These assertions raise doubts in my mind regarding the study as a whole. Fat and sugar (a carbohydrate) account for two of the three most common macronutrients, the third being protein. Eating a diet that's low in both fat and carbs would imply a mostly-protein diet which can lead to illness[0].
The further implication that a particular macronutrient ratio could cause obesity is particularly concerning. Weight gain/loss is determined strictly by whether someone consumes more or fewer calories than their body burns in a day. The ratio of macronutrients may effect other health indicators like lean body mass, but a diet of 100% sugar and fat will still lead to weight loss if the total caloric intake is lower than what the body requires thereby requiring the body to burn muscle/fat for energy[1].
While the researchers have found a correlation between memory function and obesity, they appear to be making spurious claims that the foods the obese people eat are a contributing factor. There's no indication they made any attempt to control for the fact that healthy people also regularly enjoy ice cream and bacon, just at a lesser rate than those who are chronic over-eaters and therefore obese.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/06/health/la-he-fitness...
Stating calories in VS calories out is not true because of X, Y or Z is like building a house by starting with the doorbell. Before you lay the foundations. Fundamentals before details.
weight gain/loss == surplus/deficit intake
Spot-on observation. Furthermore, while proteins can be metabolized for energy, that's not advisable as a major energy source, proteins should be spared for day-to-day repairs (most-all multicellular structures ---incl tissues/bones/organs/tendons, the brain, not just simply "the muscles"--- are constantly tearing-down and rebuilding and we also synthesize much other crucial stuff partially from amino acids, red/white blood cells, enzymes, the list goes on, even glucose if&as necessary) and burning them instead not just removes them as building materials but also creates various additional stresses on the body, produces extra detrimental waste products to be run through the kidneys and get excreted, etc.
All mammals excel at beta-oxidation of both carbohydrates and fatty acids for energy, I know of no animal thriving off the meagre amount of energy their bodies may safely obtain from proteins. Many humans don't seem do particularly well (in the long run) combining fats & carbs in ~equally high amounts and find better results emphasizing one and sharply reducing the other. (Personally I'm a fat advocate but no need to get into that discussion ;)
Consider 2000kcals from protein-only (not that your body will allow this) would require 500g of protein, so about ~2kg of super-lean meat or over 100 egg-whites.. and that's not yet counting any protein usage as building-blocks!
Perhaps, but people in the real world don't usually carefully measure out a portion based on calories before consuming; they eat until they're not hungry anymore. So any food that is calorically dense but doesn't satisfy hunger is likely to contribute to obesity.
The government warns against fats and sugars for similar reasons here https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/dietaryguidelin...
According to studies I've read, many people got 1/2 to 2/3 of their total calories just from rice. You can't do that with sugar and lead the world in longevity rates.
I don't know why the brain and body are still presented as being so distant-- it's all one system!
If you're treating your body poorly, how is that not going to negatively effect the most important and complex organ of said body?
Your body prioritizes certain organs and bodily functions over others, depending on the resources that it gets. Who knows, perhaps when the body recognizes that it's not getting enough of a certain vitamin, it will change how it distributes the vitamin throughout the body. Now, because of evolutionary reasons, a function evolved that when the body recognizes the brain is getting too little of a certain vitamin, it takes a larger portion of what _is_ coming in, to make sure that the brain functions properly so it can solve the issue of poor diet, making a cut elsewhere in the body.
Of course, this is utter bullcrap, but it _could_ have been true.
Though, I'm completely with you, this is something I always assumed as well.
A fitting Terrance McKenna quote:
We do not think of ourselves as a meat/sugar/alcohol culture. People do not walk around saying "Oh wow, I'm so high on meat, alcohol and sugar!" but they ARE!
The most important organ, eh? Consider the source of that information. ;)
> He did that by studying rats that had very specific types of hippocampal damage and seeing what happened to them.
This researcher started with mice that had damage, and observed they overate. This implies brain impairment --> overeating. The other memory studies in the article with obese or lean subjects cannot infer causality.
> However, even though we are beginning to understand that obesity affects the brain, we don't exactly know how [...]
Perhaps the connection is people with brain impairment (either genetic or damage from the environment) tend to overeat, since the brain plays a role in hunger and satiation. Is there evidence that the article omits that backs up the headline?
From http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/healthy_aging/healthy_...: "For decades, researchers and doctors thought that anxiety and depression contributed to these problems. But our studies and others show that it may also be the other way around," Pasricha says.
Some other brain effect could make sense, but this one seems weak.
Unfortunately it's not screened for in obese people, so most of them never get tested :(
Myself, once I began meds, the need to eat constantly evaporated. The first month I felt no hunger whatsoever (I guess there was no dopamine deficiency any more, and regular hunger systems still haven't kicked in), and after that time my hunger got to normal levels - meaning, the weight stabilised, and now I eat only when truly hungry.
The mayo clinic recommends these standards
Up to one drink a day for women of all ages.
Up to one drink a day for men older than age 65.
Up to two drinks a day for men age 65 and younger.
The limit for men is higher because men generally weigh more and have more of an enzyme that metabolizes alcohol than women do.
A drink is defined as:
12 ounces (355 milliliters, or mL) of beer
5 ounces (148 mL) of wine
1.5 ounces (44 mL) of 80-proof distilled spirits
Most people from my experience:
- Pour a glass of wine way over 5 ounces - Drink pints of beer at the bar, which are 16 oz, not 12, and drink at least 2 or 3.
The moderate part is the key, both in frequency, and amount. Not drinking all week, then binge drinking is worse than simply drinking one drink every day of the week.
Specifically, at 5% ABV. Big difference between 12oz of light lager and 12oz of barleywine.
- Alcohol reduces the quality of your sleep, so you'll likely be playing catch-up regularly if you drink regularly before bed.
- Removing alcohol often removes the social situations surrounding alcohol, such as going out drinking till late. This means less alcohol will help stabilize your sleep cycle and keep you from spending too many nights out late.
I found that (during a difficult undergraduate course) sticking to a strict sleep schedule (and getting sufficient sunlight in the mornings) had a very positive effect on my cognitive ability.
A hamburger won't kill you. A hamburger if you live a sedentary lifestyle will.
I don't deny calories in > calories burnt leads to weight gain but to put it that simply does a disservice to educating people about their bodies and completely ignores the hormones controlling fat storage. "researchers at the National Institutes of Health have shown how insulin prompts fat cells to take in glucose in a rat model". [1]
So does calories in being higher than calories burnt lead to weight gain? Sure. That's thermodynamics. But what about lots of carbs in the diet (even paired with fats) and how that causes a higher insulin response and that then causes easier / more fat storage. I think the research here is clear and compelling. Of course, some people, due to their guts just may not process food the same way and may break it down more completely or be less sensitive to carbs in general.
"In general, the gut microbiota found in obese youth tended to be more efficient at converting carbohydrates to fat compared to the gut flora of normal-weight individuals. This suggests that even with similar caloric intake, obese youth are accumulating more fat compared to lean youth as a result of the composition of their gut microbiota." [1]
[0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/personal-mi...
[1] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-show...
[2] http://www.livescience.com/56179-gut-bacteria-differ-in-obes...
I went on the diet because of the promise of a clearer head, as well as general health improvement. It made sense, as I'd been plotting my work efficiency with and without sugary products. The complete removal of all carbs has done nothing but improve my life.
The carb addiction component mentioned elsewhere lines up as well. At the beginning of the diet, there's a period called the keto flu that lasts a couple weeks. It's described as mental fogging, headaches, dehydration, etc. While this is also attributed to the switching of metabolic pathways (more water and electrolytes are needed daily), the effects were very similar to caffeine withdrawal.
And of course I indulged in sugar through the holidays, and found myself figuratively face down in a gutter each time ;)