Category Archives: Sugar and Obesity

Low-Fat Versus Low-Carb Diet: DIETFITS Show Both Can Work If They Are “Healthy”

In the ongoing nutritional war between adherents of low-fat and low-carb diets, the skeptical cardiologist has generally weighed in on the side of lower carbs for weight loss and cardiovascular health.

I’ve questioned the vilification of saturated fat and emphasized the dangers of added sugar. I’ve even dabbled in nutritional ketosis.

The science in  nutrition is gradually advancing and the DIETFITS study recently published in JAMA is a welcome addition.

DIETFITS is a  really well done study which provides important insights into three huge questions about optimal diet:

  1. Should we choose a low-fat or a  low-carb diet for  weight loss and cardiovascular health?
  2. Do baseline insulin dynamics predict who will respond to low-fat versus low-carb diet?
  3. Can we predict who will respond to low-fat versus low-carb by genetic testing?

The Details Of DIETFITS

Stanford investigators recruited 609 San Francisco area individuals between the ages of 18 to 50 years with BMI of 28 to 40  and randomized them to a “healthy” low-fat diet or a “healthy” low-carb diet.

During the first 8 weeks of the study, low-fat participants were instructed to reduce fat consumption to <20 gm/ day while the low carb participants were instructed to reduce digestible carbohydrate to <20 gms/day.

Then individuals were allowed to add back fats or carbs back to their diets in increments of 5 to 15 g/d per week until “they reached the lowest level of intake they believed could be maintained indefinitely.”  Importantly no explicit instructions for energy restriction were given.

The “healthy” instructions for both groups were as follows

  1. maximize vegetable intake
  2. minimize intake of added sugar, refined flours and trans-fats
  3. focus on whole foods that are minimally processed, nutrient dense and prepared at home whenever possible

Dietfits Outcomes-Diet And Weight

Major findings

  1. Total energy intake was reduced by 500-600 kcal/d for both groups
  2. The low-fat vs the low-carb intake at 12 months was 48% versus 30% for carbs, 29 vs 43% for fat and 21 vs 23% for protein.
  3. Mean 12 months weight change was -5.3 kg for low-fat vs 6-6.0 kg for low-carb which was not significantly different
  4. There was no difference between groups in body fat percentage or waist circumference
  5. Both diets improved lipid profiles and lowered blood pressure, insulin and glucose levels
  6. LDL (bad cholesterol) declined more in the low-fat group whereas HDL (good cholesterol) increased more and triglycerides declined more in the low-carb group.

Thus both diets were successful for weight loss and both improved risk markers for cardiovascular disease after a year.

DIETFITS- Can Genes and Insulin resistance Predict Best Diet?

Surprisingly, the study found no significant diet-genotype interaction and no diet-insulin secretion interaction with weight loss.

This means that they could not predict (as many believed based on earlier studies) who will benefit from a low carb diet based on either currently available genetic testing or a generally accepted measure of insulin resistance.

As the authors point out, these findings “highlight the importance of conducting large, appropriately powered trials such as DIETFITS for validating early exploratory analyses.”

DIETFITS-Perspectives

As you can imagine this study has led to quite an uproar and backlash from dedicated combatants in the macronutrient wars.

A reasoned summary and response from Andreas Eenfeldt, a low carb proponent can be found on his excellent low carb/keto Diet Doctor site here.

Eenfeldt concludes

If I’m allowed to speculate, the reason that we did not see any major additional benefit from low carb in this study is that the groups ended up so similar when it came to bad carbs. The low-fat group ended up eating fewer carbs too (!) and significantly less sugar, while the low-carb group ended with a somewhat weak low-carb diet, reporting 130 grams of carbs per day.

Eenfeldt emphasizes that low-fat diets never “win” these macronutrient dietary skirmishes:

On the whole, this study adds to the 57 earlier studies (RCTs) comparing low carb and low fat for weight loss.

From a standing of 29 wins for low carb, zero for low fat and 28 draws, we now have 29 wins for low carb and 29 draws. The wins for low fat stay at zero.

Larry Husten at Cardiobrief.org in his analysis of the study quotes a number of experts including Gary Taubes, the low carb pioneering journalist

Taubes speculates “that the weight loss may have been similar not because any diet works if you stick with it and cut calories (one possible interpretation) but because of what these diets had in common — avoid sugar, refined grains, processed foods. Whether the low-carb arm would have done even better had Gardner kept their carbohydrates low is something this study can’t say. (And Ornish [low-fat diet proponent] would probably say the same thing about fat consumption.)”

The low-fat or vegan disciples seem to have had a muted response to this study. I can’t find anything from John McDougal , Dean Ornish, Caldwell Esselstyn or Joel Fuhrman.

Readers feel free to leave comments which  link to relevant analysis from the low-fat proponents.

Dietfits-Perspective Of The Participants

Julia Volluz at Vox wrote a fascinating piece recently which involved interviewing some of the participants in this study.

She points out that although the average DIETFITS participant lost over 10 pounds, “Some people lost more than 60 pounds, and others gained more than 20 during the year.”

LOW_FAT_LOW_CARBS_DIETS1__1_

She obtained permission from the lead author, Christopher Gardner  and interviewed  “Dawn, Denis, Elizabeth*, and Todd — two low-fat dieters and two low-carb dieters — about their experiences of succeeding or faltering in trying to slim down”

LOW_FAT_LOW_CARBS_DIETS1

I highly recommend reading the entire article for details but Volluz concludes

And that leads us to one of the burning mysteries of diets: how to explain why some people fail where others succeed — or the extreme variation in responses. Right now, science doesn’t have compelling answers, but the unifying theme from the four study participants should be instructive: The particulars of their diets — how many carbs or how much fat they were eating — were almost afterthoughts. Instead, it was their jobs, life circumstances, and where they lived that nudged them toward better health or crashing.

DIETFITS-Importance of “Healthy” Diet

Most likely the success of both of these diets is due to the instruction that both groups received on following a “healthy” diet. This guidance is remarkably similar to what I advocate and is something that combatants in the diet wars ranging from paleo to vegan can agree on.

The JAMA paper only provides the description I listed above but Volluz adds that participants were instructed to:

… focus on whole, real foods that were mostly prepared at home when possible, and specifically included as many vegetables as possible, every day … choose lean grass-fed and pasture-raised animal foods as well as sustainable fish ... eliminate, as much as possible, processed food products, including those with added sugars, refined white flour products, or trans-fats … prepare as much of their own food as possible. …

Indeed, if you want to see a very detailed description of the instructional process for participants check out the very detailed description of the methods here.

Yours in Health,

-ACP

N.B. I was searching for a reasoned response to this study from the low fat camp and to my surprise came across this fascinating video featuring the lead author of the study, Christopher Gardner, on (no fat/vegan) John McDougal’s YouTube site. Gardner is clearly on the side of sustainable, local , ethical food consumption but to his credit, his research , publications and comments on DIETFITS don’t reveal this.

The Bad Food Bible: A Well-Written, Sensible and Science-Based Approach To Diet

The skeptical cardiologist has been searching for some time for a book on diet that he can recommend to his patients. While I can find books which have a lot of useful content, usually the books mix in some totally unsubstantiated advice with which I disagree.

I recently discovered a food/diet/nutrition book which with I almost completely agree. The author is Aaron Carroll,  a pediatrician, blogger on health care research (The incidental Economist) and a Professor of Pediatrics and Associate Dean for Research Mentoring at Indiana University School of Medicine.

He writes a regular column for the New York Times and covers various topics in health care. His articles are interesting,  very well written and researched and he often challenges accepted dogma.

Like the skeptical cardiologist, he approaches his topics from an unbiased perspective and utilizes a good understanding of the scientific technique along with a research background to bring fresh perspective to health-related topics.

Last last year he wrote a column, within which I found the following:

Studies of diets show that many of them succeed at first. But results slow, and often reverse over time. No one diet substantially outperforms another. The evidence does not favor any one greatly over any other.

That has not slowed experts from declaring otherwise. Doctors, weight-loss gurus, personal trainers and bloggers all push radically different opinions about what we should be eating, and why. We should eat the way cave men did. We should avoid gluten completely. We should eat only organic. No dairy. No fats. No meat. These different waves of advice push us in one direction, then another. More often than not, we end up right where we started, but with thinner wallets and thicker waistlines.

I couldn’t agree more with this assessment and as I surveyed the top diet books on Amazon recently, I saw one gimmicky, pseudoscientific  diet after another. From the Whole30 approach (which illogically  completely eliminates any beans and legumes, dairy products,  alcohol, all grains, and starchy vegetables like potatoes (see how absurd this diet is here)) to Dr. Gundry’s Plant Paradox (aka lectin is the new gluten (see here for James Hambling’s wonderful Atlantic article on the huckster’s latest attempt to scare you into buying his useless supplements).

It turns out Carroll published a useful book recently, The Bad Food Bible which critically examines diet and I agree with the vast majority of what is in it.

The first three chapters are on butter, meat, eggs and salt. His conclusions on how we should approach these 4 are similar to ones I have reached and written about on this site (see here for dairy, here for meat, here for eggs and here for salt).  Essentially, the message is that the dangers of these four foods have been exaggerated or nonexistent, and that consuming them in moderation is fine.

The remaining chapters cover topics I have pondered extensively,  but have not written about: including gluten, GMOs, alcohol, coffee, diet-soda and non-organic foods.

I agree with his assessments on these topics. Below, I’ll present his viewpoint along with some of my own thoughts in these areas.

Gluten

Carroll does a good job of providing a scientific, but lay-person friendly background to understanding the infrequent (1 of 141 Americans), but quite serious gluten-related disorder, celiac disease.

However, surveys show that up to one-third of Americans, the vast majority of whom don’t have celiac disease, are seeking “gluten-free” foods, convinced that this is a healthier way of eating. Carroll points out that there is little scientific support for this; there are some individuals who are sensitive to wheat/gluten, but these are rare.

He concludes:

“If you have celiac disease, you need to be on a gluten-free diet. If you have a proven wheat allergy, you need to avoid wheat. But if you think you have gluten sensitivity? You’d probably be better off putting your energy and your dollars toward a different diet. Simply put, most people who think they have gluten sensitivity just don’t.

I do agree with him that the “gluten-free” explosion of foods (gluten-free sales have doubled from 2010 to 2014) is not justified.

However, I must point out that my 92 year old father has recently discovered that he has something that resembles gluten sensitivity. About a year ago, he noted that about one hour after eating a sandwich he would feel very weak and develop abdominal discomfort/bloating. He began suspecting these symptoms were due to the bread and experimented with different bread types without any symptom relief.

Finally, he tried gluten-free bread and the symptoms resolved.

If you have engaged in this type of observation and experimentation on your self, and noted improved symptoms when not consuming gluten, then I think you’re justified in diagnosing gluten sensitivity, and by all means consider minimizing/avoiding wheat.

GMOS

Carroll begins his chapter on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with a description of the droughts that plagued India in the 1960s and the efforts of Norman Borlaug to breed strains of wheat that were resistant to fungus and yielded more grain. By crossbreeding various strains of wheat he was able to develop a “semi-dwarf” strain that increased what was produced in Mexico by six-fold.

Despite the fact that numerous scientific and health organizations around the world have examined the evidence regarding the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and found them to be completely safe, there remains a public controversy on this topic. In fact a Pew Poll found that while 88% of AAAS scientists believe that GMOs are safe for human consumption, only 37% of the public do – a 51% gap, the largest in the survey.

This gap is largely due to an aggressive anti-GMO propaganda campaign by certain environmental groups and the organic food industry, a competitor which stands to profit from anti-GMO sentiments. There is also a certain amount of generic discomfort with a new and complex technology involving our food.

The National Academy of Sciences analyzed in detail the health effects of GMOs in 2016. Their report concludes:

While recognizing the inherent difficulty of detecting subtle or long-term effects in health or the environment, the study committee found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engi-neered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops, nor did it find conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from the GE crops. GE crops have generally had favorable economic outcomes for producers in early years of adoption, but enduring and widespread gains will depend on institutional support and access to profitable local and global markets, especially for resource-poor farmers

Carroll does a good job of looking at the GMO issue from all sides. He touches on environmental downsides related to herbicide-resistant GMO crops and the problems created by patenting GMO seeds, but asserts that “these are the result of imperfect farming and the laws that regular agribusiness, not of GMOS themselves.”

Ultimately, despite these concerns, I agree with Carroll’s conclusion that:

“Foods that contain GMOs aren’t inherently unhealthy, any more are  than foods that don’t contain them. The companies that are trying to see you foods by declaring them ‘GMO-free” are using the absence of GMOs to their advantage–not yours.”

Alcohol, Coffee, and Diet-Soda

Carroll does a good job of summarizing and analyzing the research for these three topics and reaches the same conclusions I have reached in regard to coffee, alcohol and diet-soda:

-alcohol in moderation lowers your risk of  dying, primarily by reducing cardiovascular death

-coffee, although widely perceived as unhealthy, is actually good for the vast majority of people

For those seeking more details a few quotes


on alcohol:

“Taken together, all of this evidence points to a few conclusions. First, the majority of the research suggests that moderate alcohol consumption is associated with decreased rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and death. Second, it also seems to be associated with increased rates of some cancers (especially breast cancer), cirrhosis, chronic pancreatitis, and accidents, although this negative impact from alcohol seems to be smaller than its positive impact on cardiovascular health. Indeed, the gains in cardiovascular disease seem to outweigh the losses in all the other diseases combined. The most recent report of the USDA Scientific Advisory Panel agrees that “moderate alcohol consumption can be incorporated into the calorie limits of most healthy eating patterns.”

Keep in mind that moderate consumption is up to one drink per day for women, and two drinks for men (my apologies to women in general and the Eternal Fiancee’ of the Skeptical Cardiologist in particular) and be aware of what constitutes “one drink.”

Also keep in mind that any alcohol consumption raises the risk of atrial fibrillation (see here) and that if you have a cardiomyopathy caused by alcohol you should avoid it altogether.


on coffee:

“It’s time people stopped viewing coffee as something to be limited or avoided. It’s a completely reasonable part of a healthy diet, and it appears to have more potential benefits than almost any other beverage we consume.
Coffee is more than my favorite breakfast drink; it’s usually my breakfast, period. And I feel better about that now than ever before. It’s time we started treating coffee as the wonderful elixir it is, not the witch’s brew that C. W. Post made it out to be.”

Strangely enough, coffee is usually my breakfast as well (although I recommend against adding titanium oxide to your morning java).  Why am I not compelled to consume food in the morning?  Because breakfast is not the most important meal of the day and I don’t eat until I’m hungry.


on diet-soda:

Carroll notes that many Americans are convinced that artificial sweeteners are highly toxic:

“no article I’ve written has been met with as much anger and vitriol as the first piece I wrote on this subject for the New York Times, in July 2015, in which I admitted, “My wife and I limit our children’s consumption of soda to around four to five times a week. When we let them have soda, it’s . . . almost always sugar-free.”

He notes, as I have done, that added sugar is the real public enemy number one in our diets. He reviews the scientific studies that look at toxicity of the various artificial sweeteners and finds that they don’t convincingly prove any significant health effects in humans.

Some believe that artificial sweeteners contribute to obesity, but the only evidence supporting this idea comes from observational studies. For many reasons, we should not highly value observational studies but one factor, “reverse causation,” is highly likely to be present in studies of diet sodas. If diet soda consumption is associated with obesity, is it the cause, or do those who are obese tend to drink diet soda. Observational studies cannot answer this question but randomized studies can.

Carroll points out that:

the randomized controlled trials (which are almost always better and can show causality) showed that diet drinks significantly reduced weight, BMI, fat, and waist circumference.”

Simple Rules For Healthy Eating

Carroll concludes with some overall advice for healthy eating:

-Get as much of your nutrition as possible from a variety of completely unprocessed foods

-Eat lightly processed foods less often

-Eat heavily processed foods even less often

-Eat as much home-cooked food as possible, preparing it according to rules 1, 2, and 3

-Use salt and fats, including butter and oil, as needed in food preparation

-When you do eat out, try to eat at restaurants that follow the same rules

-Drink mostly water, but some alcohol, coffee, and other beverages are fine

-Treat all calorie-containing beverages as you would alcohol

-Eat with other people, especially people you care about, as often as possible

These are solid, albeit not shocking or book-selling, rules that  correspond closely to what I have adopted in my own diet.

In comparison to the bizarre advice from nutrition books which dominate the best-selling diet books, I found The Bad Food Bible to be a consistent, well-written, extensively researched, scientifically-based, unbiased guide to diet and can highly recommend it to my readers and patients.

Semibiblically Yours,

-ACP

Does Eating Saturated Fat Lower Your Risk of Stroke and Dying?: Humility and Conscience in Nutritional Guidelines

A study presented at the European Society of Cardiology  meetings in Barcelona and simultaneously published in The Lancet earlier this month caught the attention of many of my readers. Media headlines trumpeted  “Huge New Study Casts Doubt On Conventional Wisdom About Fat And Carbs” and “Pure Shakes Up Nutritional Field: Finds High Fat Intake Beneficial.”

Since I’ve been casting as much doubt as possible on the  conventional nutritional wisdom  to cut saturated fat, they reasoned, I should be overjoyed to see such results.

What Did the PURE Study Find?

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, involved more than 200 investigators who collected data on more than 135000 individuals from 18 countries across five continents for over 7 years.

There were three high-income (Canada, Sweden, and United Arab Emirates), 11 middle-income (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Iran, Malaysia, occupied Palestinian territory, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey) and four low-income countries (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe)

This was the largest prospective observational study to assess the association of nutrients (estimated by food frequency questionnaires) with cardiovascular disease and mortality in low-income and middle-income populations,

The PURE team reported that:

Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality but not with CV disease or CV disease mortality.

This finding meshes well with one of my oft-repeated themes here, that added sugar is the major toxin in our diet (see here and here.)

Higher fat intake was associated with lower risk of total mortality.

Each type of fat (saturated, unsaturated, mono unsaturated ) was associated with about the same lower risk of total mortality. 

 

These findings are consistent with my observations that it is becoming increasingly clear that cutting back on  fat and saturated fat as the AHA and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans have been telling you to do for 30 years is not universally helpful (see here and  here ).

When you process the fat out of dairy and eliminate meat from your diet although your LDL (“bad”) cholesterol drops a little your overall cholesterol (atherogenic lipid) profile doesn’t improve (see here).

Another paper from the PURE study shows this nicely and concluded:

Our data are at odds with current recommendations to reduce total fat and saturated fats. Reducing saturated fatty acid intake and replacing it with carbohydrate has an adverse effect on blood lipids. Substituting saturated fatty acids with unsaturated fats might improve some risk markers, but might worsen others. Simulations suggest that ApoB-to-ApoA1 ratio probably provides the best overall indication of the effect of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular disease risk among the markers tested. Focusing on a single lipid marker such as LDL cholesterol alone does not capture the net clinical effects of nutrients on cardiovascular risk.

Further findings from PURE:

-Higher saturated fat intake was associated with a lower risk of stroke

-There was no association between total fat or saturated fat or unsaturated fat with risk of heart attack or dying from heart disease.

Given that most people still believe that saturated fat causes heart disease and are instructed by most national dietary guidelines to cut out animal and dairy fat this does indeed suggest that

Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered …”

Amen!

Because the focus of dietary guidelines on reducing total and saturated fatty acid intake “is largely based on selective emphasis on some observation and clinical data despite the existence of several randomizesed trials and observational studies that do not support these conclusions.”

Pesky Confounding Factors

We cannot infer causality from PURE because like all obervational studies, the investigators do not have control over all the factors influencing outcomes. These confounding factors are legion in a study that is casting such a broad net across different countries with markedly different lifestyles and socioeconomic status.

The investigators did the best job they could taking into account household wealth and income, education, urban versus rural location and the effects of study centre on the outcomes.

In an accompanying editorial, Christopher E Ramsden and Anthony F Domenichiello, prominent NIH researchers,  ask:

“Is PURE less confounded by conscientiousness than observational studies done in Europe and North American countries?

 

“Conscientiousness is among the best predictors of longevity. For example, in a Japanese population, highly and moderately conscientious individuals had 54% and 50% lower mortality, respectively, compared with the least conscientious tertile.”

“Conscientious individuals exhibit numerous health-related behaviours ranging from adherence to physicians’ recommendations and medication regimens, to better sleep habits, to less alcohol and substance misuse. Importantly, conscientious individuals tend to eat more recommended foods and fewer restricted foods.Since individuals in European and North American populations have, for many decades, received in influential diet recommendations, protective associations attributed to nutrients in studies of these populations are likely confounded by numerous other healthy behaviours. Because many of the populations included in PURE are less exposed to in influential diet recommendations, the present findings are perhaps less likely to be confounded by conscientiousness.”

It is this pesky conscientiousness factor (and other unmeasured confounding variables) which limit the confidence in any conclusions we can make from observational studies.

I agree wholeheartedly with the editorial’s conclusions:

Initial PURE findings challenge conventional diet–disease tenets that are largely based on observational associations in European and North American populations, adding to the uncertainty about what constitutes a healthy diet. This uncertainty is likely to prevail until well designed randomised controlled trials are done. Until then, the best medicine for the nutrition field is a healthy dose of humility.

 

Ah, if only the field of nutrition had been injected with a healthy dose of humility and a nagging conscience thirty years ago when its experts declared confidently that high dietary fat and cholesterol consumption was the cause of heart disease.!

Current nutritional experts and the guidelines they write will  benefit from a keen awareness of the unintended consequences of recommendations which they make based on weak and insufficient evidence  because such recommendations influence the food choices  (and thereby the quality of life and the mechanisms of death) of hundreds of millions of people.

PUREly Yours,

ACP

Dear Kaldi’s, Please Stop Serving Candied Bacon: It Is A Health And Gastronomic Abomination

The skeptical cardiologist enjoys bacon (in moderation), often with quiche, despite the fact that The Who (World Health Organization, not the band that John Entwhistle played for) classifies it as a carcinogen.

Enjoying bacon has become more difficult these days due to the development of a most disturbing fad: the adulteration of bacon  with sugar in some way, shape, or form.

The Eternal Fiancee’ recently ordered a bacon, egg and cheddar on croissant sandwich at my favorite St. Louis coffee spot, Kaldi’s when to our horror, candied bacon was served.

An inquiry at the serving counter  revealed that Kaldi’s only serves candied bacon; you can’t get any that hasn’t been turned into a monstrosity!

I find candied bacon to be an abomination.  All I can taste is sugar and any subtleties of the bacon or its preparation are eclipsed by the saccharine bulk of the sugar.

If this graphic (from my fitness pal.org) is to be believed, the three slices in her sandwich added 40 grams of sugar. This is the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar and the amount of sugar in a bottle of Coke.

 

 

 

 

Readers of this blog know that I consider sugar, not fat, as the major toxin in our diet, contributing to obesity, diabetes and ultimately heart attack and stroke. I’ve also pointed out that huge amounts of added sugar are hidden in smoothiescoffee drinks, and non fat yogurt.

The massive amount of sugar in this candied bacon is not exactly stealth: you can tell it from the first bite. However, there is nothing in the description of the croissant sandwich that alerts you to the fact that your bacon will be transmogrified into candy.

Serving only candied bacon in my opinion is the equivalent of only serving coffee that has had sugar added to it and Kaldi’s should know better.

Kaldi’s is proud of their community commitment which includes support for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. What about supporting healthier food choices (with no added sugar)  for kids so they are less likely to get diabetes and if they have diabetes will be  less likely to be poorly controlled?

I implore Kaldi’s to stop this madness.

Antisucroporcinely Yours,

-ACP

N.B. The Eternal Fiancee’ just tried to order a smoothie at the Clayton Kaldi’s and discovered to her horror that their peanut butter contains hydrogenated oils and added sugar. Yikes!

Fructose and the Ubiquity of Added Sugar

Since realizing that sugar, and not fat, was the major problem in the modern Western diet, The Skeptical Cardiologist has been ratcheting down how much sugar he consumes to the smallest possible amount.

This has lowered what I like to call my “sugarstat,” and has made me exquisitely sensitive to the presence of added sugar in foods.

With this sensitivity comes the heightened realization that added sugar is everywhere.

The obvious sources are soft drinks and other sweetened beverages, candy, cakes, pies, cookies, donuts and fruit juices. Once you mostly eliminate such things from your diet you become aware of the “background” levels of added sugar in other foods.

For example, when I consume what many Americans probably perceive as a “healthy” granola bar (from even the most natural or organic of manufacturers), all I can taste is a sickly sugar taste overwhelming all the other ingredients.

Low-fat yogurt (which I have compared unfavorably to a Snickers Bar here) tastes like pure sugar mixed with odd chemicals and a vague dairy flavor.

Seemingly healthy sushi tastes too sweet to me as it turns out to have lots of sugar mixed in  the rice and the popular eel sauce is mostly made up of sugar.

Most annoying  is the current trend for restaurants to put a “balsamic glaze” loaded with sugar on perfectly good vegetables like brussel sprouts, ruining them for me.

Fructose and Processed Foods

A review article in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings (1) this month presents the case for fructose (from glucose and high-fructose corn syrup) being the major cause of our obesity and diabetes epidemics and thus, the major contributor to cardiovascular disease in the US.

Fructose is a monosaccharide that combines with the monosaccharide glucose to form sucrose, which is what most people recognize as sugar.

Processed foods commonly contain a lot of added fructose-containing sugar but also, increasingly they contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) which contains up to 65% fructose.

Large intake of fructose goes hand in hand with consumption of processed foods. Approximately 75% of all foods and beverages in the US contain added sugars. Consumption of added sugar by Americans increased from 4 lbs per person per year to 120 lbs per person per year between 1776 and 1994.

Thanks to a dramatic increase in sugar-sweetened beverages, American teenagers consume about 72 grams of fructose daily.

There are a substantial amount of observational, short-term basic science, and clinical trial data suggesting that all this added sugar, especially fructose, are posing a serious public health problem.

The article presents these data in detail and I’ll summarize the major points as follows:

  1. Fructose is the likely component of sucrose and HFCS that promotes insulin resistance.
  2. In animals and humans, replacement of starch (chains of glucose) with sucrose or fructose causes increase glucose and insulin levels and reduced insulin sensitivity.
  3. Fructose stimulates epigenetic changes and metabolic alterations that shunt calories into storage depots in abdominal fat cells.

In simpler language, fructose promotes abdominal fat build-up and makes you more likely to develop type 2 diabetes.

Fruits and Fructose

I’m sure many of you are thinking, “but fructose is the major sugar in fruit, should I stop eating fruit?”

The answer is NO! The fructose in fruit is not highly concentrated. Fructose makes up 1% of the weight of a pear for example. It is combined with all of the good things, including fiber and phytonutrients and vitamins, that make fruit good for you.

Eliminating added fructose (sugar and HFCS) is by far the simplest thing you can do diet wise to improve your health. If you avoid added fructose, you will be cutting out a lot of the processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages which have no nutritional value but contribute to obesity and diabetes.

Fructose as Toxin

preserves
Real fruit (right) and “Just Fruit Spread” (left). Note the attempts to make the spread appear healthy by announcing that it is “non-GMO”, glutan-free, “organic” and “perfectly sweetened with fair trade cane sugar”. Cane juice is added sugar .

Robert Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist has talked and written extensively about fructose as a “toxin.” You can watch him here. He’s also published a lot of books on the topic including one which identifies the 56 names under which sugar masquerades.

It’s probably not worth buying that book, but keep in mind that agave and evaporated cane juice are just different forms of sugar. Makers of organic and “natural” foods are   as guilty as food industry giants at adding sugar, but they try to pretend that “natural” sources of sugar are somehow better for you.

I don’t think the science on fructose is totally settled, however, and another recent review (from scientists not funded by the food industry) concluded:

“current evidence on the metabolic effects of fructose, as consumed by the majority of populations, is insufficient to demonstrate such a role in metabolic diseases and the global obesity epidemic”

Skeptically Yours,

Anthony C. Pearson, MD, FACC

1. Added Fructose: A Principal Driver of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Its Consequences. Mayo Clin Proc. 2015:90(3);372-381. DiNicolantonio, JJ, O’Keefe, JH and Lucan SC

Smoothies: Kings of Sugar Masquerading As Healthy Food Choice

I have had a vague interaction with smoothies in the past, but after a recent jam session with my bassist daughter and drummer son, my daughter enthusiastically recommended we get a smoothie. “Smoothie” was entered into the Apple map app and a remarkable number of establishments serving this concoction popped up.

Smoothie sales have taken off in the last decade as consumers are apparently seeking healthier alternatives to carbonated beverages.

This was my first experience with Smoothie King which is the biggest and oldest chain of smoothie purveyors. According to their web site:

Since Steve Kuhnau created the first Smoothie Bar in 1973, Smoothie King has grown to over 650 locations across three continents. From the US to the Republic of Korea, Singapore and the Cayman Islands, our purpose continues to impact millions of lives around the globe.

Our quest is simple: Make living a healthier more active lifestyle delicious and nutritious. Whether you’re trying to lose a few pounds, have a little more energy at the end of the day or simply feel better about your diet, each and every Smoothie we make is blended for a specific purpose. Which is why we call them “Smoothies With A Purpose.”

This sounds spectacularly good: who wouldn’t want to lose a few pounds, have more energy at the end of the day and feel better about their diet.

Smoothie-King-New-Store-Design-interiorThe Smoothie King store was disturbingly sterile with an intense corporate feeling and had a bewildering array of choices. I could choose from Fitness Blends, Energy Blends, Slim Blends, Wellness Blends or Take a Break Blends.

 

There are 17 “Slim Blends” to choose from. The Angel Food  (“treat your body like an angel”(I have no idea what that means)) Slim Blend contains 350 calories, 84 grams of carbohydrates, 75 grams of sugar, 4 grams of protein, and 6 grams of fiber. This comes from strawberries (I saw no real strawberries behind the counter),bananas, non-fat milk (when I asked about getting whole milk the girl behind the counter told me that they didn’t even use real non-fat milk just a powder), vanilla, turbinado (fancy and deceptive word for brown sugar) and soy protein.

What’s wrong with this? A smoothie from SmoothieKing marketed as a Slim Blend contains 75 grams of sugar, the equivalent of 19 cubes of sugar. There only 39 grams of sugar in a 12 ounce coca-cola thus the small 20 oz “Slim Blend” contains the equivalent of two cans of coca-cola in sugar. There may be some useful nutrients in this monstrosity but predominantly you are getting loads of sugar in a highly concentrated form.

As I’ve pointed out here and here, there is reason to believe that sugar contributes more to obesity and heart disease than fat. Its hard to understand how this Slim Blend would contribute to weight loss in any way. It is just another stealth dessert similar to what Starbucks promotes as I’ve discussed here. What the food industry has done to smoothies is eerily similar to what happened to yogurt which I call the no fat  yogurt scam.

Most people have figured out for good weight control and health they should avoid sodas and sugar-sweetened beverages (even my 19 year old daughter has) but smoothies are masquerading as healthy choices for slimming, for fitness or wellness when they are (in the case of ones from SmoothieKing and presumably most similar chains) an absolutely horrible dietary choice.

What we have here is the classic food industry approach to marketing: Take real food ingredients like fruits, which are healthy choices when consumed in their original state, process  them, industrialize them, add sugar and promote them as healthier dietary choices.

Add in the veneer of promoting fitness or weight loss or wellness by adding magically powerful elixirs or powders and  the duped public will line up and sales will skyrocket. Unfortunately, despite claims of health benefits, consumers will end up less healthy.

 

 

 

 

 

Are You Fed Up With Sugar?

A new documentary  movie, Fed UP, released May 9 and a   New York Times Editorial published  today are helping to focus the country’s attention on a new paradigm for what makes us fat and the importance of added sugar in causing obesity and chronic diseases. I highly recommend both viewing the movie and reading the editorial.

As I’ve pointed out here and here and as eloquently summarized by Gary Taubes in “Good Calories, Bad Calories” and “Why We Get Fat”, the concept of replacing fat with carbohydrates is not making America healthier.

The NY Times editorial and an article published by the same authors in JAMA focus on an alternative view of why people get fat. The generally accepted view is based on the (seemingly immutable)  first law of thermodynamics, that you gain weight because you have consumed more calories than you have burned with exercise. People get fat due to lack of willpower in either consuming too many calories or not exercising enough. In this paradigm, all calories are equal in their effects. To lose weight you merely need to cut back on how many calories you consume. Unfortunately, calorie restriction for weight loss fails almost all the time.

 

The alternative view of obesity posits that underlying genetic factors exacerbated by lifestyle factors such as inadequate sleep, stress and by poor quality of diet are the major reasons for obesity. These factors lead to increase in fat storage which , in turn, means less metabolic fuels available for activity. This causes an increase in hunger and a reduction in metabolic activity, muscular efficiency and physical activity.  The combination of increased energy intake and reduced energy expenditure causes obesity.

Insulin is the major hormone involved in fat metabolism and of all the things we eat highly refined and rapidly digestible carbohydrates cause the greatest insulin response. Thus, the authors write 

By this way of thinking, the increasing amount and processing of carbohydrates in the American diet has increased insulin levels, put fat cells into storage overdrive and elicited obesity-promoting biological responses in a large number of people. Like an infection that raises the body temperature set point, high consumption of refined carbohydrates — chips, crackers, cakes, soft drinks, sugary breakfast cereals and even white rice and bread — has increased body weights throughout the population.

Fed Up, the movie, focuses on how American diets became awash in added sugar and what the consequences of that has been. Dr. Robert Lustig a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco is an advisor to the film and has spoken and written eloquently on this new paradigm for obesity and the dangers of processed food, fructose and sugar as in this video.

.

 

Here’s the trailer for Fed Up.

The film has a limited release and may not be showing in your town,  but you can check out some actions the film’s web site proposes  (supporting a proposed tax on soda and  sugary beverages, investigating your school’s nutrition policy, taking a 10 day no-sugar challenge) here.