Scientific American Magazine: Looking at the Wrong Solution for Obesity

You could forgive the media for its often ignorant position concerning obesity and nutrition but when the same ignorance is displayed on a magazine that is oriented toward the scientific community and its adherents, one has to wonder to what extent does this ignorance steer people away from exploring the right questions and answers.

The recent issue (February 2011) of Scientific American takes a stab at the scientific view of obesity and offers a remedy. In the article "How to fix the obesity crisis" author David H. Freedman wonders why is it so hard to lose weight and keep it off if the way to do it is simply "consume fewer calories than you expand." The low-carb community will recognize this as the "calories -in/calories-out dogma that is questioned by a number of reputable researchers. yet he admits that not much of a dent has been made in dealing with the current epidemic. Freedman tells us that the best approach to solving the obesity epidemic would be "to build on reliable behavioral-psychology methods developed over 50 years and proved to work in hundreds of studies."

It is interesting that in recent years the behaviorists have zoomed in on another area of human failures  - obesity and ready to treat it as if it were merely a psychological/behavioral problem. The behaviors to be corrected are over eating and maintaining a sedentary lifestyle. Forget biochemistry, forget molecular biology, forget that we are organisms pushed and pulled, twisted and re-twisted with molecules, hormones, and various chemicals. No, we are nothing but a series of behavioral events being manipulated by the environment - on the outside - and therefore obesity can be remedied through behavioral therapy. But don't carbs cause insulin to behave in a certain way? What about the regulation of lipoproteins? Are they behavioral events in and of themselves? The behaviorists don't seem to care - we are an event in an outside world - the inner world does not matter. It is all about friends, economics, food shelves, predispositions, taste buds and so on.

Freedman points out that as early as the 1960s studies based on behaviorism recognized "some basic conditions" that link themselves to the success of losing weight and keeping it off - measure calories, exercise, make small changes, eat balanced meals, and lower fats. Is he confusing correlation and cause? What Freeman does not look into are the numerous studies that show this so-called link to be at the root of the current epidemic. The link is a lie; it is a myth that we have been inundated with. Counting  calories, replacing fats with carbs, and exercising have all come under attack in recent years. Unfortunately Freeman seems to be unaware of it. He wants to fortify that very wrong approach with behavioral modification in order to correct the shortcomings of approaches like Weight Watchers by tailoring it for individuals rather than take the traditional "one fits all" approach. Are we supposed to hire our own behaviorist to deal with our obesity issues in the same way that psychoanalysis has always operated one on one? It would seem so when reading this article.

For Freedman, it seems that only behaviorists can get us to do a better job of counting calories, be motivated to exercise, avoid fats and so on. That is, until the pharmaceutical companies find the solution. As he says, "someday biology will provide us with a pill that readjusts our metabolism so we burn more calories or resets our built-in cravings so we prefer broccoli to burgers."

It is obvious that Freedman is out of touch with recent developments in the low-carb scientific community. Perhaps, he chooses to ignore it but, in any case, the article diminishes the stature of Scientific American. To uphold a dogma that has failed us and say it only needs to be improved with a new twist puts the brakes on critical thinking and innovative research.

Freedman supports a point of view that has been a monumental failure for more than 40 years and it comes just when the new updated 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans comes out, once again, in favor of this misguided and wrong approach to obesity. The guidelines will continue to fuel this wrong approach and Freedman's solution will not help. The root cause is not understood. Knowing the cause is the first thing needed before one embarks on a remedy. This failure is given tacit approval by Scientific American magazine.

At the end of the article under the heading of "more to explore" Freedman cites the following works: B.F. Skinner, About Behaviorism, Vintage 1974; Michael F. Rozen and Mehmet C. Oz, You on a Diet: The Owner's Manual for Waist Management, Free Press, 2006; Nia S. Mitchell et al., Determining the Effectiveness of Take Off Pounds Sensibly (TOPS), published online; the National Institutes of Health website: obesityresearch.nih.gov.  That says it all.

Another Low-Carb Blog?

Here we go - another low carb blog. Why? Because I'm fed up with the misinformation, incomplete facts, distortions, & misinterpretations I see and read in the media about diet, nutrition, obesity, & diabetes on a daily basis. It has become an irresponsible and unethical sport.  People are victimized, the science is shoddy, policy-makers are hoodwinked, corporations run a scam, physicians are confused, and the health of nations have never been worse. This is just one more blog to poke, prod, prick, and mock the so-called authorities of health and nutrition who have fed us lies, deceit, and terror and, in doing so, have inflicted suffering and death to countless folks.

Recently in the Vancouver Sun newspaper's Health section  (Monday Jan. 17, 2011) SportMedBC's Dietitian Patricia Chuey offered her food and nutrition insights in order to help the readers achieve their sport and well-being goals.

The first thing she wanted to get across was that she was debunking the idea that carbs make you fat - she was adamant they they don't. To quote her - "Too many calories from any food will cause your body to produce and store excess fat." What have we seen in the last few decades, Patricia? A decrease in fat consumption (low-fat yogurt, low-fat milk, low-fat this and low-fat that) with the added carbs. And what has happened, Patricia? An epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

Oh yes, she also debunks the idea that carbs cause diabetes. What? In her own words: "Sugar and other carbohydrates do not cause diabetes. However, an excess of refined, low-fibre high sugar carbs can negatively impact blood sugar control." So Patricia, can't you link the dots?

What does Patricia want us to do with carbs? She wants us to pick "quality" carbs and make changes such as switching to whole wheat in place of white bread; whole wheat pasta should replace white pasta. Hey Patricia, a carb is a carb and a carb in the bloodstream is glucose. Don't call it "blood sugar" -  it isn't. It is glucose. Sugar is in the pantry or on a teaspoon. Excess insulin is at the heart of diabetes (type two - the recent epidemic type). Insulin provides escort service for glucose and fills the cells with it until the day those cells put up a resistance - like "not in my backyard." The overload of glucose draws an excess of insulin. Then you are in trouble. The insulin scrapes the endothelial cell linings of arterial walls and leads to further damage - clots, blockages and so on. Soon you crave more carbs and the vicious cycle becomes permanent. At some time the pancreas crashes, like an overused computer. Then you need insulin as in Type One.

Chuey believes that "diabetes is a complex condition with many genetic and environmental contributors." So Patricia, why do the good doctors offer us insulin as a remedy? Which is stupid anyway - just remove carbs from the diet - hey, it's free. And they are not tweaking our genes or sending us to sunny Florida as a cure. But maybe you think they should.

Well Patricia, let's give Dr. Andrew Weil the final word. In commenting on Gary Taubes' book Good Calories, Bad Calories on Larry King Live (Oct. 19, 2007) he says that the book is full of big ideas, such that "there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the belief that fat is the driver of obesity.... its (sic) carbohydrate which is central to this process ... in which insulin is a central player ... that overeating and under activity are not causes of obesity." (transcript from Alan L. Watson, Cereal Killer: The Unintended Consequences of the Low Fat Diet).