tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post8740689865629669454..comments2024-03-27T23:47:41.656-07:00Comments on Whole Health Source: Testing the Insulin Model: A Response to Dr. LudwigStephan Guyenethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-17888434966846045202017-02-08T07:45:00.487-08:002017-02-08T07:45:00.487-08:00Good day Stephan. Best wishes with the launch of y...Good day Stephan. Best wishes with the launch of your new book - I will be buying this once it is published in the UK. I should also add that this very article is still my anchor point when I think about or refer to the predominant models of obesity. With that I have a question: you clearly identify the mind-gut axis (my words) as a key part of the problem. However, I don't see you refer to the microbiome. Given the huge strides in understanding in this area do you, even though you don't appear to have a specialism in microbiology, think (or allow) that this "organ" may play a role in the obesity riddle? Kind regards, TomFishermaaanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16138000670851013528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-55010845671808123552016-06-12T18:24:16.647-07:002016-06-12T18:24:16.647-07:00@ Ben Nguyen
That's the response of David Lud...@ Ben Nguyen<br /><br />That's the response of David Ludwig to the recent and soon to be published study by Kevin Hall. <br /><br />There is heated debate on the blogs about the temporary 100 kcal increase in resting energy expenditure (REE) that occurred just after the large and abrupt macronutrient change in energy intake from fat from 35% to 80%. The increase in REE diminished toward its pre-jolt value after a couple weeks. <br /><br />If I'm understanding the video of Hall at the conference correctly, there was a much higher activity energy expenditure of the test subjects outside of the metabolic chamber compared with inside the chamber, as much as 500 kcal per day per person. This happened even though test subjects in the chamber were exercising 90 minutes per day on an ergometer. The environment outside the chamber was a controlled indoor metabolic ward which attempted to keep activity energy expenditure similar to that inside the chamber, yet there was as much as a 500 kcal increase in energy expenditure. Even Hall didn't expect it. I assume that's a real energy difference and not a measurement fluke. It's a reason to not be dismissive of the possible effects of environment on physical activity. Casual observation may not notice or anticipate large differences in activity energy expenditure that could be occurring between two living environments that seem similar. Hall could devote an entire study to this 500 kcal anomaly.<br /><br />The ongoing 500 kcal difference seems as relevant or more relevant to the obesity epidemic than the transient 100 kcal rise in REE. The general public is not likely to increase its energy intake from fat by 45%. Even if it did, it would accrue only a transient 100 kcal increase in REE according to the Hall study.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-48302600917156674442016-05-28T10:04:27.802-07:002016-05-28T10:04:27.802-07:00I beleive this is the link for Ludwig's respon...I beleive this is the link for Ludwig's response<br /><br />https://medium.com/@davidludwigmd/defense-of-the-insulin-carbohydrate-model-redux-a-response-to-kevin-hall-37ea64907257#.ttt3k4h7ubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15389577176309879680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-7342889019546398262016-05-27T09:31:17.659-07:002016-05-27T09:31:17.659-07:00Hi Paul,
Sorry it took me a while to publish your...Hi Paul,<br /><br />Sorry it took me a while to publish your comment about Peter Attia; it got stuck in my spam folder for some reason. I haven't spoken to Peter since this all went down and I'm not going to speculate about what happened, but I am curious. <br /><br />Regarding fat intake around the globe-- good points. You can't just dismiss high-carb eating cultures as starving peasants.Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-1825630472677497042016-05-23T22:10:01.913-07:002016-05-23T22:10:01.913-07:00The paper in the following link has a table of the...The paper in the following link has a table of the %E intake from fat for forty countries. Refer to Table 1. The data are generally of the survey type, as opposed to food availability estimates based on food balance sheets. Four countries in the table show a %E from fat greater than 40% (Cameroon, Greece, Russia, Slovenia). Eleven countries have a %E from fat less than 30%. The rest are between 30% and 40%. <br /><br />https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/355437<br /><br />South Korea and Japan have a %E intake from fat of 21.1% and 25.3%, respectively. They are not rice-eating peasants of China trying to avoid starvation that David Ludwig refers to in an attempt to dismiss inconsistencies in the carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity. In spite of being developed countries and having a relatively low-fat and high-carbohydrate intake, South Korea and Japan have rates of obesity that are low relative to other industrialized countries that have a higher %E from fat and lower %E from carbohydrate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-85670748254470717402016-05-21T13:27:23.721-07:002016-05-21T13:27:23.721-07:00thhq said: "Show me 33% fat without using NHA...thhq said: "Show me 33% fat without using NHANES. I admit that 50% is too high but 43% appears credible."<br /><br />-------<br /><br />Data collected and published by the USDA show energy intake due to dietary fat to be much less than 43% in the U.S. for adults for the 1994-1996 time span. It was about 33%. See the following USDA webpage and publication. USDA and DHHS were conducting their own surveys, CSFII and NHANES, respectively, before 2002. They combined in 2002. <br /><br />DATA TABLES:<br />Results from USDA’s 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and 1994-96 Diet and Health Knowledge Survey Table Set 10<br /><br />http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14531<br /><br />For percentages of total energy intake by macronutrient class, select "Report 10: Food And Nutrient Intakes & Dietary Knowledge 1994-96" from the webpage A pdf will download. Refer to Table 4 on page 13 of the pdf. For the 1994-1996 time span, the percentage of energy intake for U.S. adults was approximately <br /><br />fat: 33%<br />protein: 16% <br />carbohydrate: 50%<br />alcohol: 1%<br /><br />The data are broken down for male and female by age group. The figures I gave above are an average for the entire adult age groups (male and female).<br /><br />For those who don't like survey data, the goal posts can be continually moved and any survey is not going to be acceptable, whether it was conducted by the USDA (CSFII), DHHS (NHANES), or any other group in the U.S. or other parts of the world.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-25604982567986133042016-05-13T19:02:00.329-07:002016-05-13T19:02:00.329-07:00thhq posted: What's the story about Attia leav...<br />thhq posted: What's the story about Attia leaving NuSI?<br /><br />--------<br /><br />Regarding Peter Attia leaving NuSI, it would have been appropriate for NuSI to issue a timely press release commending Attia for his three years of service at NuSI and welcoming the incoming president. This is good public relations practice and general courtesy. Instead, everything was done quietly. People thought that the mostly dormant NuSI website was in error for not listing Attia as part of the group. Gary Taubes isn't known for courtesy and humbleness. <br /><br />The following is a quote from a NuSI document.<br /><br />"While scientific resolution is necessary, it alone is not sufficient; NuSI will also execute a sophisticated communications strategy to bring about societal change."<br /><br />source:<br />Nutrition Science Initiative<br />Introduction and Overview<br />September 2012<br /><br />How is NuSI going to bring about a societal change with a sophisticated communications strategy when it didn't even have the courtesy to mention the departure of its president, Peter Attia, and left the public hanging? <br /><br />The current profile of NuSI appears to be mainly venture capitalists and lacking in people with formal experience in nutrition and body weight management. The general public was hoping that NuSI would be more responsive to the needs of people who are interested in nutrition with regular updates of the NuSI website and timely press releases. A short publication of Attia's experiments using the metabolic chamber a couple years ago would have been useful. It would have at least been a publication by NuSI while the longer term experiments involving Ludwig and others are underway and whose results won't be published for a while. It may be an oversight on my part but I'm not aware of any formal publication of Attia's NuSI work in refereed science journals. If anyone knows of any, please post them.<br /><br />Peter Attia has various interests and shows a desire for pragmatic treatment of health issues through various integrative approaches (exercise, meditation, diet), whereas someone like Taubes is more ideologically driven, corporate-libertarian, and fixated on blaming perceived incompetent health authorities and a particular macronutrient (carbohydrate) for the obesity epidemic. Taubes shows little interest and even a dismissive attitude toward modalities such as meditation and exercise. Such a difference in attitude can result in a schism that eventually causes colleagues to part ways.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-70984274190637198512016-05-13T18:01:00.828-07:002016-05-13T18:01:00.828-07:00The following article makes reference to unaccount...<br />The following article makes reference to unaccounted losses of fat on page 25. <br /><br />Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909-2000<br />USDA <br />Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion<br />Home Economics Research Report #56<br />November 2004<br /><br />http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USfoodsupply<br /><br />quote:<br /><br />"While food supply estimates reflect trends in the availability of fats and oils for human food, they have never accurately measured the amount of food eaten because the portion of food wasted or discarded is difficult to determine. With the growth of the fast-food industry in the past three decades, it has become even more difficult to estimate the waste portion or discard of deep-frying fats. Since this discard is not available for human consumption, these estimates are limited as indicators of actual intake. A 1993 study estimated that about 50 percent or more of deep-frying fat used in food service operations is discarded after use and is not available for consumption (Hunter & Applewhite, 1993). Reliable estimates of total fats and oils are difficult to determine partly because the actual amount of frying fat discarded by food service operations, particularly fast-food restaurants, varies with the type of establishment. To better account for the actual use of fats and oils in the edible food supply, USDA’s Economic Research Service looked at food-loss factors at the retail, food-service, and consumer levels (Kantor et al., 1997). About one-third of the total fats and oils in the food supply were estimated to be lost through food service and consumer venues and thus not available for consumption. This study underscores the fact that food supply estimates for fat and oil are high; however, these losses are tentative and need additional research."<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-2845085182993604242016-05-13T17:58:11.280-07:002016-05-13T17:58:11.280-07:00thhq posted:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/179795...thhq posted:<br /><br />http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/179795/carbs_intake_d.html<br /><br />Summarizing the results from 1970 and 2010, and converting to calories using 4 cal/gram protein or carb, and 9 cal/gram fat (I've deducted from the carb totals 19g dietary fiber in 1970 and 25g dietary fiber in 2010 as indigestible):<br /><br />Calorie Basis<br />Year g protein g fat g carbohydrate cal protein cal fat cal carb % protein % fat % carb<br /><br />1970 98 140 382 392 1260 1528 12 40 48<br />2010 120 190 449 480 1710 1796 12 43 45<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />The USDA figures you are using are not corrected for losses to an extent that the data for daily calorie intake per person for 2010 is 3986 (480+1710+1796=3986). 3986 calories is inconsistent with measured body weight of the population and is about 50% higher than what people are actually consuming. This is one of the main issues of using food availability data derived from food balance sheets to estimate actual food consumption. Food surveys, questionnaires, and other methods try to avoid this by going more directly to the person or household and accounting for actual food consumption, although this too has significant shortcomings such as underestimation of calorie intake. Inaccuracies in food loss data and inaccurate personal recall are part of why USDA food availability data and NHANES survey data don't agree with each other in some respects such as NHANES showing 33% fat intake and USDA food availability data showing about 43%. Both seem to agree on significant increases in overall calorie intake since 1970.<br /><br />When using food balance sheets, the losses of each macronutrient need to be accurately known in order to accurately determine the percentage of total daily calories consumed for each macronutrient. The figure of 43% of daily calories coming from fat may or may not be accurate. As much as a third of the fat in the food supply may be lost in the retail and consumer sector and as much as half may be lost in restaurants. Such losses have not been adequately considered in USDA food availability data. If unaccounted calorie losses of carbohydrate and protein are less than that of fat, then the unaccounted fat losses would inflate the calculated percentage of daily calorie intake from fat, and the actual percentage of consumed calories due to fat would be less than 43%.<br /><br />Trends in the food availability data don't necessarily translate accurately into trends in actual consumption. As an example, a trend of a population relying increasingly on restaurant food implies that an increasing amount of waste of fat could be occurring, as restaurants may be wasting 50% or more of the fat in part due to deep frying compared with an expected lower waste at the household level. This would give the impression that there is a trend of increasing percentage of daily calorie intake occurring due to fat consumption when in fact it is an issue of higher unaccounted losses of fat due to increasing reliance on restaurants. As a hypothetical example, it could give the mistaken impression that the percentage of daily calorie intake from fat increased from 40% in 1970 to 43% in 2000.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-69059455678568339382016-05-04T10:28:31.727-07:002016-05-04T10:28:31.727-07:00Hi Dr. Johnson,
Thanks for stopping by and sharin...Hi Dr. Johnson,<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by and sharing the update. I look forward to seeing your papers. Stephan Guyenethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09218114625524777250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-4960364698494173432016-05-03T07:16:21.956-07:002016-05-03T07:16:21.956-07:00Hi Stephan,
One of my undergrad students reads yo...Hi Stephan,<br /><br />One of my undergrad students reads your blog and mentioned that our group got a mention. Thanks for the kind words. As an update, we have more published data (Templeman 2015 Diabetologia), and 2 big unpublished studies that will shed a lot more light on the subject, hopefully soon. Without giving too much away, in one study we find that acute reduction of insulin gene dosage after obesity can cause weight loss and in another study we find that a component of the insulin resistance that occurs with old age is caused by insulin (hyper)secretion itself (i.e. the desensitization concept). We have also tracked longevity in mice with modestly reduced insulin. Importantly, lipid homeostasis is more sensitive to modest (10-20%) changes in circulating insulin than glucose is. Anyway, we are learning lots of interesting things about insulin’s biological roles. However, as you astutely point out, it is critical to determine if every person’s beta-cell respond the same way to each of the macronutrients (or even fasting regimens). I’m not sure they do and we have (very) preliminary data to back up such an assertion. Finally, I don’t see how the 1st way, the 2nd way and the 3rd way have to be exclusive of each other. I think everyone knows that the brain is important, and indeed life sustaining, but certainly it can’t do everything and the pancreas and the hormone are there for a reason.<br />JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07501870312124387130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-80932235732601921332016-05-02T20:11:52.829-07:002016-05-02T20:11:52.829-07:00Bingo.Bingo.JJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07501870312124387130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-50195721582030429332016-04-09T08:31:40.733-07:002016-04-09T08:31:40.733-07:00I've just reread Stephan's responses to Dr...I've just reread Stephan's responses to Dr. Ludwig again. I'm thinking right now about how the focus on carbohydrates has distracted from the central mission of obesity reduction. Through a number of diversionary tactics - fat won't make you fat, calories don't count, fructose is like heroin, salt we have misjudged you, for example - the focus on carbohydrates-only gives aid and comfort to the salty snack foods which are the major cause for the rise in obesity. Attacking sodas which contain 100% HFCS is laudable, but only amounts to 6% of the problem. 80% of the problem stems from salty foods containing 60% fat, 35% carbs and 5% protein (the nutrients of an empty Ruffles bag I found outside a grade school yesterday). Taubes, Ludwig and Lustig may decry foods like this too. But they're not doing it very loudly, since they contain lots of fat and no fructose. thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-72037257251234340252016-04-03T06:57:55.403-07:002016-04-03T06:57:55.403-07:00For what it's worth here's the report on A...For what it's worth here's the report on Attia leaving NuSI<br /><br />https://www.diabetesdaily.com/forum/diabetes-news-studies/87953-peter-attia-no-longer-affiliated-nusi/<br /><br />Makes it sound pretty shabby. No publications, no website updates, no press releases.<br /><br />There was a journalist involved in this...what was that guy's name again?thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-65607641990224471342016-03-22T15:55:47.688-07:002016-03-22T15:55:47.688-07:00"33% is much less than 50%"
Forgive my ..."33% is much less than 50%"<br /><br />Forgive my presumptions but when I see 33% I think of the NHANES report that launched this statistic.<br /><br />http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.html<br /><br />NHANES report of rising carbs and falling fats embedded 32.8% fat in the nutritional literature for many years. And not just Taubes. It survives to this day:<br /><br />https://www.libertariannews.org/2015/04/23/how-low-carb-diet-doctors-pull-the-wool-over-your-eyes/<br /><br />Here the blogger "consistent commentator" calls it up:<br /><br />https://m.reddit.com/r/keto/comments/1mzqn3/nyt_says_americas_dietary_report_card_disappoints/<br /><br />I could google it up a hundred more times. It was referenced in many nutrition texts in the 2005-2008 timeframe. It's a lie that won't die.<br /> <br />Please reference your sources @Paul D. Show me 33% fat without using NHANES. I admit that 50% is too high but 43% appears credible. Reviewing the USDA data it was 33% was in 1909 and has been rising ever since.<br /><br /><br /><br />thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-42118819700728166882016-03-21T13:33:27.905-07:002016-03-21T13:33:27.905-07:00@Paul, I've taken USDA annual nutrient availab...@Paul, I've taken USDA annual nutrient availabilities from the following table, where macronutrients are expressed in grams per day. To your point, I'm trying to state the facts as correctly as the government statistics allow. [I hope the table I create below stays intact when this is posted]<br /><br />http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/179795/carbs_intake_d.html<br /><br />Summarizing the results from 1970 and 2010, and converting to calories using 4 cal/gram protein or carb, and 9 cal/gram fat (I've deducted from the carb totals 19g dietary fiber in 1970 and 25g dietary fiber in 2010 as indigestible):<br /><br /> Calorie Basis<br />Year g protein g fat g carbohydrate cal protein cal fat cal carb % protein % fat % carb<br /> <br />1970 98 140 382 392 1260 1528 12 40 48<br />2010 120 190 449 480 1710 1796 12 43 45<br /><br />Based on USDA availability % fat consumption rises from 40% to 43% of total calories. I stand corrected. This is less than the 50% total dietary fat I've claimed. From now on I'll use 43% total dietary fat. <br /><br />This USDA comparison supports the Mayo group's finding. If USDA data is used, % fat is rising in the American diet. If NHANES data is used (see Taubes GCBC graph pg 232-4), % fat is falling. Both cannot be correct, and Mayo recommends rejecting NHANES. <br /><br />One last point gleaned from this comparison. From 1970 to 2010, total available calories per day rose from 3180 to 3986, a 25% increase. While all macronutrients have increased, fat has increased by 36%, twice as much as carbs.thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-50547876003727740672016-03-20T13:05:17.204-07:002016-03-20T13:05:17.204-07:00thhq,
You're putting words in my mouth and ac...thhq,<br /><br />You're putting words in my mouth and accusing me of having a prerogative. I didn't make any claims about total fat intake increasing or decreasing. I corrected you on a statement you made about a graph that you incorrectly said was indicating 50% of daily calories coming from added fat when the graph actually stated 50 lbs of added fat consumed per capita per year which amounts to about 21% of calories coming from added fat. You also appealed to a paragraph in a USDA report that normalized added fat intake to a 2000 calorie diet which gives an inflated figure of 32% of daily calories coming from added fat. Normalizing to actual total calories consumed (about 2600) gives a figure of about 23% which is consistent with other data.<br /><br />These are issues of stating facts correctly, not ones of prerogative or religious beliefs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-19511703234502830562016-03-16T13:00:11.777-07:002016-03-16T13:00:11.777-07:00Wow Peter, I'm so sorry to hear you've lef...Wow Peter, I'm so sorry to hear you've left NuSi! The promise of some answers to the questions posed in these comments kept me contributing, but now you're gone without so much of a hint of what questions may be answered, let alone when.<br /><br />My 2 cents: The nutrition transition involves loss of health of traditional peoples as they transition to a Western lifestyle including sugar, refined fortified grains, vegetable oils, trans fats, xenoestrogens &c. Clearly, there's been a massive loss of micronutrients, too much iron and too little magnesium, a distortion of the w3/w6 ratio and the K/Na ratio &c. - and reversing these changes - from Weston Price's improving the dental health of children to the Lyon Heart Study - have unequivocally positive outcomes. Are we barking up the wrong tree pursuing macronutrient ratios? Should we not be looking at the quality of the diet? And shouldn't we be routinely measuring micronutrient status of diet study participants? Jontyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359486435643820872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-45944784217677737712016-03-15T09:48:02.652-07:002016-03-15T09:48:02.652-07:00After several years of listening to HFLC/Atkins/Pa...After several years of listening to HFLC/Atkins/Paleo/vegan defenses, it was interesting to read about what these quasi-religious dietary systems have in common with actual religions. It starts with the narrative at the heart of the belief. <br /><br />http://religiondispatches.org/confront-death-by-avoiding-fritos-the-gluten-lie-fad-diets-foodie-faith/<br /><br />Whether it is the Garden of Eden, or the Cave of Paleos, or The Ring (Nibelung or Hobbit), or the Taubes/NHANES-34%-dietary-fat-and-decreasing, or the sacred-cow-whose-milk-is-only-for-baby-cows, the core mythology is unquestionable, and the True Believers are dedicated to defending it. They are the outer shields, protecting the core myth from any alteration by the infidels. They bring every dog to the fight, including apologetics, hermeneutics, cherry-picked scientific data, and ad-hominem attacks. They are doggedly persistent. Doing battle with them runs into thousands of words, until the infidel challenging the mythology stops arguing and gives them the last word. [And not because they are right, but because their game gets stale. Eventually you get tired of being called a liar because you don't recall correctly what Gandalf ate for breakfast.]<br /><br />There is never any common ground with the infidel. Acknowledging that animal protein is healthy food, or that fructose is healthy food, or that dairy products are healthy foods, or that salty chips are the major cause of the obesity crisis, is not an option. In religious systems there is some accomodation to reality. Evolutionary adaptation cannot be denied, the Bible is not a science book, the Lord of the Rings and Wagner's Ring are works of fiction. The quasi-religious dietary systems are inflexible, persisting in their imaginary realities long past the point of credibility.thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-54578821063408609462016-03-14T13:02:50.560-07:002016-03-14T13:02:50.560-07:00Paul D, if you want to believe that % fat consumpt...Paul D, if you want to believe that % fat consumption in the USA is decreasing that's your perogative. CDC's NHANES recall methods indicate that % fat consumption is decreasing. USDA's food depletion methods indicate that % fat consumption is increasing. But as the Mayo group pointed out, we cannot be simultaneously consuming more and less fat. Both methods are flawed. Maybe we should average them and say that % fat consumption is unchanged? <br /><br />If % fat consumption is unchanged where does that leave the carb insulin assertion? Declining % fat supposed to explain the obesity crisis, but if % fat consumption did not change (or as USDA asserts, increased) the carb insulin assertion explains nothing about why we got fat, or soft science, or what is a bad calorie, or anything of any value in combating obesity. <br /><br />Focus instead on the points where the USDA and CDC studies agree. By both accounts, total calorie consumption has increased by roughly 20% since 1970, and the majority of the increase is in added fats and processed grain carbs, and not in added sweeteners. IMO that is a better starting point for theories of obesity than in the supposed shifts in macronutrient %'s. Damning fructose and glorifying fats sells a lot of books, but it does nothing to get people to reduce their excessive snacking on salty/greasy/starchy Cheetos and potato chips. thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-43484976543599328272016-03-13T23:18:40.447-07:002016-03-13T23:18:40.447-07:00thhq posted:
Added fat in 2005 accounted for 32% ...thhq posted:<br /><br />Added fat in 2005 accounted for 32% of dietary calories, per the following:<br /><br />http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/210681/eib33_1_.pdf<br /><br />We could argue about how much additional fat is naturally occurring - in meats, dairy, nuts and fatty vegetable matter - but it's probably in the 15-20% range. <br /><br />-----------------<br /><br />The USDA report by Wells that you posted stated the loss-adjusted per capita daily intake from added fat as 589 calories. The report chose to normalize to a 2000 calorie diet. This gives 32% (589/2000=0.32). It inflates the percentage because the actual average total calorie intake per person per day is significantly more than 2000. <br /><br />Normalizing to the actual calories consumed would be more meaningful. The average per capita loss-adjusted daily calories intake in the U.S. in the 2006 to 2010 era was about 2600. This gives 23% of calorie intake from added fats and oils (588/2600=0.23). 23% is significantly lower than 32%.<br /><br />The following USDA page gives data about loss-adjusted added fats and oils for 2006. It shows 639 calorie intake of added fats and oils and a total intake of 2685 calories. This gives 24% which is close to the previous figure of 23%. <br /><br />http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011-september/loss-estimates.aspx#.VuNhy0BGSSp<br /><br />Total fat intake is available on the CDC website. Mean total fat intake is stated as 33% of total calorie intake for adults age 20 and over. 33% is much less than 50%.<br /><br />http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/diet.htm<br /><br />The CDC webpage states "data are based on dietary recall interviews of a sample of the civilian non-institutionalized population." This is different than the USDA method of using food balance data. <br /><br />Trying to obtain total fat consumption from USDA balance data is not straightforward because its data is usually stated in terms of food groups (meat, dairy, added fat, etc), not macronutrient class (fat, protein, carbohydrate).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02151097017284865549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-14182281714510607232016-03-11T11:19:28.152-08:002016-03-11T11:19:28.152-08:00I found this NHANES study on the increase in Ameri...I found this NHANES study on the increase in American snacking from 1977-78 to 2007-2008. While this is based on the suspect food recall surveys, it gives an idea of the magnitude of the increase in snacking: from about 1 to 2 snacks a day on average, and a total snack consumption of 400 (F) - 600 (M) kcal per day. On average the addition of a 250 kcal snack per day.<br /><br />http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80400530/pdf/DBrief/4_adult_snacking_0708.pdf<br /><br />Assuming NHANES to be approximately correct, this snack would account for 50% of the increase in calorie consumption USDA observed. This is equivalent to a 2 oz snack bag of Cheetos or Tim's Cascade Chips. <br /><br />Regarding the increase in sweeteners, the 34 kcal per day increase is equal to 3 oz of Coke. <br /><br />An extra Coke every 4 days + an extra bag of chips every day = obesity crisisthhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-43515370502170027962016-03-10T20:44:17.683-08:002016-03-10T20:44:17.683-08:00I am one of those who have lost a lot of weight an...I am one of those who have lost a lot of weight and kept it off. Started at 250 and lost 75 pounds over two years, at three pounds a month, every month. For a decade I maintained it through careful but not obsessive monitoring, went up a few pounds during menopause but not significantly. Then I had a health crisis, took a very small dose of amitriptyline and within two weeks was starving, started gaining weight at a high rate, gained 12 pounds in less than two months. I finally got completely obsessive with cutting my calories down to about 1300 and, in spite of massive hunger, stopped gaining. But I did not lose a pound. A year later I went off the amitriptyline and thought my body would be more cooperative but in this last year, after many many sincerely consistent and obsessive efforts I have not lost a pound, I continue to have a very high level of hunger with even small cutbacks. I have tried every manipulation of carbs/protein/fats and overall calorie levels. Oh, and at that level of calories I have stopped sleeping--waking up at 1 or 2 or 3 and not getting back to sleep. If I move my calories up to over 2500 I can sleep, but I start gaining. Quite a dilemma. Whatever process is impacted by amitriptyline is significant for me, and it appears to not undo itself after the drug is stopped. Maybe my story can give all of you brilliant researchers some further clues to look into as to what impacts weight loss beyond the endless macro discussions and the total number of energy units consumed. annchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03676143423301950603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-59953971873304250482016-03-06T15:33:20.808-08:002016-03-06T15:33:20.808-08:00This 2010 USDA report shows roughly 1500 calories ...This 2010 USDA report shows roughly 1500 calories per day from the added fats/sweeteners/grains, and 1000 calories from the whole foods (meat/veg/fruit/dairy). The 2500 total is up from 2000 in 1970, with slightly more calories increase in added fats than grains, and those two together accounting for 80% of the increase. Surprisingly to me the increase in sweeteners was only 34 calories, or 7%. [Based on the relatively small increase in sweeteners it's the chips that are causing the obesity, not the fructose-laden Big Gulps and raisins IMO].<br /><br />http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system/summary-findings.aspx<br /><br />Too bad we don't know what happened to our national metabolic rate CO. Even if CO stayed constant, the rising CI would result in a 20% increase in the national weight over the 40 year term.<br />thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629175743855013102.post-38170253551371503472016-03-06T11:49:41.540-08:002016-03-06T11:49:41.540-08:00Coming up with apples-to-apples comparisons from U...Coming up with apples-to-apples comparisons from USDA data has been difficult for me. I realize that the 2008 USDA report is in pounds, but it's useful for showing the continuing uptrend in fat consumption. I have believed for some time that average American consumption of dietary fat is around 50% of total calories. This came from reading the 1970-2005 USDA dietary trend report. Added fat in 2005 accounted for 32% of dietary calories, per the following:<br /><br />"Added Fats and Oils. The Dietary Guidelines recommend that Americans keep total fat consumption between 20 and 35 percent of daily energy intake. In 2005, total added fats and oils available for consumption reached 86 pounds per person compared with 53 pounds per person in 1970. This 2005 estimate translates into 71.6 grams of added fats and oils per person per day after adjusting for plate waste and other losses. This estimate does not include dietary fats that occur naturally in foods, such as in dairy prod- ucts and meats. Added fats and oils account for about 32 percent of total calories for a 2,000-calorie-per-day diet. In short, the findings suggest that Americans, on average, need to cut back on added fats and oils because, while the 32-percent figure is within the Guidelines’ range, it includes only added fats and oils and excludes fats and oils naturally present in some foods."<br /><br />http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/210681/eib33_1_.pdf<br /><br />We could argue about how much additional fat is naturally occurring - in meats, dairy, nuts and fatty vegetable matter - but it's probably in the 15-20% range. <br /><br />I agree that we get a huge percentage of our calories as "added", both fats or carbs. I think that 41% is way too low for added calories. If added fats by themselves are 32%, added carbs would probably double that, and net/net, the average American gets 2/3 of calories from "added" fats and carbs. We're not a low-fat-nation by any means...more like drive-thru/jiffy mart/processed food nation. It's on that basis that I take issue with Taubes contention, in both GCBC and the NYT Soft Science article, that American fat consumption is decreasing. NHANES got it wrong and as a result Taubes got it wrong.<br /><br />What's the story about Attia leaving NuSI?<br /><br />thhqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07256574635664867999noreply@blogger.com