The war on fat

[corvus]

The problem with glycemic ratings is that the foods are rated based on the blood sugar and insulin levels when processing that food by itself.

That's true but the glycemic load is still a good tool for choosing your carbs wisely. For example, by comparing the GI of two foods, you can see that you're bettter off eating an apple than apple jacks.

[slkinsey]

...by comparing the GI of two foods, you can see that you're bettter off eating an apple than apple jacks.

You are?! DAMN IT! There goes my weight loss strategy!

[fresco]

Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to the total impact of all the fast food companies piling on the obesity issue, plus Kraft, 7-11, litigation lawyers, legislators, school boards etc.? Will it make, to coin a phrase, an ounce of difference?

Edited July 1, 2003 by fresco (log)

[SpicyJenny]

OMG, I can't believe the esoteria regarding this subject! Let's cut to the chase:

You can't legislate morality, because that in itself requires freedom of choice.

Fat food restaurants, et al, do not contribute to obesity.

We will always be our own best regulators. We make choices; we get results. Period.

Go on and on and on . . . about government, education, blah, blah, blah, but the bottom line is that modern humans are lazy and it shows. Trying to escape reasonal and rational responsibility for themselves.

And, forget about skinny and wealth: the wealthy in this country do a whole lot of fudging there. They can afford the personal trainers, the plastic surgery, the stomach stapling. You can't judge a body by its cover.

My point? Enjoy good food. Put fast food restaurants out of business by your choice of not to buy there. Go to good restaurants. Savor your dining experiences. Love cooking and do more of it. Eat slowly and enjoy.

Love,

Jen

Edited July 2, 2003 by SpicyJenny (log)

[enthusiast]

i guess that's sort of meant to be the last word on the matter...but

if we start from the assumption that we want to live in a freedom loving democracy where the state has a minimal role to play we have to act like responsible citizens. and that means that we need to regulate the actions of free markets (among other things) for the greater good of society. obesity (overeating or what you will, lets not get hung up about terminology) is a problem. its a growing problem and it already costs a lot of $$$ to treat and causes a lot of misery and pain. the precise causes and what to do about it are not clear but that is not an excuse for no action.

Kraft's moves yesterday look like a step in the right direction but we should not be fooled - their motives (wholly legitimately) are entirely commerical. they want to head off regulation/litigation etc before it hurts. it's good that existing pressures are pushing them in the right direction but that is no reason to be complacent and allow them to determine the solution unilaterally.

of course we must enjoy good food...love cooking etc...but that doesn't mean we can, as members of society, ignore the bigger issues. and nobody is saying that the state should control what we eat. the only issue is to ensure that as far as possible people really do know what they're eating, what the cosnequences may be and that children are not cynically exploited by sophisiticated corporations peddling over sugared, fatty waste products.

[mjc]

Let's say that an adult male burns 2,000 calories/day but eats 2,400 calories a day.  We both agree that he will gain weight.  Now, let us further say that this guy's diet is such that he takes his calories from the following sources: 800 from fat, 800 from carbohydrates and 800 from protein.  So, there are two different ways of looking at the "extra" 400 calories...  We can think of it as 133 calories each from carbs, fat and protein, in which case the extra calories would be converted into around 297 calories (129 from fat at 95% efficiency, 102 from carbs at 77% efficiency, 66 from protein at 50% efficiency) of stored fat.  But, is there reason to suppose that the body would go that route?  If there is plentiful dietary fat around (which there almost always is), why wouldn't the body simply do the most efficient thing and convert 400 calories of dietary fat into 380 calories of stored fat?

My reading of what you are saying is that the body has a separate requirement for fat, carbohydrates and protein respectively and that any calories beyond those requirement are converted into fat according to the efficiencies you quantified.  Except, obviously we know that this doesn't happen in the case of a hypocaloric diet where the individual eats more than the required amount of protein, for example, so the "extra" protein calories would have to be turned into something else and used, right?  That's where I get confused.  Given that the body seems to be able to use excess protein (or carbs or whatever) for something other than fat storage, why wouldn't the body choose the most efficient thing in and use dietary fat as the main source of calories for stored fat?  Thanks for offering your expertise on these things, by the way.  Is this kind of thing part of your profession or field of academics?

Something I didn't mention before:  As you have said a pound of fat contains 3500 calories.  To lose a lb of fat you must have a caloric deficit of 3500 calories.  Because of the fact that the storage of fat is inefficient, if you eat a "normal diet", meaning one constisting of a mixtures of fats, proteins, and carbs, you have to take in about 4000 calories to lay down 1 lb of fat.

So this assumes approximately 87.5% efficiency in converting extra calories from a mixed diet into stored fat. It strikes me, however, that the amount of dietary fat would not have to be all that high for this efficiency to come up a few percentage points. In the real world, of course, there is not much difference between 4000 calories turning into 1 pound of fat and 3500 calories turning into one pound of fat. If one's diet is consistently 250 calories over equilibrium (not a hard thing to do) it will take only two days more to salt away a pound of fat.

Ok, so we are definetly on the same page now. I think you are right, that the body will try to do the most energy efficient thing. But as you've said again and again, excess calories are excess calories. So if the body has excess dietary fat and excess dietary carbohydrates, its going to turn its excess carbs into fat no matter what once the relativlely small carb storage is full.

I don't really know what the bodies daily requirement is for protein. Its very dependent on many things. For example if you suffer a burn or a fever or anyother activity that raises your metabolism, then that will increase you need for protein, because you repairing/or creating new machinery to run your bodies cells. If you had a high protein diet, that was low in fat and carbs, then the body would need to use the proteins to make energy--which is of course ineffecient. If you had excess of the requirements then it would become fat.

Basically I think the idea is that the body will do the most effecient thing at the time. It doesn't know what you are going to eat in the future. I don't know if this answers your question.

As for me, I'm currently in medical school and have had plenty of biochemistry.

(I'm going out of town today, so I probably won't be able to post for about a week, just in case my answers not suffiecient. I can also ask some of my professors when I get back.)

[SpicyJenny]

if we start from the assumption that we want to live in a freedom loving democracy where the state has a minimal role to play we have to act like responsible citizens. and that means that we need to regulate the actions of free markets (among other things) for the greater good of society.

How can you use "freedom" and "regulate" in the same argument?

Heck, there are Burger Kings/Checkers/Arby's all around my town. Do I eat there? No! Do I need govenment to warn me to stay away? No!

On the other hand, I do think that public money used to feed people (like in schools) should be spent well, and that includes paying for healthy meals; not allowing vending machines on the premises; etc.

But to assume a role of Big Brother, looking out for the stupid little guy, is a tad condenscending, dontcha think?

[enthusiast]

How can you use "freedom" and "regulate" in the same argument?

all freedoms need boundaries in order to be defined. markets do not work without regulation. the freedom exists within the rules. the alternative is anarchy.

to assume a role of Big Brother, looking out for the stupid little guy, is a tad condenscending, dontcha think?

no i don't. a key role of society is to protect the weak. the protection (in this case) comes not from coercion but illumination. i don't see how anyone can complain about insisting on honest information - or claim that it is condescending. if eevryone truly understood the consequences of what (and how much) they were eating then giving them more information would make no difference. why are the food companies so against it? because they know that their consumers do not undersatnd. consumers don't know that the price of longer lasting baking products is ingesting the poison that is trans fatty acid. once they know, and know that it is generally accepted that it increases the risks of heart disease and diabetes, then they can make an informed choice about eating the stuff.

type II diabetes used to be called adult onset diabetes. it isn't any more because more and more children are contracting it. it is not trivial and i don't think it is condescending to try to do something about it.

[slkinsey]

Ok, so we are definetly on the same page now.  I think you are right, that the body will try to do the most energy efficient thing.  But as you've said again and again, excess calories are excess calories.  So if the body has excess dietary fat and excess dietary carbohydrates, its going to turn its excess carbs into fat no matter what once the relativlely small carb storage is full.

I don't really know what the bodies daily requirement is for protein.  Its very dependent on many things.  For example if you suffer a burn or a fever or anyother activity that raises your metabolism, then that will increase you need for protein, because you repairing/or creating new machinery to run your bodies cells.  If you had a high protein diet, that was low in fat and carbs, then the body would need to use the proteins to make energy--which is of course ineffecient.  If you had excess of the requirements then it would become fat.

Basically I think the idea is that the body will do the most effecient thing at the time.  It doesn't know what you are going to eat in the future.  I don't know if this answers your question.

OK... one more question for when you are back, and I may have this thing figured out.

What I think I understand is that sometimes the protein, fat and carbohydrates are used to build things our bodies need, sometimes they are converted to metabolic energy and sometimes they are converted to stored fat.

So... let me make a hypothetical example: I eat 50 calories of protein and 50 calories of fat. My body takes a look around and says, "OK... we really don't need any protein or fat to build anything right now, but I do need around 50 calories of metabolic energy to keep everything going." So, the body needs to decide what it is going to use immediately and what it is going to store as fat. My understanding is that the body will "selectively choose" to store the 50 calories worth of fat and will therefore use the 50 calories of protein for metabolic energy.

This is what I mean when I say that the form of the calories and the efficiency in converting calories in their various forms to stored fat doesn't seem to matter too much so long as there is enough dietary fat around. My understanding is that any time the body finds itself in an "excess calories situation" it will first convert dietary fat to stored fat and will only convert dietary protein and carbohydrates to stored fat when there is no longer any fat around to store. In other words, the body won't burn 25 calories each of the protein and fat, and store 25 calories each. This is relevant when applying your efficiency figures, as the 25/25 protein/fat mix would be converted to 36.25 calories of stored fat whereas straight fat would be converted to 47.5 calories of stored fat -- a 31% difference.

This page seems to support that idea:

...fatty acids are then absorbed from the blood into fat cells, muscle cells and liver cells. In these cells, under stimulation by insulin, fatty acids are made into fat molecules and stored as fat droplets.

It is also possible for fat cells to take up glucose and amino acids, which have been absorbed into the bloodstream after a meal, and convert those into fat molecules. The conversion of carbohydrates or protein into fat is 10 times less efficient than simply storing fat in a fat cell, but the body can do it. If you have 100 extra calories in fat (about 11 grams) floating in your bloodstream, fat cells can store it using only 2.5 calories of energy. On the other hand, if you have 100 extra calories in glucose (about 25 grams) floating in your bloodstream, it takes 23 calories of energy to convert the glucose into fat and then store it. Given a choice, a fat cell will grab the fat and store it rather than the carbohydrates because fat is so much easier to store.

Given the relative efficiencies of storing fat, protein and carbohydrates you quantified earlier, the above would seem to indicate that an ultra-lowfat diet would be recommended for weight loss, because any time the dieter did eat any excess calories, the efficiency of converting those calories to stored fat would be much lower. Of course, as I think you pointed out, protein is almost always accompanied by plenty of fat in the real world.

Thought this was interesting:

http://www.accessexcellence.com/AB/GG/Fig_4.02.jpg

[Elissa]

then again there's always the fast food diet

[jhlurie]

So what does this development mean to the "war on Fat"?

(And isn't the advertisement MSN put below this story hilarious, in contrast? EDIT - wait. It's a rotating ad. The first time I opened this link it was an ad with a very buff woman doing push-ups and some "thin down for the summer" type of slogan.)

Edited July 5, 2003 by jhlurie (log)

[KNorthrup]

According to a JP Morgan study, the companies most likely to be hit with obesity-related lawsuits first are Cadbury Schweppes and Hershey. Also at high risk are Coke, Pepsi, Kraft, and Unilever.

There was also a study released by Glascow University last month that purported to show that a diet high in junk food let to premature aging. Maybe Balic can shed light on that one.

[enthusiast]

The JP Morgan research shows a very remarkable similarity to the research i published for another investment bank in November 2002. which goes to show that even plagiarism isn't beyond our industry.

[mjc]

slkinsey:

I think that you are pretty much on the right track. The system is slightly more complicated, but you have the basic concepts down. The system works on the same properties as all chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are in a state of equilibrium between products and reactants. If you have more of a reactant you drive the reaction forward and in a reversible reaction, if you have more product you drive the reaction in the reverse direction. So if you have more fat entering a fat cell than glucose, than the reaction in the fat cell will be driven in the direction that favors incorporating fat molecules into storage fat.

But . . .

If you have only fat and protein and no glucose (carbs)—well then you are basically on an atkin’s diet. So, your first thought is, well since I have excess calories, then I will store them in the most efficient way as fat and store fat as fat and use the protein for the energy I need. However, you must also consider the cost and benefit of using proteins for energy. As I’ve said before, proteins are important for the “machinery” of the body. Without proteins, the cells don’t work. I couldn’t find anything in my notes or texts that specifically answered your questions, but in a starved state, proteins are protected from being used from energy as long as they can be. So, I would say that if you had an equal amount of excess proteins and excess fats, then the fats would more likely be broken down before the proteins.

Also (and this is a little more detailed), fats are stored in fat cells in the form of triglycerides. A triglyceride is made up of a glycerol backbone (a molecule called glycerol) that has three molecules called fatty acids attached. Fat cells are only capable of getting the glycerol backbone from glucose. So, if you had no glucose in you diet (or very little), then your fat cells, would not be able to store the fatty acids of dietary fat away and so would have to burn them. (Now of course protein can eventually be put down a pathway that makes it into glycerol, but now we are getting even more complicated. I’m not totally sure if this can occur in real life, but I think it does and this I believe these two ideas are a part of what the atkin’s diet is based on. I’ll have to check into this further.)

I agree with you, if we are talking strictly about losing weight, based on the data we’ve discussed, it would seem a low/no fat diet would be the best.

I hope this helps a little, let me know if it doesn’t.

[slkinsey]

Thanks for the reply. I guess my questions comes down to this:

1. If you have excess calories in the diet, we agree that they are stored as fat, yes?

2. Protein, carbohydrates and fat differ as to their efficiency in being converted to stored fat, yes?

3. Given a situation in which there are excess calories in the diet, the body will selectively store the fat first and then go looking for calories to store in the other two forms, yes?

This last one would seem to be the logical conclusion of the quote in my last post which seems to suggest that almost any time the body says, "I have 50 more calories floating around in the blood than I really need," the fat cells will tend to grab 50 calories worth of fat (fat fractions, I gather... but I am simplifying) from the bloodstream rather than 50 of protein, 50 of carbohydrates or some mixture of the three. By extension, this suggests that the fat cells will only try to grab some carbohydrate or protein and convert them to fat storage when there is no fat to be had floating around in the blood or when there are unusual circumstances that dictate otherwise.

Since allmost any lifestyle except for those impossible zero fat diets would seem to provide enough fat in the blood to be stored in the fat cells when such a situation arose, wouldn't this tend to suggest that the general real world efficiency by which excess calories are stored as fat is fairly close to the efficiency for fat? Say 95% efficiency or so? Does this seem like a reasonable assumption? Of course, I imagine that there are all kinds of hypothetical special case situations where this might not be true (absolutely zero carbohydrates, for example)... but I am thinking more of real world situations.

On the other hand, your comments about protein being converted to energy only as a last resort in starvation conditions tends to suggest that this might not always be the case -- that the body might normally prefer to burn fat and store protein. Then again, maybe this works differently in hypercaloric as opposed to hypocaloric diets? Really, I guess the whole thing hinges a bit on the "protein into fat or energy" question.

[Stone]

Have I been vindicated yet? A little bit?

[dave88]

Firstly, the body prefers to use simple and refined and plain sugars for energy (Coke, Mountain Dew, sugar, etc.). Secondly, it burns refined carbs such as flours, pastas, etc. which are basically converted and stored as sugars by the body.

Thirdly, it likes fats.

Lastly, proteins.

To burn more calories than one consumes, one looses fat. When one exercises beyond the stored sugar limits of one's body, fats are used. This is how people lose weight.

When one is anorexic (won't eat) , only proteins are used which results in the heart and other muscles being used as energy, and well, you know the rest.....

Excess calories are always stored as fats. There is a triglyceride/insulin issue involved, but i'm obviously not a doctor.

[ed: because...slkinsey isn't far off]

Edited July 9, 2003 by dave88 (log)

[KNorthrup]

So two people in my office made a related claim yesterday and I didn't argue because I don't know whether they were correct, but it seems off : Gram-for-gram, fat is more filling than fiber, so you'll lose more weight filling up on fat than filling up on fiber. Insights?

[slkinsey]

This is, I think, one of the arguments of the fat and protein diets.

Look at it this way: one glass of Metamucil contains three grams of dietary fiber (primarily from Psyllium husk). One tablespoon of olive oil contains 14 grams of fat. Which do you think would be more filling: four and a half glasses of Metamucil or one tablespoon of olive oil?

I think it is more of an issue that fat is more satiating than fiber, which is different from filling.

[LEdlund]

one glass of Metamucil contains three grams of dietary fiber (primarily from Psyllium husk).  One tablespoon of olive oil contains 14 grams of fat.

A gram of fiber has 4 calories and a gram of fat has 9 calories. That tablespoon of olive oil contains 126 calories. I'm sure there's sugar and other ingredients in the Metamucil to bring its calorie count up, but it's probably not 126 calories.

[Elissa]

the NYTimes reports transfats labels going onto food in 2006

This is all about heart disease, and it's the biggest killer of men and women in this country.

[Stone]

According to Jack Nicklaus in this month's Golf Digest, he went to a specialist and had his blood and metabolism tested. They figured out how his body reacted and processed different stuff and told him to eat as much ice cream as he wants, but no melon. Or something like that.

[fresco]

J. P. Morgan ranks the heavyweights:

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/07/10/Consu...itysuits_030710

[Elissa]

Transfats block the cell membranes through which oxygen and glucose (O2 and C6-H12-O6) must travel to feed each one of a body's cells. However when nutrient-free foods (count naked flour and corn syrup in) flood metabolisms, they impede more than just the transport of sugar and air. Vitamins and minerals, the coenzymes that enable reactions in the digestive system, for one, take longer to arrive. Transfats also compromise the lymph, endocrine and nervous systems. Seems safe to say that one might not want to eat or use only transfats

Edited July 12, 2003 by lissome (log)

[dave88]

Missing my point. If one can metabolise more calories it takes in from consumption, fat will be burnt as energy. One will lose weight not matter what one eats, as long as more calories are burnt as eaten. If your body can't keep up with its demand of sugars/flours as energy, it will resort to its fat reserves as energy as well as oppositely store excess calories as fat. To compare metamucil (fibre) to veggies and fruits and beans and grains is lame and plain stupid. I said fiber, not drugs. Get past this corporate, USA'ite mentality.

You can eat whatever and as much as you like as long as your body metabolises it.

XFats are worse for the body than saturated fats (like palm oils) as Ive pointed out in the 'soybean TDG' thread. They taste worse as well.

People, it's simple.

{ed: to make it simpler}

Edited July 12, 2003 by dave88 (log)