Personal perspectives are always plagued with some set of bias. For example, there are those that look at the great Egyptian pyramids as incredible acts of engineering prowess and still others that see the same building as representing a society that built with diminishing ambition (psssst, a joke). There is always an absurd way to categorize things and any time you base a theory, concept, or idea on a false premise, eventually that idea will crumble.
People can sell “snake oil” for a while, but eventually it will catch up with them and the facts (not opinions, perceptions, or feelings) will rule the day.
My Plate or Theirs?
I think it is certainly clear that the USDA Food Pyramid Scheme, is just that – a scheme and not a particularly good one. Recently we were presented with a “My Plate.” It’s certainly a step in the right direction. Not Earth-shattering innovation, but it at least it can serve as a foundation for a wide range of nutritional dialog. It’s got catchy colors, cool design, but take a look at it closely…
it doesn’t say meat.
ChooseMyPlate.gov - Is it Industry or Health Promotion?
Look at that. Most everything else on the plate is now in plain English: Grains (not breads), Fruits (not juice), Vegetables (not low glycemic carbs). Then there is Dairy (liquid meat – check out the nutritional labels and compare beef to milk or cheese) and Protein.
Does anyone REALLY know what a “protein” is? Isn’t that a Chicago song? Can you distinguish between a hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acid or understand how these might affect proteins folding? If you could, would you care? The level of detail in macromolecular science is so incredibly complex today and yet we have many walking around with sound bites cashing in on the latest techno buzz-phrase pandering to the unknowing masses. Meanwhile, those trying to get funding for the basic research fueling this culinary renaissance struggle.
Saying protein is synonymous with meat, is like calling all rectangles squares. The good news is that there is now the foundation to separate this century old belief.
Rational Decisions
As people who know me will clearly defend. I am not AGAINST meat. I love the taste of meat, don’t have a personal issue with eating animals, nor do I focus on carbon footprints of steak. I am not trying to discount anyone that believes these things, but rather to put out clearly that I am simply not motivated by the politics or ethics of meat.
Yet I did live on a vegan diet for a little over a year. I did it as a “radical” self-experiment; you would have thought I was attempting to join a terrorist plot or cult by the reaction of some friends and family. There were those that thought it an unthinkable personal deprivation – akin to a prison sentence. Still others were overly concerned with how I would “get my protein,” yet none of them could really tell me what protein was or more importantly, how a rhinoceros, giraffe, or even <gasp> a beef-laden steer get’s protein when they are all herbivores.
Whatever protein is, the government wants to be sure you get some and make sure you get a little dairy too – all of the industry interest at the USDA need a “little help from their friends.” Sadly, I happen to LOVE sushi and chicken wings. I’m confident neither the mercury, saturated fat, nor animal protein are all that good for me, so I’ll significantly limit these from here on out.
And yet on my last few years of self reflection and intense study, there are many of the top ailments – Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes, pulmonary hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatoid arthritis…the list goes on, which are all radically affected by diet and nutrition. I can’t IMAGINE having one of these and not giving this a try. I don’t understand the “I’d rather be dead then give up cheese” mindset. That sounds more like a heroin addict and less like a rational, or free decision.
My sensitivity and motivation was rooted in a looming trend towards Type II diabetes when I gave it a try. I used to have (and can more or less still induce with diet) bouts of hypoglycemia that was absolutely tied to my meal. It hit me within an hour or so and my friends saw it first hand. I was far more safe driving a car after doing four Jäger bombs, than eating a slice of cheesecake.
New World Order
Gary Taubes presents an interesting history of the media/medical PR machine in Good Calories, Bad Calories (2007) along with the political, socio-economic, scientific debates of Cholesterol-Heart Disease relations and ultimately Eisenhower’s own struggles to his nutritional-based death.
I want to change this thought by asserting two things:
1) a calorie IS absolutely a calorie in thermodynamics and
2) a “dietary calorie” is a very loosely determined set of averages related to a “kilocalorie” and isn’t necessarily exact.
Why this distinction? I have spent the better part of the last three years reading vociferously on food, diet, and exercise. Before that I spent a great part of the previous 15 years struggling with my weight. If you are overweight now, I get it and really do understand. What I have also learned is that a lot of people have made a lot of money on ideas they don’t really understand that well. Part of the issue is in the quest to make things “understandable” or generalized, it can often lead to further summaries that end up failing.
I believe that a dietary calorie is one of those things that is asserted with exacting detail when in fact it should be viewed more as an approximation.
The Art of Self Misdirection
Let’s take a quick diversion to something I am CERTAIN about, and then let’s see how these same steps might complicate the concepts around the dietary calorie. Certainly one of the best parts of the internet is that one doesn’t have to be a multi-million dollar corporation or famous spokesperson to get a message out. On the other hand, if you are viewed as a “reliable source,” you can unknowingly infect millions of people with incorrect information with a simple tap on the return key.
Here is a recent news piece from CBS MIami – Can “Chilling Out” On Ice Diet Help Lose Weight?
The actual news report (video) is quite accurate, even though they focus on the extreme, it covers the point made by both Tim and me. Clearly we have told everyone that these techniques are desinged to ENHANCE diet and exercise, not replace them. We point out, as do many, that “burning calories” (there’s those words again) isn’t that easy when compared to consuming them.
Having watched the video, read the story on the page. See the difference? Despite the credentials, Dr. Stacey Ingraham, is just wrong. In fact, this is the very point I made in my TEDtalk and unfortunately she isn’t alone. It is surprising just how many people confuse the body’s need to dump excess waste heat resulting from exercise as the cause of the energy consumption when in fact it’s a result of the body maintaining a core homeostasis. I tried to comment, but they were all rejected accept the one post asking that a comment be posted.
Not sweating it… Just know that many people that might be help will be confused. This doesn’t just happen with the media – it’s also common when science is summarized and generalized, which brings us back to the calorie.
First, we must look at thermodynamics with great respect. The laws have worked well and while they can be disproven if there is data to do so, no one has ever found any evidence to the contrary. This is the difference between science and dogma. So this is where I can state unequivocally that within thermodynamics a kilocalorie is the amount of energy to raise 1 kg of water 1 degree Celsius. It’s a simple definition and it does not change, nor can it be avoided. In thermodynamics, Heat (not temperature) = energy. It’s repeatable, measurable and observable.
Where we do have good reason to doubt is that 1 “dietary calorie” = 1 kilocalorie as it was defined over a century ago. I’ve participated in the past, and many of you still participate in nearly certain indisputable discussions about X calories of protein vs Y calories of carbohydrate. No matter what mental image you might have about a calorie of this or that, what each conversation, idea, and method involves is a basic estimate on digestibility and absorption of those macronutrients in order that it may be used, stored or excreted by the body.
This is the point where thermodynamics and food split paths. This is where I was able to achieve a thermodynamic advantage. This is where good calories/bad calories, body for life, sugar busters, slow carb, and Atkins all tweak and twist to make us all believe a “calorie is not a calorie.”
So is this all about semantics? I don’t think so. I am not going to take issue with any of these diet schemes; I’ve used all of them and they all worked for me to restrict calories. I was the one that ultimately couldn’t stick to them or make them a lifestyle.
A Plate Full of Schemes
The My Plate scheme is probably the best the USDA has ever done in helping people move towards a good balance. I think people can lose weight with either choice of protein: plant or animal. Plant will get you there much faster and my blood work suggests a much healthier landing.
Dairy? I think it’s seen it’s better days and yet I REALLY love cheese. When I look at the label and try to rationalize eating it, but giving up “red meat,” the rational debate goes right out the door. Liquid beef seems a better way to couch it for my mental process.
Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men. Bars to the right indicate these food tend to cause this weight gain over each four year period. Bars to the left are weight loss associated with that category of food.
I think most people are in fact trapped by what they THINK or are TOLD is healthy and the sales and marketing on the package, ESPECIALLY THE NUTRITION LABEL. It’s a sad case where in order to label the widest range of food, we have distilled down the categories and quantities until the point where the labels are not very meaningful. Take for example this: “Zero Calorie Olive Oil” I have in my pantry (hint ALL oil has calories and NO ONE sprays it for 1/3 of a second).
That’s all just plain dishonest and our children are suffering because of it.
Now looking at the chart to the right is anyone REALLY surprised by the results? This study published in last week’s New England Journal of Medicine tracked 120,000 men and women during a 20 year period (1986-2006), my fat years (1). During that same time I picked up an extra 50 lbs – go figure. Ok, don’t just rationalize your favorite junk food (cheese and yogurt looking good), but take in the entire picture. Bars to the right create a tendency to gain weight eating those foods and bars to left tend to lose. The length of the bar tells you how much on average.
Sure, you are not surprised, but what are you doing to change the trend in your life?
The Hot Points
Simply put – without some way to generate internal heat, you would assume whatever the temperature of your immediate surroundings. We don’t and it requires energy to create this heat in everyone and the energy source is food. If you control the food going in (nutrient dense, calorically poor foods – like plants) and exercise to strengthen your cardiovascular system and create excess waste heat, you’ll lose weight.
If you further expose your body to COOLER surroundings: swimming, cold showers, less layers, morning/evening walks, or just turning down the thermostat, your body MUST burn more or drop in temperature.
The resistance to change in temperature, the external thermal load on your body, depend on how large the temperature difference between your body and the environment and how fast heat (energy) is leaving your body. 40F water is a lot more drastic than 40F air, due to the increased heat capacity and thermal conductivity of water. A change of only 2-3 degrees down in water is equal to many more in air.
Swimming WILL positively effect your body’s heat loss and as such, will also trigger hunger. Resist the urge to eat and you’ll lose faster, guaranteed.
No amount of discussion changes these scientific facts; what is up for debate is how we might effectively and comfortably add these thermal loads to our lives. We don’t have to guess about calories in thermodynamics, maybe we should stick to words and food groups in diet schemes that people truly understand.
1) Changes in Diet and Lifestyle and Long-Term Weight Gain in Women and Men, Mozaffarian D et al. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2392-2404.
More great info. Thanks for the post.
Ray;
Just finished reading your Pyramid Schemes post. Some very clear points to ponder. For instance I keep going over the fact you mentioned,”Exposing your body to COOLER surroundings your body MUST burn more or drop in temperature.” Especially using water as you mentioned water is 24 x’s more conductive than air. My question is, or have you tested this, is whether you burn more calories walking hills for 30 min. or swimming in water that is 76 degrees F?
If you hold the amount of food eaten equal and if the activity rate is the same between the two activities and the amount of time is the same, you will burn more calories in 76 degree water or 80 or 85 degree (or any temperature under 98.6) water.
Should try dropping cheese and eating beef instead. Try a controlled experiment, with strict adherence and the least amount of confounding factors (such as weight loss or other dietary changes). Comparing a period of beef eating with no weight loss to a period of cheese eating with weight loss is just a path towards confirmation bias.
Tiger,
For the same level of exertion (which you can estimate by looking at heart rate or by simply becoming good at gauging your level of perceived effort) swimming will burn more calories because it’s the same effort plus an added amount of caloric burn due to thermal loading.
Of course, aggressively walking uphill at 150bpm heart rate will likely result in much higher caloric burn than BSing around doggy paddling at the pool at 90bpm heart rate.
The federal government’s track record with nutrition is a joke. It saddens me that people who don’t know any better will take this new plate as a guideline.
A plant-based, mostly raw food works well for me. I can’t explain all the science of why, but I can point to the fact that I lost 60ish pounds. I consume plenty of fat, including coconut oil, and all my health numbers are tip-top.
I don’t think one should have to have a science degree to eat a nearly optimal diet, but our food supply is also messed up (more processed food products than natural foods) that I can see why the average person might struggle to figure out what to believe.
It’s clear Candice that after Atwater, the USDA went in an entirely different direction. If I had to defend them, I’d conclude they got caught up in the potential starvation of the great depression and sought to both bolster agriculture and provide inexpensive food – typically nutrient poor, calorically dense.
For a starving population, that is probably the correct action.
In the very same New England Journal of Medicine is another article – “Front-of-Packaging Nutrition Labeling – An Abuse of Trust by the Food Industry?” K D Brownell and J P Koplan. The mantra of the food industry is “there is no food that is bad for you.” At least two major food-industry trade associations announced a new voluntary nutrition labeling system. It seems on the “Smart Choices” program Froot Loops and Cocoa Krispies qualified. The program was discontinued after pressure from CT Attorney General and FDA.
I hate politics and really want people to be able to eat what they want. The other side is having info, as you point out, so it doesn’t take a PhD and a secret decoder ring to figure this out. At the same time I hope the “pro plant” community could focus more on health and less on environmental/animal agendas when it comes to food. For example, it appears that Soy boosts insulin like growth factor more than dairy or meat and yet people are soy crazy.
Glad to have you here. Congratulations on the 60ish!!!
Ray
Do you write about soy somewhere, Ray? Would love links to any research or aticles on this.
I read a post recently that commented on that same graph you have up there Ray, but I can’t remember where. Thanks for the post.
Ray, I think it’s important to point out that the graph from the New England Journal of Medicine only shows a correlation between eating those foods and weight gain, not causation. Just because eating more of a certain food was associated with weight gain does not mean that the food itself caused it. The relationship could be reversed, or a third factor could be influencing both.
Interestingly, cheese, one of the most calorically dense foods on the list, was associated with little weight gain, or in some cases, a weight loss. Also, notice that drinking whole milk was associated with more weight loss than lowfat or skim milk. Again, this only is only a correlation, but with milk, it shows that more fat in a specific food is correlated with weight loss.
John
There is far more detail in the paper, so of you get a chance you should read it. There is not a simple correlation, but a somewhat detaile multivariable adjustments that were made. Lots of data was thrown out (for example all obese individuals) and there are some other tables with far more information.
It is more than casual correlation that fuels many diet books.
I showed it to demonstrate a much larger point. First, nutritional beliefs about how many calories are in a particular food, what a nutritional label means, and then often overlooked benefits of nutritional based medicine. I think you are caught up in the same “very loose” caloric accounting system I’m trying to expose. This study captures not just macro nutrients, but lifestyle associated with food.
Our bodies are incredible machines and once we skew them in the wrong direction, i think the same systems designed to protect us in a “normal world” trap us in a perpetual unhealthy state.
Ray
Great chart Ray,
but:
A diet of Veges, Nuts, Whole Grains, Fruits, Yogurt & very little cheese should loose weight especially along with being cool.
Where does Whey Protein powder, Eggs or Egg Protein powder fit in?
What if you are trying to build muscle while loosing fat?
Is there room for very lean grass fed beef, or very lean buffalo, or turkey white meat, or chicken white meat?
These are part of the struggle for me!
So I really am looking for answers to or thoughts about these questions.
Thanks for the help,
Austin
Austin, it’s difficult to lose fat while simultaneously gaining muscle. Competitive bodybuilders often focus on one or the other. They’ll bulk up as much as they want to bulk up and then go through a flat-slimming phase prior to competition. It’s certainly not impossible to do both simultaneously–it’s just difficult. When you ask if there “is room” for white meats. It depends upon your objective. You can burn fat just by drinking Koolaid, if you want. You can certainly do it eating meat or dairy. But meat and cheese (liquid meat, as Ray refers to it) are calorically dense so you end up with less food in your belly for the number of calories consumed. The beauty of a plant-based diet is being able to eat to satiety without consuming too many calories. Add in intermittent fasting and it’s a great recipe for losing fat quickly. Whether you should eat white meats for longevity is a whole different question.
So, where do I buy the Iphone app to help me estimate calories/“kilocalories” burned? I suck at math but I have lost about 20 pounds( assuming I can subtract properly) in 3 months with the slow carb Pagg and icing.. I’d like to know how much I’m doing per session, As I approach my ideal weight I’m slowing down on the pound shedding..also while I’m here where is the research from the 50’s you referred to citing on the effects of cold on astronauts/test subjects? Can you link so we may read? Thanks for the site.
Sorry Clayton
Didn’t see this. I have a pretty good math model, but it turns out to be much more complicated. The body has several “phases’ it goes through and a simple one-dimensional approach would be nothing more than a gimmick. There IS a way to do it, but It’s not my top priority. Here is the general theme for you to think about. Using both of Tim’s protocols in the book, you’re not doing straight cooling, it’s far more complex and has to do with some systemic metabolic changes. I think there are even more effective methods and that is what we are working on right now.
I will try to post some of the references, but there are dozens – most are military, some are NASA. Remember, these are all reports to determine adequate caloric INCREASES to maintain weight in cold-stress environments, but the calories work both ways. I am not sure if all of them are available in public domain. I have spent over a thousand dollars on papers… one of the perks I miss from academia.
appreciate the input. More is coming. I hope to have a membership program later this summer with more specific instruction. For now, Please just use the “tip jar” if you are enjoying it!
Ray
Looking forward to the paid membership site…
Can you provide the link to your TEDtalk?
Should be at the top of the blog on the right!! Double-click or go to TEDMED.com
I honestly don’t see the link to your TEDtalk “at the top…” But I’ll search through TEDMED and find it.
Okay, I found the link here:
http://www.tedmed.com/2010speakers#ray_cronise
Unfortunately, TEDmed.com site for video seems to be broken… 🙁
I tried using both IE8 and FF5 and in both browsers, the video fails to load…
http://www.tedmed.com/videos-info?name=Ray_Cronise_at_TEDMED_2010&q=updated&year=all
Unfortunately, TEDmed.com site for video seems to be broken… 🙁
I tried using both IE8 and FF5 and in both browsers, the video fails to load…
http://www.tedmed.com/videos-info?name=Ray_Cronise_at_TEDMED_2010&q=updated&year=all
Do you have a youtube video of that talk?
ah! I see… my corporate proxy server was blocking it! My iPhone displays the video with no issue.
Thanks!
Ah-ha! I was thinking there was an issue….
Here’s a direct link too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrQ_ldCwKUQ
Ray, I have a question. Why are Eskimo’s fat? I just saw this study (see below)
a new study just published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
claims that Yup’ik Eskimos have overweight/obesity levels similar to those in the U.S. overall,
Yup’ik Eskimos have a traditional diet that includes large amounts of fatty fish and have a prevalence of overweight or obesity that is similar to that of the general U.S. population,
http://www.naturalnews.com/031903_omega-3s_Eskimos.html#ixzz1UP1CO8KC
Then you take in the fact that Eskimo’s do a lot of manual labor in extreme cold conditions. Even though they have very little access to fruits and vegetables doesn;t this show that when you stick your body into extreme cold temperatures for long periods of time you body will try its best to hang on to fat?
Tiger Sampson
I think it’s better to read the original article to see the point of the study…
http://www.fhcrc.org/about/pubs/center_news/online/2011/03/eskimo_fatty_fish_diet_obesity.html
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v65/n7/full/ejcn201139a.html
They studied only 330 individuals. They do not state what the average BMI is… but they note: “The median age of the participants was 45 and slightly more than half were female. The women were more likely than the men to be heavy, and body mass index (height-to-weight ratio) for all increased with age. ”
The same can be said of those living in the lower 48 states.
The study also did not indicate the level of exercise. Nor did it cite the estimated level of consumption per age group. The study mentions nothing about the life styles nor physical activity that would account for the level of obesity found.
The geographical location in this study is the southwest area of Alaska and the Yukon. The Yukon Territory is almost a desert. Coastal areas experience a milder, less variable, and wetter climate than inland locations. It’s worth noting that the climate changes and glacier retreats are shifting the climate towards warmer temperatures.
See weather trends for the area in the study:
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/climate/Normals/southwestislands.html
Eskimos are not like polar bears. They don’t exactly live in snow igloos (nor burrow into the snow) all year round. [http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/funfacts/igloo.htm] In fact, like many of us, they have heating devices to keep them warm. The above study has no focus on the amount of time they spend in the colder temperatures.
To directly address your question, the study you referred to does not suggest in any manner that Humans are more likely to become (or stay) obese in colder weather regions. While I have no conclusive evidence and like Ray, I believe that adjusting your body to colder climates on a regular basis while NOT changing your dietary habits will, in the long-term, force your body to accelerate the consumption of stored energy (aka fat).
Lore
Thanks for the input and yes, I agree. I want to point out that Tiger’s post is CRITICALLY important. This is a very easy trap to fall into and it seems reasonable to move from there to fat = insulation (like polar bears). It turns out that for Humans, fat = caloric preservation in the face of starvation.
This is just a profound and important point, it can’t be lost. As one observes, most animals starve in nature; the exception of course is those that are domesticated of forage off of human waste food. Most animals barely get enough to eat. We lived that way throughout our evolutionary development and I think that in the presence of habitual obesity, our bodies adjust to the “new mean” and all weight loss attempts are just thermodynamically driven pushes to get back to that set point.
Great post!!
Ray
I would also add: There is no data that tracks the average weight of Eskimos (per age group) over the last 50 years (or more). The idea that Eskimos are fat could be only a recent image taught to kids. There is no data on the effects of the typical western diet within the Eskimo communities. As the study indicated, the Eskimos wanted to know if the old traditional diet was better for their health compared to the typical American diet.
There are a lot of early “explorer accounts” with inuit and obesity was not a part of the first reports.
Ray
Thanks Tiger,
actually it turns out that the most recent obesity saga with the inuit (eskimos) is due to an influx of western diet (grains). Samuel King Hutton (Among the Eskimos of labrador) details this and discusses that over 1oo years of western influence had occurred before his trips. But your point raises a very good misconception – this is where I started in my quest. 1) you cannot out exercise/out cool your mouth. 2) because people have acclimated to cool environments through shelter/clothing does not mean they are actually exposed to it.
The men in many of these tribes that were the hunter/gatherers were often very thin from long times of exposure. Women would gain weight do to the increased demands of keeping children and staying less active and sheltered. As Samuel Hut points out in this book, the people were shorter and muscular and if we go to the African roots near the equator, people tend to be long and slender. Both are adaptations that favor rejecting/conserving heat, but neither disprove newton’s law of cooling – heat flows from the warm to the cool. That can be exploited within the realm of diet/exercise to increase the loss.
As for the diet, inuit ate mostly fat. The body stores excess calories when they come frequently and only rejects when too much comes in the way of an infrequent binge (see Four Hour Body, Body for Life, etc…). We do not put on fat as a response to cold and numerous thermoregulatory studies show that muscle mass is the primary insulator combined with vasoconstriction/dilation of blood vessels in skin and limbs (i.e. reactive thermoregulation).
So, I think we have a case of correlation with out cause and effect. The mental question is, would an overweight inuit lose weight faster on dietary restriciton if he was in his native home or at the equator? I think every study (see scott parazynski’s post) would confirm one needs far more calories for homeostatis in the cold then in warm environment.
short answer: western diet, more bundling, and less exposure in a modern world (compared to last 5-10,000 years) is why the obesity problems occur.
Thanks for the input!!!
Ray
Hey Ray, here’s a very interesting link that you may want to check out…
**Fructose, the “sugar” our body simply converts directly to fat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The Good doctor in this YouTube video recommends the following outline for a life-style:
Remove all sugar-filled liquids – only drink water and milk
Restrict all alcohols! Too many reasons not to drink it.
Eat upto 150g fiber everyday with carbohydrates (side-effect includes weight-loss and farts)
Eat slowly at every meal (take at least 30min per sitting) and wait 20min before a 2nd helping
1-2 hours of “sweaty” exercise everyday (use cold-ice packs during the day) – swimming is best
The short 10min (chemistry version) explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdMjKEncojQ&feature=related
Yes,
I saw this back when it came out and am very familiar with Lustig. Milk is NOT the answer either. I think dairy is most of the problem, but just don’t get into that part of it now, because I am focused on weight loss with this site and not necessarily the complete health thoughts I have. I will get into them in time, but you can lose weight with/without being completely healthy. Compliance is hard enough, so I try not to put twists (like vegan) into the mix.
Teas are ok to drink as well.
Keep searching…
Ray
I agree with you on Milk. It has way too many growth hormones and other stuff that isn’t really a good idea for Adults (or humans in general).
Outside the US, or at least in Japan, there is no “low fat” milk. Most milk here has about 15% fat or more! No sugar or starch additives in the Milk here! BTW, I grew up in the States but live in Japan.