A Gluten-free January

Are You Gluten Sensitive?

Many people are totally unaware of the fact that they react poorly to gluten. Because they've been eating wheat, barley and/or rye products every day for virtually their entire lives, they don't know what their bodies feel like without gluten. In susceptible people, eating gluten is linked to a dizzying array of health problems that stem from an immune reaction to gliadins and other proteins in gluten (1). Are you a susceptible person? How do you know?

The gold standard way to detect a gluten sensitivity is to do a gluten "challenge" after a period of avoidance and see how you feel. People who react poorly to gluten may feel better after a period of avoidance. After a gluten challenge, symptoms can range from digestive upset, to skin symptoms, to fatigue or irritability within minutes to days of the gluten challenge.

With 2011 approaching, why not make your new year's resolution to go gluten-free for a month? A man named Matt Lentzner e-mailed me this week to ask if I would help with his (non-commercial) project, "A Gluten-free January". I said I'd be delighted. Although I don't typically eat much gluten, this January I'm going 100% gluten-free. Are you on board? Read on.

A Message from Matt Lentzner

Hi There.

My name is Matt Lentzner. I'm just some guy who lifts weights on his patio and tries to eat healthy. That's not important, but I have an idea that just might be.

I am trying to get as many people as possible to go gluten-free for one month - this January 2011.

I've considered this whole ancestral diet thing and I've come to a conclusion. If you could only do just one thing to improve your health then not eating gluten would be it. This is not to say that avoiding other nasty things like fructose or industrial vegetable oil is not important. They are, but you'd get the most bang for your buck from not eating gluten.

"Eat No Gluten" is simple and easy to remember. I think that sometimes the rules get so complicated and overwhelming and people just give up on it. We're keeping it simple here. Even at this simplified level I see that it's difficult for a lot of folks. I think people, Americans especially, tend not to pay much attention to what they're eating - what it is, where it came from, etc.

Getting people to get out of their eating ruts and think a little about what goes into their mouths is a valuable exercise. It sets the stage for better choices in the future. I hope that some success with the simple step will encourage people to further improve their diets.

I have a website at www.glutenfreejan.com. If you want to sign up just send an email with your first name, last initial, and town of residence to glutenfreejan@gmail.com. If you are on Facebook there's a community you can 'Like' called: Gluten Free January. So far I have over 120 people all over the world signed up. If you are already gluten-free then I still want you to sign up - the more the merrier. You can also use this opportunity to spread the word and sign up your family and friends.

Merry Christmas - Looking forward to a gluten-free New Year.

Matt

Potato Diet Interpretation

If you read my post on December 16th, you know that Chris Voigt saw remarkable fat loss and improvements in health markers as a result of two months of eating almost nothing but potatoes. This has left many people scratching their heads, because potatoes are not generally viewed as a healthy food. This is partially due to the fact that potatoes are very rich in carbohydrate, which also happens to be a quickly digested type, resulting in a high glycemic index. The glycemic index refers to the degree to which a particular food increases blood glucose when it's eaten, and I've questioned the relevance of this concept to health outcomes in the past (1, 2, 3). I think Mr. Voigt's results once again argue against the importance of the glycemic index as a diet-health concept.

It's often pointed out that potatoes are low in vitamins and minerals compared to vegetables on a per-calorie basis, but I think it's a misleading comparison because potatoes are much more calorie-dense than most vegetables. Potatoes compare favorably to other starchy staples such as bread, rice and taro.

Over the course of two months, Mr. Voigt lost 21 pounds. No one knows exactly how much of that weight came out of fat and how much out of lean mass, but the fact that he reported a decrease in waist and neck circumference indicates that most of it probably came out of fat. Previous long-term potato feeding experiments have indicated that it's possible to maintain an athletic muscle mass on the amount of protein in whole potatoes alone (4). So yes, Mr. Voigt lost fat on a very high-carbohydrate diet (75-80% carbohydrate, up to 440g per day).

On to the most interesting question: why did he lose fat? Losing fat requires that energy leaving the body exceed energy entering the body. But as Gary Taubes would say, that's obvious but it doesn't get us anywhere. In the first three weeks of his diet, Mr. Voigt estimates that he was only eating 1,600 calories per day. Aha! That's why he lost weight! Well, yes. But let's look into this more deeply. Mr. Voigt was not deliberately restricting his calorie intake at all, and he did not intend this as a weight loss diet. In my interview, I asked him if he was hungry during the diet. He said that he was not hungry, and that he ate to appetite during this period, realizing only after three weeks that he was not eating nearly enough calories to maintain his weight*. I also asked him how his energy level was, and he said repeatedly that it was very good, perhaps even better than usual. Those were not idle questions.

Calorie restriction causes a predictable physiological response in humans that includes hunger and decreased energy. It's the starvation response, and it's powerful in both lean and overweight people, as anyone knows who has tried to lose fat by decreasing calorie intake alone. The fact that he didn't experience hunger or fatigue implies that his body did not think it was starving. Why would that be?

I believe Mr. Voigt's diet lowered his fat mass 'setpoint'. In other words, for whatever reason, the diet made his body 'want' to be leaner that it already was. His body began releasing stored fat that it considered excess, and therefore he had to eat less food to complete his energy needs. You see this same phenomenon very clearly in rodent feeding studies. Changes in diet composition/quality can cause dramatic shifts in the fat mass setpoint (5, 6). Mr. Voigt's appetite would eventually have returned to normal once he had stabilized at a lower body fat mass, just as rodents do.

Rodent studies have made it clear that diet composition has a massive effect on the level of fat mass that the body will 'defend' against changes in calorie intake (5, 6). Human studies have shown similar effects from changes in diet composition/quality. For example, in controlled diet trials, low-carbohydrate dieters spontaneously reduce their calorie intake quite significantly and lose body fat, without being asked to restrict calories (7). In Dr. Staffan Lindeberg's Paleolithic diet trials, participants lost a remarkable amount of fat, yet a recent publication from his group shows that the satiety (fullness) level of the Paleolithic group was not different from a non-Paleolithic comparison group despite a considerably lower calorie intake over 12 weeks (8, 9). I'll discuss this important new paper soon. Together, this suggests that diet composition/quality can have a dominant impact on the fat mass setpoint.

One possibility is that cutting the wheat, sugar, most vegetable oil and other processed food out of Mr. Voigt's diet was responsible for the fat loss. I think that's likely to have contributed. Many people find, for example, that they lose fat simply by eliminating wheat from their diet.

Another possibility that I've been exploring recently is that changes in palatability (pleasantness of flavor) influence the fat mass setpoint. There is evidence in rodents that it does, although it's not entirely consistent. For example, rats will become massively obese if you provide them with chocolate flavored Ensure (a meal replacement drink), but not with vanilla or strawberry Ensure (10). They will defend their elevated fat mass against calorie restriction (i.e. they show a physiological starvation response when you try to bring them down to a lower weight by feeding them less chocolate Ensure) while they're eating chocolate Ensure, but as soon as you put them back on unpurified rodent pellets, they will lose fat and defend the lower fat mass. Giving them food in liquid or paste form often causes obesity, while the same food in solid pellet form will not. Eating nothing but potatoes is obviously a diet with a low overall palatability.

So I think that both a change in diet composition/quality and a decrease in palatability probably contributed to a decrease in Mr. Voigt's fat mass setpoint, which allowed him to lose fat mass without triggering a starvation response (hunger, fatigue).

The rest of his improvements in health markers were partially due to the fat loss, including his decreased fasting glucose, decreased triglycerides, and presumably increased insulin sensitivity. They may also have been partially due to a lack of industrial food and increased intake of certain micronutrients such as magnesium.

One of the most striking changes was in his calculated LDL cholesterol ("bad" cholesterol), which decreased by 41%, putting him in a range that's more typical of healthy non-industrial cultures including hunter-gatherers. Yet hunter-gatherers didn't eat nothing but potatoes, often didn't eat much starch, and in some cases had a high intake of fat and saturated fat, so what gives? It's possible that a reduced saturated fat intake had an impact on his LDL, given the relatively short timescale of the diet. But I think there's something mysterious about this setpoint mechanism that has a much broader impact on metabolism than is generally appreciated. For example, calorie restriction in humans has a massive impact on LDL, much larger than the impact of saturated fat (11). And in any case, the latter appears to be a short-term phenomenon (12). It's just beginning to be appreciated that energy balance control systems in the brain influence cholesterol metabolism.

Mr. Voigt's digestion appeared to be just fine on his potato diet, even though he generally ate the skins. This makes me even more skeptical of the idea that potato glycoalkaloids in common potato varieties are a health concern, especially if you were to eliminate most of the glycoalkaloids by peeling.

I asked Mr. Voigt about what foods he was craving during the diet to get an idea of whether he was experiencing any major deficiencies. The fact that Mr. Voigt did not mention craving meat or other high-protein foods reinforces the fact that potatoes are a reasonable source of complete protein. The only thing he craved was crunchy/juicy food, which I'm not sure how to interpret.

He also stopped snoring during the diet, and began again immediately upon resuming his normal diet, perhaps indicating that his potato diet reduced airway inflammation. This could be due to avoiding food allergies and irritants (wheat anyone?) and also fat loss.

Overall, a very informative experiment! Enjoy your potatoes.


*Until the last 5.5 weeks, when he deliberately stuffed himself beyond his appetite because his rapid weight loss worried him. Yet, even with deliberate overfeeding up to his estimated calorie requirement of 2,200 calories per day, he continued to lose weight. He probably was not quite reaching his calorie goal, or his requirement is higher than he thought.

Trouble With RSS Feed?

I've received several comments that my blog posts are no longer showing up in peoples' RSS feeds. I've gone into my settings, and the blog is still set to full feed mode, so I don't know why that would be. I'm trying to understand if the problem is widespread or only affects a few people. Please let me know in the comments section if new posts (since the potatoes and human health series) are not showing up in your reader. Also, please let me know if new posts are showing up. Thanks!

Dr. Mellanby's Tooth Decay Reversal Diet

I have a lot of admiration for Drs. Edward and May Mellanby. A husband-and-wife team, they discovered vitamin D, and determined that rickets is caused by poor calcium (or phosphorus) status, typically due to vitamin D deficiency. They believed that an ideal diet is omnivorous, based on whole foods, and offers an adequate supply of fat-soluble vitamins and easily absorbed minerals. They also felt that grain intake should be modest, as their research showed that unsoaked whole grains antagonize the effect of vitamins D and A.

Not only did the Mellanbys discover vitamin D and end the rickets epidemic that was devastating Western cities at the time, they also discovered a cure for early-stage tooth decay that has been gathering dust in medical libraries throughout the world since 1924.

It was in that year that Dr. May Mellanby published a summary of the results of the Mellanby tooth decay reversal studies in the British Medical Journal, titled "Remarks on the Influence of a Cereal-free Diet Rich in Vitamin D and Calcium on Dental Caries in Children". Last year, I had to specially request this article from the basement of the University of Washington medical library (1). Thanks to the magic of the internet, the full version of the paper is now freely available online (2).

You don't need my help to read the study, but in this post I offer a little background, a summary and my interpretation.

In previous studies, the Mellanbys used dogs to define the dietary factors that influence tooth development and repair. They identified three, which together made the difference between excellent and poor dental health (from Nutrition and Disease):

1. The diet's mineral content, particularly calcium and phosphorus
2. The diet's fat-soluble vitamin content, chiefly vitamin D
3. The diet's content of inhibitors of mineral absorption, primarily phytic acid

Once they had defined these factors, they set about testing their hypotheses in humans. They performed eight trials, each one in children in an institutionalized setting where diet could be completely controlled. The number of cavities in each child's mouth was noted at the beginning and end of the period. I'll only discuss the three most informative, and only the most successful in detail. First, the results:

I'll start with diet 1. Children on this diet ate the typical fare, plus extra oatmeal. Oatmeal is typically eaten as an unsoaked whole grain (and soaking it isn't very effective in any case), and so it is high in phytic acid, which effectively inhibits the absorption of a number of minerals including calcium. These children formed 5.8 cavities each and healed virtually none-- not good!

Diet number 2 was similar to diet 1, except there was no extra oatmeal and the children received a large supplemental dose of vitamin D. Over 28 weeks, only 1 cavity per child developed or worsened, while 3.9 healed. Thus, simply adding vitamin D to a reasonable diet allowed most of their cavities to heal.

Diet number 3 was the most effective. This was a grain-free diet plus supplemental vitamin D. Over 26 weeks, children in this group saw an average of only 0.4 cavities form or worsen, while 4.7 healed. The Mellanbys considered that they had essentially found a cure for this disorder in its early stages.

What exactly was this diet? Here's how it was described in the paper (note: cereals = grains):

...instead of cereals- for example, bread, oatmeal, rice, and tapioca- an increased allowance of potatoes and other vegetables, milk, fat, meat, and eggs was given. The total sugar, jam, and syrup intake was the same as before. Vitamin D was present in abundance in either cod-liver oil or irradiated ergosterol, and in egg yolk, butter, milk, etc. The diet of these children was thus rich in those factors, especially vitamin D and calcium, which experimental evidence has shown to assist calcification, and was devoid of those factors- namely, cereals- which interfere with the process.

Carbohydrate intake was reduced by almost half. Bread and oatmeal were replaced by potatoes, milk, meat, fish, eggs, butter and vegetables. The diet is reminiscent of what Dr. Weston Price used to reverse tooth decay in his dental clinic in Cleveland, although Price's diet did include rolls made from freshly ground whole wheat. Price also identified the fat-soluble vitamin K2 MK-4 as another important factor in tooth decay reversal, which would have been abundant in Mellanby's studies due to the dairy. The Mellanbys and Price were contemporaries and had parallel and complementary findings. The Mellanbys did not understand the role of vitamin K2 in mineral metabolism, and Price did not seem to appreciate the role of phytic acid from unsoaked whole grains in preventing mineral absorption.

Here are two sample meals provided in Dr. Mellanby's paper. I believe the word "dinner" refers to the noon meal, and "supper" refers to the evening meal:

Breakfast- Omelette, cocoa, with milk.
Lunch- Milk.
Dinner- Potatoes, steamed minced meat, carrots, stewed fruit, milk.
Tea- Fresh fruit salad, cocoa made with milk.
Supper- Fish and potatoes fried in dripping, milk.

Breakfast- Scrambled egg, milk, fresh salad.
Dinner- Irish stew, potatoes, cabbage, stewed fruit, milk.
Tea- Minced meat warmed with bovril, green salad, milk.
Supper- Thick potato soup made with milk.

In addition, children received vitamin D daily. Here's Dr. Mellanby's summary of their findings:

The tests do not indicate that in order to prevent dental caries children must live on a cereal-free diet, but in association with the results of the other investigations on animals and children they do indicate that the amount of cereal eaten should be reduced, particularly during infancy and in the earlier years of life, and should be replaced by an increased consumption of milk, eggs, butter, potatoes, and other vegetables. They also indicate that a sufficiency of vitamin D and calcium should be given from birth, and before birth, by supplying a suitable diet to the pregnant mother. The teeth of the children would be well formed and more resistant to dental caries instead of being hypoplastic and badly calcified, as were those in this investigation.

If I could add something to this program, I would recommend daily tooth brushing and flossing, avoiding sugar, and rinsing the mouth with water after each meal.

This diet is capable of reversing early stage tooth decay. It will not reverse advanced decay, which requires professional dental treatment as soon as possible. It is not a substitute for dental care in general, and if you try using diet to reverse your own tooth decay, please do it under the supervision of a dentist. And while you're there, tell her about Edward and May Mellanby!

Preventing Tooth Decay
Reversing Tooth Decay
Images of Tooth Decay Healing due to an Improved Diet
Dental Anecdotes

Interview with a Kitavan

Kitava is a Melanesian island that has maintained an almost entirely traditional, non-industrial diet until very recently. It was the subject of a study by Dr. Staffan Lindeberg and colleagues, which I have written about many times, in which they demonstrated that Kitavans have a very low (undetectable) rate of heart attack, stroke, diabetes and overweight. Dr. Lindeberg described their diet as consisting mostly of yam, sweet potato, taro, cassava, coconut, fruit, fish and vegetables. Over the seven days that Dr. Lindeberg measured food intake, they ate 69% of their calories as carbohydrate, 21% as fat (mostly from coconut) and 10% as protein.

I recently received an e-mail from a Kitavan by the name of Job Daniel. He's working at the Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research in Madang, studying the social and economic impacts of malaria and related health issues in Papua New Guinea. He recalls many details of Dr. Lindeberg's visit to Kitava, which Dr. Lindeberg has confirmed are correct. Job generously offered to answer some of my questions about the traditional Kitavan diet. My questions are in bold, and his responses are below.

How many meals a day do Kitavans eat?
People on the island eat mostly two meals a day. But nowadays, breakfast is mainly comprised of tubers (yam and sweet potato and greens all cooked in coconut cream and salt) and dinner is the same with the inclusion of fish as protein most often. In between these two meals, lunch is seen as a light refreshment with fruits or young coconut only to mention these two popular ones. In between the morning and the evening, we mostly eat fruits as snack or lunch. Generally speaking, there are only two main meals per day, i.e breakfast and dinner.

Do Kitavans eat any fermented food?
There are fermented fruits and nuts like you've said for breadfruit, nuts, yams and not forgetting fish. We ferment them by using the traditional method of drying them over the fire for months. And this fermented foods last for almost one to two years without getting stale or spoiled. Food preservation is a skill inherited from our great grand fathers taking into consideration the island's location and availability of food. Foods such as bread fruit and fish are fermented and preserved to serve as substitutes to fresh food in times of trouble or shortage. Otherwise, they're eaten along the way.

Is this really fermentation or simply drying?
To your query about the fermentation methods we use, apart from drying food over the fire, we also use this method like the Hawaiians do with taro [poi- SJG]. For our case we bury a special kind of fruit collected from the tree and buried in the ground to ripen, which takes about 2 - 3 days. I don't really know the English name, but we call it 'Natu' in vernecular. There's also a certain nut when it falls from the tree, women collect them and peel off the rotten skin, then mumu [earth oven- SJG] them in the ground covered with leaves to protect them from burning from the extreme heat of the fire, both from the open fire on top and hot stones underneath. After a day, the nuts are removed from the mumu and loaded into very big baskets which are then shifted to the sea for fermentation. This takes a week (minimum) to ferment or be ready for consumption at last. After the fermentation period is over, i.e one week some days or two
weeks to be exact, then the nuts are finally ready for eating. The length of time it takes before the nuts are no longer edible is roughly one week.

What parts of the fish are eaten?
As islanders, we eat almost every creature and body part of a sea creature. Especially fish eggs, it is one of the favorites of children. They always prefer it burnt on the fire and consumed greedily. Every part of the fish is eaten except for the feces, gall bladder, bones and the scales.

Is food shortage really rare on Kitava?
Generally speaking it is rare. BUT sometimes we run out of food only if there is a drought and the sea is useless. Otherwise, we tend to use the preserved or fermented foods on the dryer in the kitchen. As you would understand, we have seasons and they affect the type and availability of food on the island. In the beginning of the year, we eat sweet potato, cassava and mostly tuna for protein. During mid year, before yam comes in to replace sweet potato and cassava, taro is then ready for harvest. And then yams are ready for harvesting so the food supply is continued on. OK when yams are harvested, some are eaten, some are stored away for reserve and seedlings. In this way, we don't run out food towards the end of the year before sweet potato would be ready for harvest. So as you can see, the food supply on the island is somewhat planned by our ancestral economists where it continues throughout the year without stopping.

Do Kitavans traditionally eat pork, and if so, how often?
We do eat pork but not that often because pork meat is chiefly regarded important on the island. We only eat pork on special occasions so I'd rather say that pork is only eaten occasionally. In most cases in the middle of the year when the yams are harvested (yam harvest celebrations and towards the end of the year for certain rites and activities). Otherwise the everyday meal is always topped with fish.

How long are infants breast fed on Kitava?
Women breast feed for a minimum of 2 years. But breast feeding is again determined by the size and health situation of the baby. If the baby is looking healthy and big, it is most likely that this baby would be adopted temporarily by someone else so as to be removed from breast milk after two years of age minimum. Child care nowadays is paramount as people start to realize the importance of health and hygiene in general. But Kitavans are well known in that part of the country for their hygiene practices. They also got the provincial and district awards for a 'clean community' in early 90s and right now, they still maintain their hygiene level and awareness.

Are there any other foods that are commonly eaten on Kitava that I might not be aware of?
Bananas, pineapple, corn and watermelons. For watermelon and corn, they are plentiful especially at this time of the year.

Thanks for your help, Job! I know many people will appreciate reading these responses.

Diet-Heart Controlled Trials: a New Literature Review

Many controlled studies have measured the cardiovascular effects of replacing animal ("saturated") fats with seed oils (predominantly the omega-6 polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid) in humans. A number of these studies recorded heart attacks and total mortality during the following 1-8 years. Several investigators have done meta-analyses (literature reviews) to try to tease out overall conclusions from these studies.

I'm pleased to point out a new meta-analysis of these controlled trials by Dr. Christopher Ramsden and colleagues (1). This paper finally cleans up the mess that previous meta-analyses have made of the diet-heart literature. One recent paper in particular by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian and colleagues concluded that overall, the controlled trials show that replacing animal fat with linoleic acid (LA)-rich seed oils reduces heart attack risk (2). I disagreed strongly with their conclusion because I felt their methods were faulty (3).

Dr. Ramsden and colleagues pointed out several fundamental flaws in the review paper by Dr. Mozaffarian and colleagues, as well as in the prevailing interpretation of these studies in the scientific literature in general. These overlap with the concerns that I voiced in my post (4):

1. Omission of unfavorable studies, including the Rose corn oil trial and the Sydney diet-heart trial.
2. Inclusion of weak trials with major confounding variables, such as the Finnish mental hospital trial.
3. Failure to distinguish between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids.
4. Failure to acknowledge that seed oils often replaced large quantities of industrial trans fats in addition to animal fat in these trials.
   

Dr. Ramsden and colleagues accounted for all of these factors in their analysis, which has never been done before. They chose inclusion criteria* that made sense, and stuck with them. In addition, they did an impressive amount of historical work, digging up old unpublished data from these trials to determine the exact composition of the control and experimental diets. The paper is published in the British Journal of Nutrition, an excellent journal, and overall is written in a scientific and professional manner.

What did they find?

• Interventions that replaced animal and trans fat with seed oils that were rich in LA but low in omega-3 caused a non-significant trend toward increased heart attacks (13% increase) and overall mortality.
  
• Interventions that replaced animal and trans fat with a combination of LA and omega-3 fats significantly reduced heart attacks (by 22%). The numbers for total mortality followed a similar trend.

In other words, LA-rich seed oils do not prevent heart attacks (and may actually promote them), but correcting an omega-3 deficiency and reducing industrial trans fat intake may be protective. This is similar to what I've been saying for a while now, based on my own interpretation of the same studies and others. However, Dr. Ramsden and colleagues have taken the idea to a new level by their thorough and sophisticated detective work and analysis. For example, I didn't realize that in virtually all of these controlled trials, the intervention group reduced its trans fat intake substantially in addition to reducing animal fat. From the paper:

...experimental diets replaced common �hard� margarines, industrial shortenings and other sources of [trans fat] in all seven of the [controlled trials] included in the meta-analysis by Mozaffarian et al. The mean estimated [trans fat] content of the seven control diets was 3�0 [% of calories] (range 1�5�9�6 [%]).
...the displacement of [trans fat], rather than the substitution of mixed n-3/n-6 [polyunsaturated fat] for [saturated fat], may account for some or all of the 22% reduction in non-fatal [heart attacks and heart attack] death in our meta-analysis. By contrast, the increased [heart attack] risks from n-6 specific [polyunsaturated fat] diets in our meta-analysis may be underestimated as n-6 [polyunsaturated fat] also replaced substantial quantities of [trans fat] (Table 3). The consistent trends towards increased [heart attack] risk of n-6 specific [polyunsaturated fat] diets may have become significant if the n-6 [polyunsaturated fat] replaced only [saturated fat], instead of a combination of [saturated fat] and [trans fat].

In other words, it looks like trans fat is probably the issue, not animal fat, but these trials replaced both simultaneously so we can't know for sure. I will note here that trans fat does not generally promote atherosclerosis (thickening and hardening of arteries) in animal models, so if it does truly increase heart attack risk as many studies suggest, it's probably through a mechanism that is independent of atherosclerosis.

The article also contains an excellent discussion of the Finnish mental hospital trial (5, 6) and why it was excluded from the meta-analysis, in which Dr. Ramsden and colleagues point out major design flaws, some of which I was not aware of. For example, trans fat intake was on average 13 times higher in the control groups than in the experimental groups. In addition, one of the control groups received more than twice as much of the antipsychotic drug thioridazine, which is known to be highly toxic to the heart, as any other group. Ouch. I'm glad to see this study finally discussed in an open and honest manner. I discussed my own problems with the Finnish trial in an earlier post (7).

I was also glad to see an open discussion of the Oslo Diet-heart study (8), in which diet changes led to a reduction in heart attack risk over five years. Dr. Mozaffarian and colleagues included it in their analysis as if it were a controlled trial in which animal fat was replaced by seed oils only. In reality, the investigators changed many variables at once, which I had also pointed out in my critique of Dr. Mozaffarian's meta-analysis (9). Here's what Dr. Ramsden and colleagues had to say about it:

First, experimental dieters were instructed to substitute fish, shellfish and �whale beef� for meats and eggs, and were actually supplied with �considerable quantities of Norwegian sardines canned in cod liver oil, which proved to be popular as a bread spread�(32)... Second, the experimental group consumed massive amounts of soybean oil, which provided large quantities of both LA (15�6 en %) and ALA (2�7 en %). ALA consumption was about 4�5 times average US intake(42), or about twelve typical flax oil pills (1 g pill � 560 mg ALA) per d. In addition, the fish and cod liver oil consumption provided Oslo (598N latitude) dieters with 610 IU (15�25 mg) of daily vitamin D3, recently linked to lower blood pressure, plaque stabilisation, and reduced [heart attack risk] (64). Furthermore, experimental dieters were encouraged to eat more nuts, fruits, and vegetables; to limit animal fats; and to restrict their intake of refined grains and sugar.

trans fat intake was also reduced substantially by excluding margarine in the experimental group. Other review papers have used this trial as a justification to replace animal fat with seed oils. Hmm... The only reason they get away with this is because the trial was published in 1966 and almost no one today has actually read it.

One criticism I have of Dr. Ramsden's paper is that they used the Oslo trial in their analysis, despite the major limitation described above. However, they were extremely open about it and discussed the problem in detail. Furthermore, the overall result would have been essentially the same even if they had excluded the Oslo trial from the analysis.

Overall, the paper is an excellent addition to the literature, and I hope it will bring a new level of sophistication to the dialogue on dietary prevention of cardiovascular disease. In the meantime, brace yourselves for an avalanche of criticism from the seed oil brigade.


* Guidelines that determine which studies to include in the analysis. For example, you want to exclude any study that wasn't randomized, because it will not be interpretable from a statistical standpoint. You also want to exclude trials where major variables differ between groups besides the specific variable you're trying to test. The Finnish mental hospital trial fails by both criteria.

Glucose Tolerance in Non-industrial Cultures

Background

Glucose is the predominant blood sugar and one of the body's two main fuel sources (the other is fatty acids). Glucose, in one form or another, is also the main form of digestible dietary carbohydrate in nearly all human diets. Starch is made of long chains of glucose molecules, which are rapidly liberated and absorbed during digestion. Sucrose, or table sugar, is made of one glucose and one fructose molecule, which are separated before absorption.

Blood glucose is essential for life, but it can also be damaging if there is too much of it. Therefore, the body tries to keep it within a relatively tight range. Normal fasting glucose is roughly between 70 and 90 mg/dL*, but in the same individual it's usually within about 5 mg/dL on any given day. Sustained glucose above 160 mg/dL or so causes damage to multiple organ systems. Some people would put that number closer to 140 mg/dL.

The amount of glucose contained in a potato far exceeds the amount contained in the blood, so if all that glucose were to enter the blood at once, it would lead to a highly damaging blood glucose level. Fortunately, the body has a hormone designed to keep this from happening: insulin. Insulin tells cells to internalize glucose from the blood, and suppresses glucose release by the liver. It's released by the pancreas in response to eating carbohydrate, and protein to a lesser extent. The amount of insulin released is proportional to the amount of carbohydrate ingested, so that glucose entering the blood is cleared before it can accumulate.

Insulin doesn't clear all the glucose as it enters the bloodstream, however. Some of it does accumulate, leading to a spike in blood glucose. This usually doesn't exceed 130 mg/dL in a truly healthy person, and even if it approaches that level it's only briefly. However, diabetics have reduced insulin signaling, and eating a typical meal can cause their glucose to exceed 300 mg/dL due to reduced insulin action and/or insulin secretion. In affluent nations, this is typically due to type II diabetes, which begins as insulin resistance, a condition in which insulin is actually higher than normal but cells fail to respond to it.  The next step is the failure of insulin-secreting beta cells, which is what generally precipitates actual diabetes.

The precursor to diabetes is called glucose intolerance, or pre-diabetes. In someone with glucose intolerance, blood glucose after a typical meal will exceed that of a healthy person, but will not reach the diabetic range (a common definition of diabetes is 200 mg/dL or higher, 2 hours after ingesting 75g of glucose). Glucose tolerance refers to a person's ability to control blood glucose when challenged with dietary glucose, and can be used in some contexts as a useful predictor of diabetes risk and general metabolic health. Doctors use the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), which involves drinking 60-100g glucose and measuring blood glucose after one or two hours, to determine glucose tolerance.

Why do we care about glucose tolerance in non-industrial cultures?

One of the problems with modern medical research is that so many people in our culture are metabolically sick that it can be difficult to know if what we consider "normal" is really normal or healthy in the broader sense. Non-industrial cultures allow us to examine what the human metabolism is like in the absence of metabolic disease. I admit this rests on certain assumptions, particularly that these people aren't sick themselves. I don't think all non-industrial cultures are necessarily healthy, but I'm going to stick with those that research has shown have an exceptionally low prevalence of diabetes (by Western standards) and other "diseases of civilization" for the purposes of this post.

Here's the question I really want to answer in this post: do healthy non-industrial cultures with a very high carbohydrate intake have an excellent glucose tolerance, such that their blood glucose doesn't rise to a high level, or are they simply resistant to the damaging effects of high blood glucose?

The data

I'm going to start with an extreme example. In the 1960s, when it was fashionable to study non-industrial cultures, researchers investigated the diet and health of a culture in Tukisenta, in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. The eat practically nothing but sweet potatoes, and their typical daily fare is 94.6 percent carbohydrate. Whether or not you believe that exact number, their diet was clearly extraordinarily high in carbohydrate. They administered 100g OGTTs and measured blood glucose at one hour, which is a very stringent OGTT. They compared the results to those obtained in the 1965 Tecumseh study (US) obtained by the same method. Here's what they found (1):
Compared to Americans, in Tukisenta they had an extraordinary glucose tolerance at all ages. At one hour, their blood glucose was scarcely above normal fasting values, and glucose tolerance only decreased modestly with age. In contrast, in Americans over 50 years old, the average one-hour value was around 180 mg/dL!

Now let's take a look at the African Bantu in the Lobaye region of the Central African Republic. The Bantu are a large ethnic group who primarily subsist on a diverse array of starchy foods including grains, beans, plantains and root crops. One hour after a 100g OGTT, their blood glucose was 113 mg/dL, compared to 139 mg/dL in American controls (2). Those numbers are comparable to what investigators found in Tukisenta, and indicate an excellent glucose tolerance in the Bantu.

In South America, different investigators studied a group of native Americans in central Brazil that subsist primarily on cassava (a starchy root crop) and freshwater fish. Average blood glucose one hour after a 100g OGTT was 94 mg/dl, and only 2 out of 106 people tested had a reading over 160 mg/dL (both were older women) (Western Diseases: Their Emergence and Prevention, p. 149). Again, that indicates a phenomenal glucose tolerance by Western standards.

I have to conclude that high-carbohydrate non-industrial cultures probably don't experience damaging high blood glucose levels, because their glucose tolerance is up to the task of shuttling a huge amount of glucose out of the bloodstream before that happens.

Not so fast...

Now let's turn our attention to another study that may throw a wrench in the gears. A while back, I found a paper containing OGTT data for the !Kung San (also called the Bushmen), a hunter-gatherer group living in the Kalahari desert of Africa. I reported in an earlier post that they had a good glucose tolerance. When I revisited the paper recently, I realized I had misread it and in fact, their glucose tolerance was actually pretty poor.

Investigators administered a 50g OGTT, half what the other studies used. At one hour, the San had blood glucose readings of 169 mg/dL, compared to 142 mg/dL in Caucasian controls (3)! I suspect a 100g OGTT would have put them close to the diabetic range.

Wait a minute, these guys are hunter-gatherers living the ancestral lifestyle; aren't they supposed to be super healthy?? First of all, like many hunter-gatherer groups the San are very small people: the men in this study were only 46 kg (101 lbs).  The smaller you are, the more a given amount of carbohydrate will raise your blood glucose.  Also, while I was mulling this over, I recalled a discussion where non-diabetic people were discussing their 'diabetic' OGTT values while on a low-carbohydrate diet. Apparently, carbohydrate refeeding for a few days generally reverses this and allows a normal OGTT in most people. It turns out this effect has been known for the better part of a century.

So what were the San eating? The study was conducted in October of 1970. The San diet changes seasonally, however their main staple food is the mongongo nut, which is mostly fat and which is available year-round (according to The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society). Their carbohydrate intake is generally low by Western standards, and at times of the year it is very low. This varies by the availability of other foods, but they generally don't seem to relish the fibrous starchy root crops that are available in the area, as they mostly eat them when other food is scarce. Jean-Louis Tu has posted a nice analysis of the San diet on BeyondVeg (4). Here's a photo of a San man collecting mongongo nuts from The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society:

What did the authors of the OGTT study have to say about their diet? Acknowledging that prior carbohydrate intake may have played a role in the OGTT results of the San, they made the following remark:

a retrospective dietary history (M. J. Konner, personal communication, 1971) indicated that the [San], in fact, consumed fairly large amounts of carbohydrate-rich vegetable food during the week before testing.

However, the dietary history was not provided, nor has it been published, so we have no way to assess the statement's accuracy or what was meant by "fairly large amounts of carbohydrate-rich vegetable food." Given the fact that the San diet typically ranges from moderately low to very low in carbohydrate, I suspect they were not getting much carbohydrate as a percentage of calories. Looking at the nutritional value of the starchy root foods they typically eat in appendix D of The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society, they are fibrous and most contain a low concentration of starch compared to a potato for example. The investigators may have been misled by the volume of these foods eaten, not realizing that they are not as rich in carbohydrate as the starchy root crops they are more familiar with.

You can draw your own conclusions, but I think the high OGTT result of the San probably reflect a low habitual carbohydrate intake, and not pre-diabetes. I have a very hard time believing that this culture wasn't able to handle the moderate amount of carbohydrate in their diet effectively, as observers have never described diabetic complications among them.

Putting it all together

This brings me to my hypothesis. I think a healthy human body is extraordinarily flexible in its ability to adapt to a very broad range of carbohydrate intakes, and adjusts glucose tolerance accordingly to maintain carbohydrate handling in a healthy range. In the context of a healthy diet and lifestyle (from birth), I suspect that nearly anyone can adjust to a very high carbohydrate intake without getting dangerous blood glucose spikes. A low carbohydrate intake leads to impaired glucose handling and better fat handling, as one would expect. This can show up as impaired glucose tolerance or even 'diabetes' on an OGTT, but that does not necessarily reflect a pathological state in my opinion.

Every person is different based on lifestyle, diet, personal history and genetics. Not everyone in affluent nations has a good glucose tolerance, and some people will never be able to handle starch effectively under any circumstances. The best way to know how your body reacts to carbohydrate is to test your own post-meal blood glucose using a glucose meter. They are inexpensive and work well. For the most informative result, eat a relatively consistent amount of carbohydrate for a week to allow your body to adapt, then take a glucose measurement 1 and 2 hours after a meal. If you don't eat much carbohydrate, eating a potato might make you think you're diabetic, whereas after a week of adaptation you may find that a large potato does not spike your blood glucose beyond the healthy range.

Exercise is a powerful tool for combating glucose intolerance, as it increases the muscles' demand for glucose, causing them to transport it out of the blood greedily after a meal. Any exercise that depletes muscle glycogen should be effective.


* Assuming a typical carbohydrate intake. Chris Kresser recently argued, based on several studies, that true normal fasting glucose for a person eating a typical amount of carbohydrate is below 83 mg/dL. Low-carbohydrate eating may raise this number, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a pathological change. High-carbohydrate cultures such as the Kitavans, Aymara and New Guineans tend to have fasting values in the low 60s to low 70s. I suspect that a very high carbohydrate intake generally lowers fasting glucose in healthy people. That seems to be the case so far for Chris Voigt, on his diet of 20 potatoes a day. Stay tuned for an interview with Mr. Voigt in early December.

Impressions from the Wise Traditions Conference

I spent last weekend at the Weston A. Price Foundation Wise Traditions conference in King of Prussia, PA. Here are some highlights:

Spending time with several people in the diet-health community who I�ve been wanting to meet in person, including Chris Masterjohn, Melissa McEwen and John Durant. John and Melissa are the public face of the New York city paleo movement. The four of us spent most of the weekend together tossing around ideas and making merry. I�ve been corresponding with Chris quite a bit lately and we�ve been thinking through some important diet-health questions together. He is brimming with good ideas. I also got to meet Sally Fallon Morell, the founder and president of the WAPF.

Attending talks. The highlight was Chris Masterjohn�s talk �Heart Disease and Molecular Degeneration: the New Paradigm�, in which he described his compelling theory on oxidative damage and cardiovascular disease, among other things. You can read some of his earlier ideas on the subject here. Another talk I really enjoyed was by Anore Jones, who lived with an isolated Inuit group in Alaska for 23 years and ate a mostly traditional hunter-gatherer diet. The food and preparation techniques they used were really interesting, including various techniques for extracting fats and preserving meats, berries and greens by fermentation. Jones has published books on the subject that I suspect would be very interesting, including Nauriat Niginaqtuat, Plants that We Eat, and Iqaluich Niginaqtuat, Fish that We Eat. The latter is freely available on the web here.

I attended a speech by Joel Salatin, the prolific Virginia farmer, writer and agricultural innovator, which was fun. I enjoyed Sally Fallon Morell�s talk on US school lunches and the politics surrounding them. I also attended a talk on food politics by Judith McGeary, a farmer, attorney and and activist, in which she described the reasons to oppose or modify senate bill 510. The gist is that it will be disproportionately hard on small farmers who are already disfavored by current regulations, making high quality food more difficult to obtain, more expensive or even illegal. It�s designed to improve food safety by targeting sources of food-borne pathogens, but how much are we going to have to cripple national food quality and farmer livelihood to achieve this, and will it even be effective? I don�t remember which speaker said this quote, and I�m paraphrasing, but it stuck with me: �I just want to be able to eat the same food my grandmother ate.� In 2010, that�s already difficult to achieve. Will it be impossible in 2030?

Giving my own talk. I thought it went well, although attendance was not as high as I had hoped. The talk was titled �Kakana Dina: Diet and Health in the Pacific Islands�, and in it I examined the relationship between diet and health in Pacific island cultures with different diets and at various stages of modernization. I�ve covered some of this material on my blog, in my posts on Kitava, Tokelau and sweet potato eating cultures in New Guinea, but other material was new and I went into greater detail on food habits and preparation methods. I also dug up a number of historical photos dating back as far as the 1870s.

The food. All the meat was pasture-raised, organic and locally sourced if possible. There was raw pasture-raised cheese, milk and butter. There was wild-caught fish. There were many fermented foods, including sauerkraut, kombucha and sourdough bread. I was really impressed that they were able to put this together for an entire conference.

The vendors. There was an assortment of wholesome and traditional foods, particularly fermented foods, quality dairy and pastured meats. There was an entire farmer�s market on-site on Saturday, with a number of Mennonite vendors selling traditional foods. I bought a bottle of beet kvass, a traditional Russian drink used for flavor and medicine, which was much better than the beet kvass I�ve made myself in the past. Beets are a remarkable food, in part due to their high nitrate content�beet juice has been shown to reduce high blood pressure substantially, possibly by increasing the important signaling molecule nitric oxide. I got to meet Sandeep Agarwal and his family, owners of the company Pure Indian Foods, which domestically produces top-quality pasture-fed ghee (Indian-style clarified butter). They now make tasty spiced ghee in addition to the plain flavor. Sandeep and family donated ghee for the big dinner on Saturday, which was used to cook delicious wild-caught salmon steaks donated by Vital Choice.

There were some elements of the conference that were not to my taste. But overall I�m glad I was able to go, meet some interesting people, give my talk and learn a thing or two.

The Twinkie Diet for Fat Loss

The Experiment

I've received several e-mails from readers about a recent experiment by nutrition professor Mark Haub at Kansas State university (thanks to Josh and others). He ate a calorie-restricted diet in which 2/3 of his calories came from junk food: Twinkies, Hostess and Little Debbie cakes, Dorito corn chips and sweetened cereals (1). On this calorie-restricted junk food diet (800 calorie/day deficit), he lost 27 pounds in two months.

Therefore, junk food doesn't cause fat gain and the only thing that determines body fatness is how much you eat and exercise. Right?

Discussion

Let's start with a few things most people can agree on. If you don't eat any food at all, you will lose fat mass. If you voluntarily force-feed yourself with a large excess of food, you will gain fat mass, whether the excess comes from carbohydrate or fat (2). So calories obviously have something to do with fat mass.

But of course, the situation is much more subtle in real life. Since a pound of body fat contains roughly 3,500 calories, eating an excess of 80 calories per day (1 piece of toast) should lead to a weight gain of 8 lbs of fat per year. Conversely, if you're distracted and forget to eat your toast, you should lose 8 lbs of fat per year, which would eventually be dangerous for a lean person. That's why we all record every crumb of food we eat, determine its exact calorie content, and match that intake precisely with our energy expenditure to maintain a stable weight.

Oh wait, we don't do that? Then how do so many people maintain a stable weight over years and decades? And how do wild animals maintain a stable body fat percentage (except when preparing for hibernation) even in the face of food surpluses? How do lab rats and mice fed a whole food diet maintain a stable body fat percentage in the face of literally unlimited food, when they're in a small cage with practically nothing to do but eat?

The answer is that the body isn't stupid. Over hundreds of millions of years, we've evolved sophisticated systems that maintain "energy homeostasis". In other words, these systems act to regulate fat mass and keep it within the optimal range. The evolutionary pressures operating here are obvious: too little fat mass, and an organism will be susceptible to starvation; too much, and an organism will be less agile and less efficient at locomotion and reproduction. Energy homeostasis is such a basic part of survival that even the simplest organisms regulate it.

Not only is it clear that we have an energy homeostasis system, we even know a thing or two about how it works. Early studies showed that lesioning a part of the brain called the ventromedial hypothalamus causes massive obesity (3; this is also true in humans, when a disruption results from cancer). Investigators also discovered several genetic mutations in rats and mice that result in massive obesity*. Decades-long research eventually demonstrated that these models have something in common: they all interfere with an energy homeostasis circuit that passes information about fat mass to the hypothalamus via the hormone leptin.

The leptin system is a classic negative feedback loop: the more fat mass accumulates, the more leptin is produced. The more leptin is produced, the more the hypothalamus activates programs to reduce hunger and increase energy expenditure, which continues until fat mass is back in the optimal range. Conversely, low fat mass and low leptin lead to increased hunger and energy conservation by this same pathway**.

So if genetic mutants can become massively obese, I guess that argues against the idea that voluntary food intake and energy expenditure are the only determinants of fat mass. But a skeptic might point out that these are extreme cases, and such mutations are so rare in humans that the analogy is irrelevant.

Let's dig deeper. There are many studies in which rodents are made obese using industrial high-fat diets made from refined ingredients. The rats eat more calories (at least in the beginning), and gain fat rapidly. No big surprise there. But what may come as a surprise to the calorie counters is that rodents on these diets gain body fat even if their calorie intake is matched precisely to lean rodents eating a whole food diet (4, 5, 6). In fact, they sometimes gain almost as much fat as rodents who are allowed to eat all the industrial food they want. This has been demonstrated repeatedly.

How is this possible? The answer is that the calorie-matched rats reduce their energy expenditure to a greater degree than those that are allowed free access to food. The most logical explanation for this behavior is that the "set point" of the energy homeostasis system has changed. The industrial diet causes the rodents' bodies to "want" to accumulate more fat, therefore they will accomplish that by any means necessary, whether it means eating more, or if that's not possible, expending less energy. This shows that a poor diet can, in principle, dysregulate the system that controls energy homeostasis.

Well, then why did Dr. Haub's diet allow him to lose weight? The body can only maintain body composition in the face of a calorie deficit up to a certain point. After that, it has no choice but to lower fat mass. It will do so reluctantly, at the same time increasing hunger, and reducing lean mass***, muscular strength and energy dedicated to tissue repair and immune function. However, I hope everyone can agree that a sufficient calorie deficit can lead to fat loss regardless of what kind of food is eaten. Dr. Haub's 800 calorie deficit qualifies. I think only a very small percentage of people are capable of maintaining that kind of calorie deficit for more than a few months, because it is mentally and physically difficult to fight against what the hypothalamus has decided is in your best interest.

My hypothesis is that, in many people, industrial food and an unnatural lifestyle lead to gradual fat gain by dysregulating the energy homeostasis system. This "breaks" the system that's designed to automatically keep our fat mass in the optimal range by regulating energy intake, energy expenditure and the relative partitioning of energy resources between lean and fat tissue. This system is not under our conscious control, and it has nothing to do with willpower.

I suspect that if you put a group of children on this junk food diet for many years, and compared them to a group of children on a healthy diet, the junk food group would end up fatter as adults. This would be true if neither group paid any attention to calories, and perhaps even if calorie intake were identical in the two groups (as in the rodent example). The result of Dr. Haub's experiment does not contradict that hypothesis.

So do calories matter? Yes, but in a healthy person, all the math is done automatically by the hypothalamus and energy balance requires no conscious effort. In 2010, many people have already accumulated excess fat mass. How that may be sustainably lost is another question entirely, and a more challenging one in my opinion. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There are many possible strategies, with varying degrees of efficacy that depend highly on individual differences, but I think overall the question is still open. I discussed some of my thoughts in a recent series on body fat regulation (7, 8, 9, 10, 11).


* ob/ob and db/db mice. Zucker and Koletsky rats. Equivalent mutations in humans also result in obesity.

** Via an increase in muscular efficiency and perhaps a decrease in basal metabolism. Thyroid hormone activity drops.

*** Loss of muscle, bone and connective tissue can be compensated for by strength training during calorie restriction. Presumed loss of other non-adipose tissues (liver, kidney, brain, etc.) is probably not affected by strength training.

Observations from France

I recently got back from a trip to the UK and France visiting family and friends. It was great to see everyone, eat great food and even do some unexpected foraging (chestnuts, mushrooms, walnuts, blackberries). French people are in better general health than most industrialized nations. The obesity, diabetes and heart disease rates are all considerably lower than in the US, although still much higher than in non-industrial cultures. Here are a few of my observations about French food:

1. The French diet generally contains a lot of fat, mostly from traditional animal sources such as dairy and pork fat. Industrial seed oils have crept into the diet over the course of the 20th century, although not to the same degree as in most affluent nations. People seem to think that eating a lot of fat is unhealthy, particularly the younger generation, but they do it anyway. I had dinner with my family at a traditional restaurant in Lyon (a "bouchon Lyonnais" called Stepharo) last week. Before we ordered, they immediately brought out crispy fried chunks of pork skin and fat (I'm not claiming this is healthy!). The entree was a salad: a bed of lettuce piled high with chicken livers, herring, and "pig's feet". The pigs feet were essentially gobs of pork fat. It was a very good meal that I'll continue describing later in the post. I think it's worth pointing out that Lyon is in Southern France. Is this the "Mediterranean diet"?
   
2. French people eat organs. Yes, they never got the memo that muscle meat is the only edible tissue. A typical butcher or even grocery store will have liver, tripe, kidney and blood sausage on full display next to the meat. If you want to make a French person angry, try selling them a chicken or a rabbit without the liver, gizzard and heart. The main course at Stepharo was a large "andouilette", or tripe sausage, baked in mustard sauce. This was a typical traditional restaurant, not a hangout for gastronauts.
   
3. French people fiercely defend the quality of their food. Have you heard of the abbreviation AOC? It stands for "Appellation d�Origine Contr�l�e", or controlled designation of origin. A familiar example is Champagne, which has the AOC label. You can't call your sparkling wine Champagne unless it comes from the region Champagne. However, that's only half the story. AOC also designates a specific, traditional production method, in this case called the "m�thode champenoise." The AOC label can apply to a variety of food products, including wine, butter, cheese, honey, mustard and seafood, and is a guarantee of quality and tradition. 44 cheeses currently have the AOC designation, and these are commonly available in markets and grocery stores throughout the country (1). These are not fancy products that only the wealthy can afford-- many of them are quality foods that are accessible to nearly everyone. AOC defines many aspects of cheese production, often requiring a minimum amount of pasture time and specifying livestock breeds. The US has a few products that are regulated in a similar fashion, such as Bourbon whiskey, but generally we are far behind in assuring food quality and transparency.
4. French people cook. There is less outsourcing of food processing in France, for several reasons. One reason is that restaurants are generally expensive. That trend is changing however.

I don't think the French diet is optimal by any means. They eat a lot of white flour, some sugar, seed oils and other processed foods. But I do think the French diet has many good qualities, and it certainly poses a number of problems for the mainstream concept of healthy food. Hence the "French paradox."

Obesity and the Brain

Nature Genetics just published a paper that caught my interest (1). Investigators reviewed the studies that have attempted to determine associations between genetic variants and common obesity (as judged by body mass index or BMI). In other words, they looked for "genes" that are suspected to make people fat.

There are a number of gene variants that associate with an increased or decreased risk of obesity. These fall into two categories: rare single-gene mutations that cause dramatic obesity, and common variants that are estimated to have a very small impact on body fatness. The former category cannot account for common obesity because it is far too rare, and the latter probably cannot account for it either because it has too little impact*. Genetics can't explain the fact that there were half as many obese people in the US 40 years ago. Here's a wise quote from the obesity researcher Dr. David L. Katz, quoted from an interview about the study (2):

Let us by all means study our genes, and their associations with our various shapes and sizes... But let's not let it distract us from the fact that our genes have not changed to account for the modern advent of epidemic obesity -- our environments and lifestyles have.

Exactly. So I don't usually pay much attention to "obesity genes", although I do think genetics contributes to how a body reacts to an unnatural diet/lifestyle. However, the first part of his statement is important too. Studying these types of associations can give us insights into the biological mechanisms of obesity when we ask the question "what do these genes do?" The processes these genes participate in should be the same processes that are most important in regulating fat mass.

So, what do the genes do? Of those that have a known function, nearly all of them act in the brain, and most act in known body fat regulation circuits in the hypothalamus (a brain region). The brain is the master regulator of body fat mass. It's also the master regulator of nearly all large-scale homeostatic systems in the body, including the endocrine (hormone) system. Now you know why I study the neurobiology of obesity.


* The authors estimated that "together, the 32 confirmed BMI loci explained 1.45% of the inter-individual variation in BMI." In other words, even if you were unlucky enough to inherit the 'fat' version of all 32 genes, which is exceedingly unlikely, you would only have a slightly higher risk of obesity than the general population.

Vacation

I'll be out of town until the beginning of November, so I won't be responding to comments or e-mails for a while. I'm going to set up a post or two to publish while I'm gone.

As an administrative note, I get a number of e-mails from blog readers each day. I apologize that I can't respond to all of them, as it would require more time than I currently have to spare. The more concise your message, the more likely I'll read it and respond. Thanks for your understanding.

Sleep Post Correction

An astute commenter pointed out that I misread the numbers in the paper on sleep and fat loss. I wrote that out of the total 3.0 kg lost, the high-sleep group lost 2.4 kg as fat, and the low-sleep group lost 1.4 kg of fat out of 2.9 kg total.

In fact, the high-sleep group lost 1.4 out of 2.9 kg as fat, and the low-sleep group lost 0.6 out of 3.0 kg as fat. So I got the numbers all mixed up. Sorry for the mistake. The main point of the post still stands though: sleep deprivation negatively influences body composition.

The correct numbers are even more interesting than the ones I made up. Even in the high-sleep group, nearly half the body weight lost by simple calorie restriction was lean mass. That doesn't make calorie restriction look very good!

In the sleep-deprived group, 80% of the weight lost by calorie restriction came out of lean mass. Ouch!

That illustrates one of the reasons why I'm skeptical of simple calorie restriction as a means of fat loss. When the body "wants" to be fat, it will sacrifice lean mass to preserve fat tissue. For example, the genetically obese Zucker rat cannot be starved thin. If you try to put it on a severe calorie-restricted diet, it will literally die fat because it will cannibalize its own lean mass (muscle, heart, brain, etc.) to spare the fat. That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.

The key is not only to balance energy intake with expenditure (which the brain does automatically when it's working correctly), but to allocate energy appropriately to lean and fat mass.

The Big Sleep

This blog usually focuses on diet, because that's my specialty. But if you want Whole Health, you need the whole package: a diet and lifestyle that is broadly consistent with our evolutionary heritage. I think we all know that on some level, but a recent paper has reminded me of it.

I somehow managed to get on the press list of the Annals of Internal Medicine. That means they send me embargoed papers before they're released to the general public. That journal publishes a lot of high-impact diet studies, so it's a great privilege for me. I get to write about the studies, and publish my analysis at the time of general release, which is the same time the news outlets publish their stories.

One of the papers they sent me recently is a fat loss trial with an interesting twist (1; see below). All participants were told to eat 10% fewer calories that usual for two weeks, however half of them were instructed to sleep for 8 and a half hours per night, and the other half were instructed to sleep for 5 and a half hours*. The actual recorded sleep times were 7:25 and 5:14, respectively.

Weight loss by calorie restriction causes a reduction of both fat and lean mass, which is what the investigators observed. Both groups lost the same amount of weight. However, 80% of the weight was lost as fat in the high-sleep group (2.4/3.0 kg lost as fat), while only 48% of it was lost as fat in the low-sleep group (1.4/2.9 kg lost as fat). Basically, the sleep-deprived group lost as much lean mass as they did fat mass, which is not good!

There are many observational studies showing associations between insufficient sleep, obesity and diabetes. However, I think studies like that are particularly vulnerable to confounding variables, so I've never known quite what to make of them. Furthermore, they often show that long sleep duration associates with poor health as well, which I find highly unlikely to reflect cause and effect. I discussed one of those studies in a post a couple of years ago (2). That's why I appreciate this controlled trial so much.

Another sleep restriction trial published in the Lancet in 1999 showed that restricting healthy young men to four hours of sleep per night caused them to temporarily develop glucose intolerance, or pre-diabetes (3).

Furthermore, their daily rhythm of the hormone cortisol became abnormal. Rather than the normal pattern of a peak in the morning and a dip in the evening, sleep deprivation blunted their morning cortisol level and enhanced it in the evening. Cortisol is a stress hormone, among other things, and its fluctuations may contribute to our ability to feel awake in the morning and ready for bed at night.

The term "adrenal fatigue", which refers to the aforementioned disturbance in cortisol rhythm, is characterized by general fatigue, difficulty waking up in the morning, and difficulty going to sleep at night. It's a term that's commonly used by alternative medical practitioners but not generally accepted by mainstream medicine, possibly because it's difficult to demonstrate and the symptoms are fairly general. Robb Wolf talks about it in his book The Paleo Solution.

The investigators concluded:

Sleep debt has a harmful impact on carbohydrate metabolism and endocrine function. The effects are similar to those seen in normal ageing and, therefore, sleep debt may increase the severity of age-related chronic disorders.

So there you have it. Besides making us miserable, lack of sleep appears to predispose to obesity and diabetes, and probably sets us up for the Big Sleep down the line. I can't say I'm surprised, given how awful I feel after even one night of six hour sleep. I feel best after 9 hours, and I probably average about 8.5. Does it cut into my free time? Sure. But it's worth it to me, because it allows me to enjoy my day much more.

Keep your room as dark as possible during sleep. It also helps to avoid bright light, particularly in the blue spectrum, before bed (4). "Soft white" bulbs are preferable to full spectrum in the evening. If you need to use your computer, dim the monitor and adjust it to favor warm over cool colors. For people who sleep poorly due to anxiety, meditation before bed can be highly effective. I posted a tutorial here.

1. Nedeltcheva, AV et al. "Insufficient Sleep Undermines Dietary Efforts to Reduce Adiposity." Annals of Internal Medicine. 2010. Advanced publication.


* The study was a randomized crossover design with a 3 month washout period, which I consider a rigorous design. I think the study overall was very clever. The investigators used calorie restriction to cause rapid changes in body composition so that they could see differences on a reasonable timescale, rather than trying to deprive people of sleep for months and look for more gradual body fat changes without dietary changes. The latter experiment would have been more interesting, but potentially impractical and unethical.