Almost 7 years ago, while going through some personal issues, I made a terrible mistake and ended up being convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) in the State of California. It was a dark period in my life, but I have moved on and learned my lesson. This spring, however, my intoxicated driving conviction […]
Animals like dogs and cats certainly suffer from dementia.
Yes, I know the medical report released on him yesterday stated that Trump’s weight gives him a BMI of 34 and that 30 (for better or for worse – that’s a whole other post) is where medicine defines the threshold of obesity. And yes, I know that the media consequently published piles of stories about him being obese, not to mention the many comments on social media.
But here’s the thing. You can’t “be” your chronic disease.
Chronic diseases are things people have, not who they are.
If you find this confusing, consider this – people have cancer, they aren’t cancerous.
People first language puts people first, it doesn’t define them by their medical conditions.
So yes, President Trump can be a racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, man-child with obesity, but not a racist, antisemitic, xenophobic, man-child who is obese.
[Disclosure, the lead author, Kevin Hall, is a friend of mine and we co-authored a paper together in the past]
A huge deal pre-print paper was published yesterday, “Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: A one-month inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake” that, if its results are replicable and shown to persist over longer time frames, might well explain the rapidly rising weights of the world.
While it has been shown that as food supplies become more industrialized (also referred to as Westernized), weights rise, the reasons why remained unclear. Many have tried to explain away the gains as shifts in the macronutrient composition of a society’s diet and depending on the era (or the guru), have pointedly vilified dietary fat, dietary carbohydrates, animal protein, lectins, grains, sugar, and more. Some have done so in part on the basis that when their dietary demon of choice is removed from their adherents’ diets, they are seen to lose weight, often even in the absence of tracking calories or anything else for that matter. But common to most of those diets and anecdotes, is their necessitation of forgoing our ultra-processed world and in its place bringing in a great deal more cooking and meal preparation.
Before we get to Kevin’s study, here’s a basic definition of ultra-processed foods
“formulations mostly of cheap industrial sources of dietary energy and nutrients plus additives, using a series of processes”
If you’re interested, you can read more about them here. But for the sake of this study, think of them as the boxes and jars of ready-to-eat and ready-to-heat foods.
So what did Kevin and his colleagues do?
They admitted 10 male and 10 female weight stable adults as inpatients to the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit at the NIH where they lived for 28 days. They were randomly assigned to either the ultra-processed or unprocessed diet for 2 weeks at which point they crossed over to the other diet for two weeks.
During each diet arm, participants were offered 3 daily meals and they were instructed to eat as much or as little of them as they wanted. Menus were designed to be matched for total calories, energy density, macronutrients, fibre, sugar, and sodium, but differed in the percentage of calories coming from ultra-processed sources.
And the results?
When consuming ultra-processed food diets people ate on average 508 more calories per day. That’s roughly a meal worth. That’s huge!
And not surprisingly given this finding, people gained weight on the ultra-processed diet (1.7lbs in just 2 weeks) and lost weight on the flip side (2.4lbs in just 2 weeks).
And there was another surprise. Participants didn’t rate the ultra-processed foods as being more pleasant or familiar – meaning the results don’t appear to have been a reflection of the ultra-processed menu simply being more delicious.
As to what’s going on?
People ate ultra-processed foods faster and this may explain part of the increased caloric consumption, but the bigger possibility according to the authors might be protein. People also ate less protein from the ultra-processed diets something that Kevin believes might help to explain up to 50% of the increased caloric intake by way of something called the protein leverage hypothesis which suggests our bodies attempt to maintain a constant protein intake, and so people consuming less protein from ultra-processed foods may be eating more of them to try to maintain some predetermined physiologically-desired/governed protein intake.
Now this is just a very brief overview, and there will undoubtedly be deeper dives into this including in regard to the various metabolic parameters measured (including hunger hormones and peptides), but given how significant the findings appear to be, I thought I ought to whip something up quickly and the calorie piece is by far the most striking and most important in the context of it being a unifying smoking gun for global weight gain.
It’s also worth noting, and Kevin did so on Twitter and in the paper itself, while the results of this study definitely suggest that markedly reducing or eliminating ultra-processed foods in our diets may well help with our weights, that doing so requires a great deal of privilege, time, skill, and expense. The good news though is that there are ample levers in our food environment that would be ripe for reform that would have nothing to do with the usual lenses of blaming and shaming. From improved school foods and school food policies that reduce ultra-processed offerings, to bolstering the case for bringing back home economics, to furthering the calls to ban junk food marketing to children (and adults), to changing food culture such that ultra-processed foods aren’t the cornerstone of every event no matter how small, to pushing ultra-processed junk food out of sport and sport sponsorships, to putting an end to ultra-processed junk food fund raising, to institutional and corporate cafeterias offering reforms, to strengthening front of package labeling reforms by perhaps not permitting front of package claims on ultra-processed foods (or adding warnings), and more.
Even more good news is that a focus on ultra-processed food as a whole, especially one coming from a place of causality, is a focus that pretty much every diet cult can get firmly behind.
Todays guest post comes from Colleen O’Connor and Justine Horne, two registered dietitians who recently set out to investigate whether there’s a difference between the information provided online by regulated health professionals (registered dietitians), and unregulated sources of dietary information (nutritionists), when it comes to “detox” diets. Guess what? There was. Here’s their study published in the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research and below are their thoughts on same
With January being prime time for New Year’s resolutions, you’ve probably recently seen a plethora of social media ads preaching the life-changing benefits of every diet under the sun, including detox diets.
So do we really need to detox? Is drinking lemon water for a week going to cleanse our bodies from all of those supposedly evil toxins that surround us day to day? Is a detox diet the solution to your life-long struggle with weight management? Is “cleansing” your body with things like activated charcoal beverages even safe?
You may have guessed that the answer to all of these questions is no. So why are we so intrigued by detox diets?
Part of the reason may lie in the information we read online. Our group from Brescia University College at Western University in London, Ontario reviewed information posted on nutrition blogs about detox diets and this research was published today in the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research. The study aimed to determine if nutritionists and dietitians in Ontario are providing safe, science-based information and advice about detox diets online.
But wait…is there a difference between a dietitian and nutritionist?
In Ontario, yes there is – anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. That’s right, you can open up your own business as a self-proclaimed “nutritionist,” sell your nutrition services to friends, family, and whoever else you wish and hey, some insurance companies will even cover the cost of your services! You may have never read a single word about nutrition, yet you can call yourself a “nutritionist.” Do you see anything wrong with this situation?
We certainly do.
Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Quebec do too. That’s why their provincial legislation protects the title “nutritionist” for use exclusively by those with extensive scientific education and nutrition training – registered dietitians (also referred to as ‘dietitians’). Registered dietitians complete an accredited 4-year bachelor of science program to learn about the science behind food and nutrition, complete a competitive internship consisting of at least 1250 hours of supervised practical training, and pass a national 6 hr exam. They must continually keep up with the latest and greatest scientific evidence in nutrition, and are registered members of a regulatory college which is responsible for ensuring dietitians are promoting science-based, safe nutrition advice through a quality assurance program.
So our group from Brescia University College at Western University looked at the information posted online about detoxes from Ontario-based dietitians’ as well as “nutritionists’” websites. We compared this information to the latest peer-reviewed scientific review article on detox diets and overall, found the following:
If you consider that anyone can call themselves a “nutritionist” in Ontario, these findings really aren’t surprising. But they are concerning.
Our study highlights that the current situation in Ontario has the potential to do harm to the general public. Ontario legislation around the open use of the term “nutritionist” needs to change. If you agree, feel free to show your support through e-signing this change.org petition.
The fact that somebody can easily get roped into spending their precious time, energy and money on nutrition services that have no scientific merit and the potential to do harm is really upsetting. If you’re seeking out nutrition information, make sure it’s coming from someone credible, like a dietitian. In Canada, you can search for a dietitian near you by clicking here, or by clicking here. Many health insurance companies cover the cost of dietitian services. Dietitians are also available through family health teams, hospitals, community health centres, and other public healthcare organizations. If you just have some quick questions about nutrition, dietitians are now part of TeleHealth Ontario. Give them a call at 1-866-797-0000 to chat for free or visit UnlockFood.ca.
So rather than detox dieting, devote your efforts to making sustainable, life-long, science-backed lifestyle changes. Start small, with 1 or 2 specific changes and keep these up until they become habits. Then add something new. Small, sustainable lifestyle changes can add up to a major lifestyle overhaul and set you on your road to health and well-being.
Colleen O’Connor is a registered dietitian and an associate professor in the School of Food and Nutritional Sciences at Brescia University. She worked as a clinical dietitian in various settings before returning to school and completing her Ph.D. at the University of Guelph. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in clinical nutrition. Recent research has included interests in the effects of fermented foods on human health, effects of smart phone apps on influencing healthy behaviours in youth, and nutrient intake of residents in long-term care. She is registered with the College of Dietitians of Ontario and is also a member of Dietitians of Canada and the Canadian Nutrition Society. You can find her on Twitter here.
Justine Horne is a registered dietitian and PhD candidate in Health and Aging at the University of Western Ontario. She received a CIHR Frederick Banting and Charles Best Doctoral Award for her PhD work, which aims to assess the utility of innovative personalized nutrition strategies to help patients improve health behaviours and achieve a healthy body weight. Justine currently works as a dietitian at the East Elgin Family Health Team. She is registered with the College of Dietitians of Ontario and is also a member of Dietitians of Canada and the Canadian Nutrition Society. You can find her on Twitter here.
Stephen Daisley, in The Spectator, on the UK’s Labour party and the banality of antisemitism.
Miko, in Mind Body Miko, on the ugly side of becoming a surgeon.
Joanna Hellmuth, Gil Rabinovici, and Bruce Miller, in JAMA, on the rise of quackery for dementia and brain health (read it before it disappears behind the paywall).
Genetic risks can be washed out by the mind’s deception
50 million deaths led to climate change 500 years ago
Birds may use their beaks to feel around for their prey.
Searching Antarctic waters for Shackleton’s lost ship The Endurance
A stick-on sensor sucks in sweat and can reveal dehydration
Solitary confinement – what science says about the effects on mental health
|12oz can of Coca-Cola = 39g of free sugar (9.75tsp) offered to residents at recent CaRMS event|
Today’s guest post comes from first year medical resident Jen Crichton (who you can follow on Twitter). After she came back from a recent CaRMS event and told me what was being served (she’s spending a month with us at our office), it reminded me that people consume what they’re given, and that of all people, physicians ought to be considering that in their offerings.
Canada’s 2019 Food Guide was released in January. One of many welcome changes is the recommendation for water as the beverage of choice. The new Guide also recommends that sugary drinks (100% fruit juice, milk or milk substitutes with added sugars, soda pop, sports and energy drinks, etc.) not be consumed regularly. Section 2 of the Guide states that:
“Foods and beverages offered in publicly funded institutions should align with Canada’s Dietary Guidelines.”
Many universities have previously banned the sale of bottled water on campus (to name just a few: McGill, Ottawa, Queen’s, York). These initiatives are motivated by obvious and warranted sustainability concerns about plastics. However, by continuing the sale of other sugary drinks in plastic bottles we are ignoring the elephant in the room. Why do we vilify bottled water but not bottled water with added sugar? A 2016 guest post by Sean Bawden explored this idea:
“Bottled water is seen as wasteful and unnecessary (See this video as an example); a stigma that did not seem to attach to a similar disposable bottle if filled with something other than water […] A plastic bottle is a plastic bottle; any environmental concerns and any objections to the use of such containers should apply equally, regardless of the container’s contents.”
|Sustainable water drinking containers are great but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.|
It’s no secret that food environments shape our choices. Anecdotally, I was a part of one undergraduate medical event where organizers made the effort to purchase still and sparkling water off campus and bring it back on-site themselves. Many students had a relieved and refreshed reaction at the less common option of sparkling water.
Conversely, having just completed the CaRMS tour a year ago, I remember the challenges of making healthy choices amid the constant travel, social events, and interview day breakfasts and lunches. This year I empathized with the candidates who were on just one of many stops on a cross-country journey. Each interview day is high stakes; all are hoping to match to a residency program in order to complete their medical training. Do they really need the added decision of choosing water over freely available orange juice or soda pop? Or perhaps it’s not even a conscious decision because of the social stigma associated with bottled water compared to other beverages? Or the stress and vulnerability of the day leads them to choose a sugary option that they would not otherwise consider? Similar to at other medical events:
“All of the [people] here are human, when faced with indulgent dietary choices, they choose them.”
As residents, we are the next generation of physicians in training. Across many different medical specialties, we counsel patients to avoid sugar-sweetened beverages for their own health. We lament with our patients that the food environment around us can be challenging to always make healthier choices. And then on a personal level, residency can be a time of sleep deprivation and limited self-care activities such as cooking and exercise. In medicine, and really in any field where one has public influence, we need to stop shying away from opportunities to be leaders in the promotion of water as the beverage of choice for health.
Sure, it can be hard to please everyone at events. However, in an area where there’s really no longer any debate in terms of health impacts and recommendations, let’s choose to be better role models with respect to excessive sugar consumption and its role in obesity and other chronic diseases. I’m not suggesting that we embrace the disposable plastic water bottle wholeheartedly but rather that we should re-think our indifference (or even preference) towards other sugary drinks delivered in plastic bottles or otherwise.
The challenge is ours in how to create supportive environments that remind us to bring a reusable bottle or cup, that make access to safe drinking water readily available, and that do not punish our health by offering sugary drink choices.
It does not need to be complicated. It just needs to be the default.
Proposed simple guidelines for colleges, universities, hospitals, and other publicly funded institutions to follow:
Jen Crichton is a Family Medicine resident doctor in training at the University of Ottawa with interests in nutrition and exercise as they intersect with all aspects of primary care. She loves all things active: CrossFit, running, and puppies.
Last week saw the BMJ’s publication of a new meta-analysis on whether breakfast is useful to weight management. And, entirely predictably, it was clickbait for journalists as well as for those who believe breakfast’s benefits are a myth. The question that leaped to my mind when reading the coverage was whether or not anyone actually read the study. Because to describe it as weak, at least in my opinion, would be unbearably generous. But at least one person read it. Finnish registered dietitian Reijo Laatikainen, as he published his own thoughts on his blog, and so rather than write up mine, I invited him to write an English language version here as a guest post.
Challenging deep-rooted health beliefs is always welcome and refreshing, and not something to be feared, but can the BMJ’s new breakfast meta-analysis really conclude whether breakfast benefits weight management?
The meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on breakfast skipping published last Tuesday along with a related op-ed by Tim Spector.
Both the meta-analysis and the opinion piece criticize the nutritional recommendations of many countries and organizations which promote the role of a balanced breakfast as an important part of a healthy dietary pattern. Interestingly, the role of breakfast in both of the BMJ papers is reduced to a weight management issue. Neither paper discusses other potential effects of breakfast consumption such as blood glucose control, energy expenditure, or lipid metabolism, and instead, without data, both papers seem to indirectly imply that breakfast has no health benefits whatsoever.
But back to weight management which was the scope of the study. The first sentence of the conclusions of the meta-analysis reads:
“This study suggests that eating breakfast is not a good weight management strategy.”
Does it though? My faith is tested.
In order to understand the effect of any strategy, dietary or otherwise, on weight management, first and foremost, the study must be long enough, ideally years, and in fact this is regularly seen with studies of different diets. For example, there are several meta-analyses of low-carbohydrate diet (LCD) RCTs with minimum durations of 6 months, and there are even studies with multi-year durations. This is appropriate of course given the question being asked is whether a particular diet has an impact on something that by definition is of long-term duration as temporarily lost weight may not stay lost forever.
This breakfast meta-analysis is not like those compiled for LCDs. Here, a total of 13 studies were included of which 4 did not last longer than a single day. In fact none of studies lasted even 6 months with the longest being 16 weeks, and the shortest just 8 hours. Most studies lasted 1-4 weeks. When all these short, heterogenous studies were merged together, a 260 kcal increase in energy intake and 0.4 kg (0.88lb) weight gain was observed among breakfast eaters as compared with breakfast skippers.
And whether you’re on team breakfast or not, I think all would agree that the studies included were of such short duration that even compiled together, they simply cannot reliably conclude anything about breakfast’s utility to long-term weight management.
So what about the actual content of breakfast studied, what did the subjects eat? This is (inadequately) explained in Table 2. Commonly mentioned breakfast was juice with cereal and/or white bread. In one study, breakfast is described as follows:
“Bran cereal between 7 and 8 am, and a chocolate covered cookie between 10 30 and 11 am.”
Does anyone really assume that such a breakfast would benefit weight management? In which country or organization’s nutrition recommendation is such a breakfast recommended?
A few more things are worth noting. Studies on children and adolescents were excluded from the analysis. Similarly, studies of people with type 2 diabetes, where protein-rich breakfasts were shown to improve blood glucose control and reduce weight [ref, ref, and ref] were excluded from this analysis.
As a result of these shortcomings, this study clearly can’t conclude anything about the impact of consuming a balanced and protein-rich breakfast on any aspect of long term health or weight management. Its conclusions are also contradicted by cohort studies which provide some information on long-term breakfast skipping which in turn suggest that skippers tend to be heavier.
Putting aside the problem with drawing long term conclusions on short term studies, at best, the most generous conclusion that can be drawn from this BMJ meta-analysis is that a low-quality breakfast does not help in weight management, and may even make it more difficult.
In order to truly decipher the role of breakfast to weight management and to health as whole, randomized trials of at least 6 months duration, with a balanced, protein-rich breakfast, are needed, and attention should be paid to its impacts on both healthy subjects as well as those with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, changes in glucose metabolism and blood cholesterol, should be monitored as breakfast skipping might potentially worsen glucose tolerance even among healthy people and/or elevate their cholesterol.
One thing though is certain. This paper definitely does not provide even a remotely definitive answer to the breakfast question. At best, it reveals how weak the current quality of randomized breakfast studies.
PS. Just so that there’s no confusion I’d like to explicitly state that breakfast is by no means a miraculous maneuver which is a categorial prerequisite for successful weight management. If you’re a breakfast skipper, and your weight is managed to your satisfaction, you don’t struggle with dietary restraint in the evenings, and your lipid and glucose values are within normal range, you are encouraged to continue to skipping breakfast.
Reijo Laatikainen, PhD, MBA, is registered dietitian working at Aava medical centre and Docrates cancer centre in Helsinki, Finland. You’ll find him at Twitter @pronutritionist
Helen Rosner, in the New Yorker, with the story you didn’t know you needed to read about rutabagas.
AC Shilton, in Outside, on how her transition from competitive endurance athlete to farmer saved her body image.
Alia Wong, in the Atlantic, on the terribleness that is often modern day P.E.
Rocking your brain to sleep – why it’s not just good for babies
Anchiornis was a dinosaur with feathers, but could it fly?
Lasers, phasers and ray guns – the quest to make a ‘death ray’
Scientists reverse engineer a 300-million-year-old land animal
The science of sway measures how well musicians play
People often come to me wanting to lose weight or improve their lifestyle, but their moods are anything but well.
Sometimes, when I ask them about it, they’ll say that their weight is why they think they’re struggling with depression or anxiety.
I always tell them the same thing.
Mood comes first.
Intentional weight loss requires the very things that mood disturbances often preclude – the ability to consistently, plan, organize, and motivate. Setting yourself up to struggle with weight loss by attempting to affect intentional changes when your mood is squarely in the way is not only unfair, it might make matters worse by giving you something to feel guilty about when you’re understandably and realistically challenged. And it’s also important to note that your mental health is far more important than your weight.
So regardless of your weight, whether its working with your family physician, your employee assistance program, reading books, talking to friends, or looking into community based counselling resources (many of which offer sliding scales for payment), mental health should be your first priority.
Sometimes I use a running analogy.
You can’t start work on learning how to run if your ankle’s currently sprained.
First you work on your ankle. Then you learn to run.
First mood. Then weight.
(And remember, for every #BellLetsTalk tweet, RT, and Facebook share today, Bell will donate a nickel towards mental health. And yes, it’s marketing for them, but unlike hospitals raising money with cookies, telecommunication does not contribute to the burden of societal illness or promote an unhealthy lifestyle – so tweet and share away!)
Horrible behavior but it wouldn’t have happened 50 yrs ago because everyone would have had enough leg room. I flew Air Canada Rouge (@AirCanadaRouge) in 2018 and it was like being crew on a WWI submarine. Something has to change.
As I mentioned last week, Canada’s new Food Guide is a giant step forward.
But having read through all the published materials to date, and putting aside things that are beyond the ability of a food guide to address (like food insecurity for instance), I do believe there’s one very large missed guidance opportunity – nutrition, kids and sports.
As it stands, I couldn’t find anything.
And that’s a shame because there’s a huge amount of misinformation out there about what kids’ “refuelling“, “recovering“, or “rehydrating“. There’s also a massive industry built to prey on kids and their parents telling them that they need electrolyte enhanced sugar water, or chocolate milk every time they move for a few minutes. There are community races that teach kids running a 5km fun run that they need a banana, bagel, juice, and a protein bar for a 40 minute jog. There are league run programs like Tim Hortons’ “I just played I’m thirsty” to bring kids and their parents in and cultivate brand loyalty. There are partnerships between dairy producers and the NFL designed to promote chocoloate milk, and I guess determined not to be left out, Nesquik partnered with the American Youth Soccer Organization to sell chocolate syrup.
And as any parent today knows, snack time for pretty much any organized sport is a sport-washed junk parade.
Consequently, I would have loved to see a section of Canada’s Food Guide’s guidance devoted to kids and sports. A section that explained that if it’s less than an hour, probably the only thing the kids need is water – and even then, only if they’re thirsty. And that there are no sugary beverages that kids can quaff that will appreciably improve their performance, or help them to recover, and that when it comes to organized sport, leagues and coaches should be encouraged to affect changes to see sidelines and post game snacking relegated to the water and fruit slices of yesteryear. Though that guidance alone would not lead to immediate change, having it be part of Canada’s Food Guide would support public health advocates and parental champions in their efforts to affect change, and over time, slowly seep into the public consciousness.
As to how to fix it?
Well here’s the thing. In 2019 the new Food Guide need not be a static set of documents. Living online the guide can expand, contract, and change on an evidence-based and as needed basis. Which means there’s nothing stopping Health Canada from spending the tiny bit of time required to suss out this topic and publish it alongside already available guidance.
Here’s hoping we see it soon.
WTF happened? Did the dispatcher pass out just before the storm hit? Did the plow-guy bust a leg trying to smuggle a hooker into the barracks through a back window? Or did they stop at VP and say Fuck it its Scarborough lets turn arou…
Do you ever feel like you’re on the verge of a breakthrough, but you’re not quite sure how you’ll do it? This has been my mindset lately. I’ve been so inspired in different areas of my life to create meaningful change with things like personal growth, career dreams, family life, etc. You could say that […]
A dose of super poo could save lives when all else fail
Apollo 11 really was just one small step in a long road to the moon
Fish are easier to prey on in cold water
Termites act like a buffer against serious droughts in tropical forests
Dialing back the brain’s alarm system in soldiers might prevent PTSD
Elephants are evolving to be tuskless in response to poaching
Discovery of room temperature superconductors a ‘holy grail of physics’
Scott Kelly on spending a year in space and experiencing ‘Infinite Wonder’
Women feel pain more, but men are more likely to remember it
Ocean warming is directly linked to a dangerous increase in wave strength
Edmonton’s water supply could be impacted by the melting Columbia Icefield.
The Gillette corporation recently released one of those warm and fuzzy prosocial lifestyle ads. It was an innocuous little string of inspirational skits, a bit of virtue-signalling whose message, basically, is “Don’t Be A Dick”. It’s a #MeToo update of…
It’s an overworked phrase, and too often the stuff of conspiracy theories, but—this one’s real. And once again the Usual Suspects either fell for it—or were part of the unfunny joke. Canadian Islamic Party, eh? If you figured it was…
There is NEVER room for racist attacks or racial valuations in Canadian politics! It’s appropriate that the Liberal Candidate has withdrawn her candidacy in this key byelection!Press Progress* =typo corrected.