weight." - Dietary Guidelines for Americans, USDA 2005
Most people today believe that the Surgeon General and the USDA are right: Overweight people - that's two-thirds of all Americans! - need to tape up their mouths and get off their duffs. But... What if it isn't true? Years ago, most people believed the world was flat too. But it wasn't so. Calorie counting has turned out to be useless, and may even be dangerous. Some evidence from 50 years of clinical research:
Clinical Research
1. 100 obese patients on 800-1500 calories 100 obese patients were on 800-1500 calories per day. A mere 12 lost 20%2B lbs, one lost 40 lbs. After two years, 98 of the 100 gained it back, and more. Two maintained their weight loss. Many patients got so anxious and depressed that their treatment was discontinued. - Dr. Albert Stunkard, New York Hospital, 1957
2. Similar failures Failures were also reported in eight similar studies. - Stunkard, 1957 3. 20,000 women lost 2 lbs after 8 years of dieting 20,000 women who reduced their daily calories by an average of 360 calories per day weighed only 2 lbs less after 8 years of dieting! - National Institutes of Health, 1991. Women's Health Initiative, a 0 million study. Massive reviews of the research reveal the miserable results of low-calorie diets:
Literature Reviews
1. Weight loss less than 5 lbs after 6, 12, 18 months Weight loss from low calorie diets "was so small as to be clinically insignificant" The average weight loss after 6, 12 and 18 months on either low-calorie or low-fat diets was less than 5 lbs. - Pirozzo S et al. (Cochrane Collaboration), 2002 12 studies from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index
2. Average loss: 9 lbs after 6 months Overweight people who ate less than 1700 calories per day averaged weight loss of 9 lbs over 6 months. - USHHS and USDA, 2001. 20 studies Gluttony is not the problem.[1]
"Most studies comparing normal and overweight people suggest that those who are overweight eat fewer calories than those of normal weight." - National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 1989 Calorie counting is the problem! Consider the awful side effects of low calorie dieting:
Side Effects of Low-Calorie Dieting
- Constant hunger
- Craving for sweets and snacks
- Loss of sex drive
- Weakness or pain during physical activity
- Lower metabolism (up to 30% lower) causing quick weight gain after dieting
- Feeling cold despite a lot of clothing
- Inability to concentrate
- Slower reflexes
- Loss of ambition, narrowing of interests
- Depression and irritability
These observations were made in two of the most meticulous experiments ever done on weight loss - studies of healthy young men who had volunteered to be guinea pigs in the calorie-restriction studies.[2]
The first five side effects were also the most common obstacles mentioned in our recent casual survey of 100 people who were interested in a new weight loss program. The good news is: We can lose weight without starving. How?
Eat enough - of the good stuff.
4 Guiding Principles
- Real food is good. No fake, toxic, food-like substances.
- Fat is good, including saturated fat from coconut and happy animals.
- Refined carbs are evil: Sugar, sweets, alcohol and refined grains (white bread, pasta, rice, etc). - Even "good" carbs (whole grains, beans, starchy vegetables and fruit) may prevent weight loss, depending on your biochemistry. Starving destroys metabolism and creates fat.
An enormous amount of research supports these principles. 150 years of investigation by physicians, biochemists, anthropologists and explorers. It spans obesity, effects of dietary fat and carbs on chronic disease and weight, causes of metabolic diseases, and diets of ancient Paleolithic humans and "primitive" peoples around the world.[3]
Nobody knows it all. Even the Surgeon General can get it wrong. So, no matter what any authority says, it's safest to test the ideas yourself. Happy eating! References
Banting, W. 1869. Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public. 4th edition. London: Harrison. Republished new York: Cosimo publishing, 2005. Online at [http://www.low-carb.ca/corpulence/index.html].
Benedict, F.G. 1915. A Study of Prolonged Fasting. Publication No. 203. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Cordain, L. (2002). The Paleo Diet. Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Food You Were Designed to Eat. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Enig, M. 2000. Know Your Fats: The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils, and Cholesterol. Silver Spring, MD: Bethesda Press.
Keys, A., J. Brozek, A. Henschel, O. Mickelsen, and H.L. Taylor. 1950. The Biology of Human Starvation, 2 vols. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). 1999. Women's Health Initiative. Online at http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00000611
National Research Council, Committee on Diet and Health, Food and Nutrition Board, Commission on Life Sciences. March 1989. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
[1] and neither is laziness. More about that in another paper. See Taubes, 2007, for evidence that exercise is not the answer to overweight either.
[2](Francis Benedict, 1917, director of the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Nutrition Laboratory; and Ancel Keys, 1944, at the University of Minnesota, who replicated Benedict's study over 6 months.)
[3] Meticulous and thoughtful analysis of this vast literature by Gary Taubes 2007. For real food, see Pollan 2008; fats and oils in nutrition, Enig 2000; primitive (traditional) diets, Price 1939; and Paleolithic food, Cordain 2002.
