Is it simple lack of willpower that makes fatty snacks irresistible, or are deeper biological forces at work?
Some intriguing new research suggests the latter. Scientists in California and Italy reported last week that in rats given fatty foods, the body immediately began to release natural marijuanalike chemicals in the gut that kept them craving more.
The findings are among several recent studies that add new complexity to the obesity debate, suggesting that certain foods set off powerful chemical reactions in the body and the brain. Yes, it’s still true that people gain weight because they eat more calories than they burn. But those compulsions may stem from biological systems over which the individual has no control.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/when-fatty-feasts-are-driven-by-automatic-pilot/
So, let me ask you a question: is it fatty snacks that drives you over the cravings deep end? In other words, when thinking of the foods in your diet that you have the highest impulse for, is it avocado, macadamia nuts, egg yolks, mayonnaise, bacon, lard, olive oil and coconut oil that tops out your list?
When you are depressed and vulnerable to your impulse to "chow down" - do you go out and get a bucket of Crisco?
Ever puke because you binged on a bottle of vegetable oil?
If so, let me say - you are indeed unique. Because what I see people compelled by is the combination of sugar and fat (ice cream! Icing/frosting), or sugar/wheat combinations, or perhaps carbs, fat and salt (E.G. potato chips).
I have never heard these words - "If I could just keep my hands off of those avocados, I know I could lick this weight problem." Or, "I just have to keep the olive oil out of the house or I'll drink the whole bottle."
So why are these researchers, and this writer, bothering with the "fat" angle?
Forgive the rhetorical question.
For one thing, rats are omnivores but are known not to tolerate fats as well as humans, so rat fat consumption research has to be taken for what it is; a low cost way to keep researchers employed, and to keep research publications filled. Sometimes, rat studies offer clues into human behavior, but often, not so much.
The real point boils down to this - I dare you to get fat by eating fat, while eating only vegetables for carbohydrates. You may be able to do it, but it will take a lot of effort. It may be harder than sticking to a weight loss diet. Humans just can't eat that much fat, UNLESS humans mix fat with sugar, in which case we can pound it down like John Henry with two hammers.
This article is one that would comport with Guyanet's articulation of the food/reward hypothesis. However, I think they are all ignoring the pink elephant in the room, which is, as I try to point out above, that fat is not the problem. Sugars and bread are the problem. There's just no reason to believe that the one third of us that are sick from eating too much of the wrong kinds of foods need to eat less fat, or that the fat is what drives the over consumption. When you remove fat, appetite is not well controlled, nor is the urge to overeat diminished. On the contrary, for obese people, removing fat is almost torture, whereas removing carbohydrate while eating enough protein and fat predictably results in a much better outcome (for most) with a spontaneous reduction of caloric intake.
Eat meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit and starch, and no sugar/wheat.
Some intriguing new research suggests the latter. Scientists in California and Italy reported last week that in rats given fatty foods, the body immediately began to release natural marijuanalike chemicals in the gut that kept them craving more.
The findings are among several recent studies that add new complexity to the obesity debate, suggesting that certain foods set off powerful chemical reactions in the body and the brain. Yes, it’s still true that people gain weight because they eat more calories than they burn. But those compulsions may stem from biological systems over which the individual has no control.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/when-fatty-feasts-are-driven-by-automatic-pilot/
So, let me ask you a question: is it fatty snacks that drives you over the cravings deep end? In other words, when thinking of the foods in your diet that you have the highest impulse for, is it avocado, macadamia nuts, egg yolks, mayonnaise, bacon, lard, olive oil and coconut oil that tops out your list?
When you are depressed and vulnerable to your impulse to "chow down" - do you go out and get a bucket of Crisco?
Ever puke because you binged on a bottle of vegetable oil?
If so, let me say - you are indeed unique. Because what I see people compelled by is the combination of sugar and fat (ice cream! Icing/frosting), or sugar/wheat combinations, or perhaps carbs, fat and salt (E.G. potato chips).
I have never heard these words - "If I could just keep my hands off of those avocados, I know I could lick this weight problem." Or, "I just have to keep the olive oil out of the house or I'll drink the whole bottle."
So why are these researchers, and this writer, bothering with the "fat" angle?
Forgive the rhetorical question.
For one thing, rats are omnivores but are known not to tolerate fats as well as humans, so rat fat consumption research has to be taken for what it is; a low cost way to keep researchers employed, and to keep research publications filled. Sometimes, rat studies offer clues into human behavior, but often, not so much.
The real point boils down to this - I dare you to get fat by eating fat, while eating only vegetables for carbohydrates. You may be able to do it, but it will take a lot of effort. It may be harder than sticking to a weight loss diet. Humans just can't eat that much fat, UNLESS humans mix fat with sugar, in which case we can pound it down like John Henry with two hammers.
This article is one that would comport with Guyanet's articulation of the food/reward hypothesis. However, I think they are all ignoring the pink elephant in the room, which is, as I try to point out above, that fat is not the problem. Sugars and bread are the problem. There's just no reason to believe that the one third of us that are sick from eating too much of the wrong kinds of foods need to eat less fat, or that the fat is what drives the over consumption. When you remove fat, appetite is not well controlled, nor is the urge to overeat diminished. On the contrary, for obese people, removing fat is almost torture, whereas removing carbohydrate while eating enough protein and fat predictably results in a much better outcome (for most) with a spontaneous reduction of caloric intake.
Eat meat, eggs, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit and starch, and no sugar/wheat.
No comments:
Post a Comment