New Years Resolutions
One of the most persistent complications of weight control is the distraction and spot-fire stamping about used with New Year’s Resolutions. It’s not uncommon for one of the top ten most popular resolutions to be one of the big three:
1. Lose weight
2. Eat better
3. Eat healthier
But then, we already knew that, because we’ve all been there. The problem with vague notions like lose weight (How does one reliably do it? Where is there any insightful information on the subject without a lot of pseudoscience and crap?) or eat healthier (Who has the ultimate analysis of healthy versus unhealthy food?) is picking the science out of the background noise and marketing. The amount of insight and basic nutrition knowledge it takes to carry any of the above resolutions out, goes far beyond Atkins for Life and in reality may require more remedial nutrition education than most of us are willing to take on. Picking up a formulaic diet manual is about as resolution defining as attempting to empty Lake Michigan with a paper cup. You may start dishing the water, but folks, the lake isn’t dropping.
Adding to the confusion is the big-box bookstore approach to selling us mainstream weight loss advice. Enter any of the big stores around the first week of January and what does the curious pre-dieter find? A front table packed with the latest and greatest weight loss manuals espousing the one true method to finally take it off and leave it off. Nothing on that table offers insight into the process; rather, it represents a stack of desperate manuals with insecure formulas to follow for a defined period of time. And indeed, in time the manual seems foolish. I’ve never been to the South Beach and I have no idea what they eat there, but on good old mainstreet USA, we eat good food. We eat Phad Thai and roasted Tom turkey with stuffing (not together though). We drink Chateau Neuf du Pape and nibble on smoked brie and crackers. We order a pizza with stuffed crust and wash it down with Becks. We love the texture and mouth appeal of Cheetos. Now please, who on the South Beach doesn’t like nachos? In total, the average dieter (and count me in) finds the dietary changes artificial and contrived, returning us instead to what we know—the great taste of 21st century foods and to hell with abstinence. An orange never tasted quite the same as Philly cheesesteak sandwich. And celery never quite gave me the solace of Doritos.
So what measure of success do we use for the New Years Resolutions? Stand patiently by our bathroom scales waiting for the abstinence to be metered out in lost pounds? Wait patiently by the journals hoping a pill will come down the marketing pipeline that might kill those modern food cravings? No, the answer is knowledge and education. When the next weight loss corporation claims you might lose 7 lbs. in 7 days, realize it may not be fat you’re losing and it may not offer a permanent solution.
So what is the formula for weight loss? In the most extreme case, starvation, the formula for weight loss is well known. Weight loss in the initial days of fasting and early in starvation represents primarily the loss of water from glycogen utilization and the resulting diuresis (loss of fluid associated with burning glycogen). As the fast continues, the weight loss diminishes until glycogen stores are exhausted (usually just a day or two) and adaptation to metabolizing protein and fat stores occurs. Usually by three weeks of starvation, protein is being spared and fat stores become the sole source of energy. Weight loss has stabilized and seems to slow to a crawl. At this point roughly 4 pounds is lost per week of starvation (not dieting, but absolute fasting). Doing the math we can tabulate the loss as follows with a typical 5 foot 5 inch tall,150 pound individual. The following is a ballpark figure and depends on calories burned during activity and many other assumptions:
1. Fat Energy: 9 kcal per gram of fat (the amount of energy derived from fat tissue)
2. Daily Energy Needs: 2000 kcal’s needed for energy per day of normal activity
3. Fat Used: Using #1 and #2 above, 222 grams of fat per day is needed to meet energy needs
4. Weekly Loss: 222 grams x 7 days = 1554 grams (3.4 lbs)
So next time the weight loss purveyors advertise that you can lose 7 lbs. in 7 days, return to this blog and do the math.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(45)
-
▼
January
(19)
- Omega-3's and Death
- Omega-3 Zeitgeist
- Omega-3's: Do they prevent heart disease?
- Omega Chemistry?
- Omega Madness
- Obesity and Legal Matters
- The Wisdom of a Serving Size
- Micro and Macroscopic Fat
- Surgical Fat: The Tummy Tuck
- Trans Fatty Acid: Unhealthy or Undebated (4) Final...
- Trans Fatty Acids: Unhealthy or Undebated 3
- Trans Fatty acids: Unhealthy or Undebated 2
- Trans Fatty Acids: Unhealthy or Undebated
- Glycemic Index 3
- Glycemic Index 2
- The Glycemic Index
- FDA News
- Dieting: Success and Failure (Part 5, Final)
- Dieting: Success and Failure (Part 4)
-
▼
January
(19)
A Point of View
Modern Western society is awash in a sea of food affluence. For many of us, from the moment we arise in the morning to the time we fall asleep at night, the one rhythmic pattern occurring daily with anticipated consistency is food intake—and in many cases very high quality food intake. Even the smallest of excess calories consumed daily translates over time to excess energy being stored as fat in adipose tissue.
______________________________________
Overeating has become the symptom of a cultural disease associated with conditioned food intake, not a mystical physiologic process involving genes gone wild. From one diet manual to the next, the book offerings to navigate this mess are fancied up versions of the same old thing, eventually returning the dieter to a conditioned system of eating behavior. The contention of this blog, is it's time to get off the merry-go-round of dieting and learn the ABC's of basic nutritional science. Teach your children what they need to know to navigate the gauntlet of foods in the 21st century. We encourage any experts in the field to contribute.

5 comments:
On NPR this morning, they had on Bruce Ames of Berkeley, who was talking a lot about micro-nutrients. He had a theory that one of the reasons for the obesity explosion in our country had to do with micronutrient deficiencies. I particular, he thought that the body could detect micro-nutrient deficiencies and cause hunger, thereby causing you to eat more in order to fill the deficiency. I just thought I'd ask your opinion on that theory.
The theory, according to Ames, addresses the fact a massive segment of the economic lower class are eating low cost calorically dense foods often of a single grain. As the theory proposes, consuming the "empty calories" sets those consumers up for micronutrient deficiencies. Micronutrients include vitamins and minerals like B vitamins and idodine (and many others) as well as trace elements like boron and cobalt. Harking back to a systems analysis approach, any abberation in a complex system can have reverberations in downstream or upstream processes. To my knowledege, no smoking gun has as yet been published to bolster his claim and as Walter Willet says, "This is not established, it's a hypothesis and a very interesting one." As a successful venture capitalist with giga-millions to chase hypotheses, Bruce Ames has the money and the time to explore all kinds of theoretical solutions to obesity.
Weird... I just wrote a blog entry about this, having no idea that someone who would get on NPR was talking about the same thing.
It's here:
http://www.mprize.org/blogs/archives/2006/12/my_fad_diet.html
My experience was that once I started getting all my RDAs, food cravings went away and I was able to maintain a lower calorie level and weight than ever before in my life. I monitor my nutrition on nutritional software, so I know what I'm getting and figured out how to get more of the micronutrients I was often missing before. So when people would ask me how I lost weight, I'd say that I reduced calories and improved nutrition. Doesn't sell books like Atkins, but it does work!
Very interesting. I'll have to look into this Ames fellow.
a
Ha, that's interesting. I love NPR. I'll have to experiment with taking multi-vitamins more regularly and see if I notice any effect on hunger.
For my PhD work on obesity, I interviewed, amongst others, VCs and it is evident that they are not keen to invest in prevention.
As far as I know Bruce Ames has millions only of the research funding variety, but this will not be of much commercial interest for innovative solutions to obesity except for incumbent peddlers of vitamins. It will keep many academics in the emplpy though...
The US Food Pyramid is so complex that it is not surprising that people give up trying to untangle the puzzle. That said the US also has a great helpful guide for meals planning - A Healthier You - published by HHS which may help people more than just taking multivitamins, another 'pill' solution rather than a lifestyle based, and potentially more sustainable, change.
Post a Comment