What's wrong with obesity drugs?

Scientists from the University of Liverpool in the UK argue that anti-obesity drugs fail to provide lasting benefits for health and wellbeing because they tackle the biological consequences of obesity and not the important psychological causes of overconsumption and weight gain.

An article published by Medical News Today sadly demonstrates the state of chaos the obesity solutions community finds itself in today.  The impression I get is that all these brilliant minds are effectively trying to reinvent the wheel.  Why can’t they take a sideways look at what their colleagues are doing before jumping to illogical conclusions?

There is no doubt that some very clever and insightful people have been working long and hard at unravelling obesity.  It is clearly the greatest health threat to the world today and has been directly linked with increased incidence of killer diseases including heart disease, cancer, diabetes as well as reduced immune system potency.

But let’s step back for a moment and think about what’s happening…

There is no disputing that obesity is bad for us, both individually and communally.  But that’s where the consensus stops!  The Liverpool scientists have poignantly reminded us that the focus of most research and development is on the ‘biological consequences of obesity’; that is the symptoms of the disease, and not the cause itself.
Imagine you’re driving along in the middle of the harsh Australian outback and a red warning light starts flashing on your dashboard indicating that the motor is overheating.  You could…
a.    Research the psychological impact of the warning light on the driver;
b.    Research the physical consequences of ignoring the light;
c.    Develop a method of masking the light to improve the driver’s quality of life; or
d.    Find out what caused the light to come on in the first place, and then develop a solution for that problem.

If it were me, as curious as I would be about the first 3 options, my sense of prioritisation would be to identify the cause, fix it if possible, and then prevent it from recurring.

How is it then that the world’s esteemed and educated scientists can allow themselves such a momentary lapse of reason, that they could not correctly prioritise their efforts?  Why after all these years of living with the obesity epidemic, have we not bothered to scientifically ascertain what causes obesity?  Instead, the obesity fraternity has devoted most of its resources to finding smart ways of controlling symptoms such as gaining weight and diabetes.

In true form, the Liverpool scientists (like most obesity experts) make the disappointing assumption that obesity is caused by eating too much food and not exercising enough.  Interestingly, they then go on to make a second assumption that the appetite of obese people is essentially psychological.  Both of these assumptions are fundamentally flawed.  I have personally met hundreds of people who exercise plenty and eat healthy food in sensible moderation, yet are still gaining weight and find it impossible to shed.  Furthermore, I have personally witnessed hundreds of people regain control over their cravings and appetite simply by adjusting the hormonal balance through the food they eat.

But seriously, if the Liverpool scientists are right, then can somebody please explain why the obesity epidemic is still going?  If losing weight was as simple as eating less and moving more, and appetite was simply mind over matter, we would not have an obesity epidemic.

Here’s the proof; infant obesity under 6 months of age has increased 73% in the past two decades.  When was the last time a 3 month old baby dined on fast food or joined a gym?  These babies innocently refute the notion that obesity has anything to do with exercise or eating too much food.

“But,” I hear you protest, “they must have inherited it from their mother!  Their mother must have eaten too much and exercised too little.”  Really?  Don’t you think such an important issue would have attracted the attention of at least one scientist somewhere in the world to test this theory?  Well actually, a few scientists did test this theory, and guess what they discovered; they found that obesity in babies was being caused not by their mothers overeating or under-exercising, but by exposure to everyday chemicals in their homes and workplaces.  In fact, so pronounced was the impact of these chemicals, that they were given a name.  Obesogens are chemicals which are known to disrupt the body’s natural endocrine (hormonal) balance, with life-threatening consequences including obesity, infertility and gender-bending.

That sounds like a cause to me.

Unfortunately it appears nobody bothered to tell the scientists at the University of Liverpool.  They still think that “obesity is the result of many motivational factors that have evolved to encourage us to eat, not least our susceptibility to the attractions of food and the pleasures of eating energy rich foods.”  Did anybody at the University bother to apply scientific principles by questioning whether attraction to certain foods could have a physical or chemical cause, and not a psychological one?

Believing that obesity is caused by motivational factors is an insult to the millions of overweight men, women and children who know all too well that all the determination in the world will not change the way their body functions (or in this case, malfunctions).

To the educated and well-intentioned scientists at the University of Liverpool, I implore you to devote some of your energies to scientifically identifying the real cause of obesity instead of lazily assuming that the obesity industry’s self-serving propaganda is valid.

An interview with Tim

Social media certainly doesn't appear to be showing any signs of slowing down.  Thanks to a fascinating new social media website, I now have a transcripted interview.  Click the logo to view my interview transcript now...

Dieting match made in heaven

You have to hand it to MacDonalds.  They have become masters at marketing and public relations.  In the latest round, MacDonalds has convinced Weight Watchers that partnering with the giant fast food chain is good for both parties.  Is it?

Who is MacDonalds?  Well they’re a USD23.5 billion dollar multinational food franchise business with almost 32,000 outlets globally (MacDonalds 2008 Financial Report).  MacDonalds has attracted criticism for its focus on fast food which according to some is unhealthy.  Personally, I haven’t eaten at MacDonalds or any similar fast food outlets for many years, however I’m sure their food is no more unhealthy than any other fast food outlet.

…and Weight Watchers?  They’re a multinational weight management franchise, although substantially smaller than MacDonalds with an annual turnover of just USD1.4bn.

See the NZ news story here

The odd thing here is that a weight management company is teaming up with a fast food company in a market environment where traditionally fast food has been associated with weight gain.  So how should we interpret the partnership?

MacDonalds clearly wants to position itself as a healthy food provider and a Weight Watchers endorsement of some of its products will achieve that in many customers’ minds.  Having a reputable weight management brand on their menu is likely to attract more weight conscious customers to MacDonalds.

Weight Watchers wants to position itself as a credible leader in weight management and providing endorsements to well known food brands achieves this goal.  Having its brand highly visible in a fast food environment will give more people a reason to think of Weight Watchers as the brand of choice for weight management.

So we know why each party wants do work together, but what does Weight Watchers endorsements of MacDonalds’ products mean for the average person?

In my opinion, it only perpetuates the myth that losing weight is achieved by reducing calories.  Weight Watchers’ promotion of the calorie theory is now widely accepted by the marketplace as the only explanation for weight gain and the only solution for weight loss.

We have discussed previously that weight gain is a symptom of an underlying endocrine imbalance caused by exposure to environmental or food chain obesogens.  Losing some weight is achievable for most people by reducing caloric intake, but rarely will a person achieve their ideal natural weight via this approach alone.  The reason?  Because the chemical processes required to break down triglycerides and release fat from the fat cell are malfunctioning and the energy deficit caused by expending more calories than you intake, is stolen from muscles and organs.  Whether you get your calories from fast food or healthier foods, it makes little difference to an overweight person’s inability to achieve their ideal goal weight and determination has little to do with it.

Considering that one of the body’s sources of obesogens is via the food chain, it is highly advisable to minimise consumption of highly processed foods and especially those which contain chemicals.  How do you do that?  Whenever I find a need to buy processed or packaged food from the supermarket, I always compare similar products and choose the one with the least chemicals in it.  In Australia at least, our food labelling laws require chemicals to be identified by unique numbers, so it’s easy to spot the chemicals.

Smaller testicles are no laughing matter

This one comes direct from the weird fact file, but it’s no laughing matter.

Recent studies have proved conclusively that Danes have smaller testicles than their Finnish neighbours.  Before you go and crack a joke about it over a beer with your mates, you’d better read the fine print.

The cause has been identified as a higher exposure to environmental chemicals including phthalates (found in perfumes and hairspray), PFOS/PFOA (found in non-stick coatings), biphenols, flame retardants, dioxins and pesticides.  Each of these chemicals has been shown to cause hormone disruption.

Before you dismiss the findings of this study on the assumption that Denmark is a long way from home, bear in mind that these chemicals are equally as prevalent in other developed nations including Britain, America and Australia.

Feeling a bit squirmy now?

What might make you even more uncomfortable is the knowledge that many known gender-bending chemicals have already been banned in Europe, but are still in use across the UK, US and Australia.  A recent UK study demonstrated that women exposed to hairspray in the workplace (ie: hairdressers) tripled their risk of having sons with a genital deformity called hypospadias which usually requires surgery.  Likewise the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention observed a doubling of hypospadias between 1968 to 1993.

The researchers also observed interference with male hormone levels in the brain, with one US study showing that boys who played least with toy guns were exposed to the highest levels uterine phthalates (ie: while they were in their mother’s womb).  The researchers concluded that exposure to gender-bending chemicals even at low environmental levels can cause profound and permanent changes.

The Dane have responded to this alarming research by introducing some of the toughest regulations in the world banning a host of known hormone disrupting chemicals.

Meanwhile in a bathroom near you, these same chemicals continue to be used without any care for the consequences on ourselves or our progeny.

…or are you getting the message?

Synthetic chemicals in our food chain and environment do very bad things to the human body.  They disrupt our fragile hormone system leading to dramatically higher risks of cancer (breast, testicular, ovarian, uterine etc.), alteration of gender behaviours, obesity syndrome (the root cause of the modern obesity epidemic) and many other maladies.

Unfortunately we are all exposed to many of these environmental chemicals simply because we live in a society that uses them.  So we can’t eliminate our exposure to them completely.  But our bodies can cope with some exposure to toxins providing we have good nutrition.  Our body uses the nutrients we consume to protect itself against toxins.  Thanks to the ‘convenience’ and ‘efficiency’ mentality of our predecessors, we have inherited a world with increased toxicity and reduced nutrition which makes it doubly hard to counter.

The takeaway message is simple: Do what you can to minimise exposure to and use of synthetic chemicals in your home.  Find chemical free alternatives to your personal care products.  Choose processed foods from the supermarket shelf very carefully, buying those which have the least amount of chemicals in them.  Of course, buy whole foods as much as possible and cook your own meals so you know what is in them.  If needs be, change your taste.  Take good multivitamins daily.  Above all, become aware of what you are doing to yourself and your loved ones through your choices.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think convenience is worth risking my life for.


References

Main K, Toppari J, Suomi A, Kaleva M, Chellakooty M, Scmidt IM, Virtanen HE, Boisen A, Kai CM, Damgaard IN, Skakkebaek NE, Larger Testes and Higher Inhibin B Levels in Finnish than in Danish Newborn Boys The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2006. Volume 91, No. 7, Pages 2732-2737

Ormond G, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Nelson P, Toledano MB, Iszatt N, et al, Endocrine Disruptors in the Workplace, Hair Spray, Folate Supplementation, and Risk of Hypospadias: Case–Control Study, 2009, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 117(2)

Swan SH, Liu F, Hines M, Kruse RL, Wang C, Redmon JB, Sparks A, Weiss B, Prenatal phthalate exposure and reduced masculine play in boys, November 2009, International Journal of Andrology

The unbreakable fat cycle

“The simplistic idea that obesity can be explained by two factors: energy intake and energy expenditure, is now being challenged due to the lack of success in decreasing obesity based on a focus on only these two factors,” stated scientists at the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in 2009.

For around 15 years I have been teaching that foodborne and environmental chemicals disrupt the body's fat metabolism mechanism. It is a welcome relief to finally see some scientific evidence to support this.

University of California Irvine’s Professor Bruce Blumberg calls them ‘obesogens’. Obesogens are to obesity what carcinogens are to cancer, except there is one subtle but important difference; obesogens appear to cause permanent endocrine disruption which cannot be reversed simply by avoiding obesogens thereafter.

Certain petroleum-based chemicals (including xenoestrogens) are well documented as having endocrine disrupting effects, including gender-bending, infertility, fat gain and resistance to fat loss. Additionally, xenoestrogens mimic natural estrogen in the body, and contribute to a condition known as estrogen dominance which itself has a long list of all too familiar symptoms.

In a perfect endocrine environment where hormones are functioning correctly, the calorie theory works. Calories in minus calories out leaves a person with a surplus or deficit weight. This agrees with the first law of thermodynamics and makes sense. However, if the chemical mechanisms which mobilise fat from the fat cells are not functioning correctly, then all the exercise in the world will not cause fat loss.

It has been widely documented that somatotropin (otherwise known as Human Growth Hormone or hGH) is abnormally low in obese and overweight people. hGH is the hormone which triggers a receptor on each fat cell which in turn releases fat (simplified explanation). If hGH is not being secreted by the pituitary gland at sufficient levels to perform this task, then fat cannot be shed optimally, and so weight loss becomes problematic. It has also been demonstrated that going to bed later than your usual bedtime prevents hGH from being secreted at its daily peak level, meaning those who do not observe a regular bedtime will find fat loss less likely.

The secondary problem is hyperinsulinemia (over-reactive insulin). The more obese a person is, the worse the insulin reaction is to carbohydrates. It's like an allergy to carbs/sugars, which does not exist in people whose endocrine system is functioning normally. I can eat loads of carbs and sugars (read lots of calories) and my weight hasn't budged for 20 years. If a slightly overweight person ate the same as me, they would store more fat and to make matters worse, they would find themselves strongly attracted to carbohydrates (almost addicted). It is this predisposition to fat storage and resistance to fat mobilisation that is the real problem. Obesity is merely a physical deformity caused by this underlying metabolic problem called Obesity Syndrome.

Obesity Syndrome is then an endocrine imbalance caused by non-food and non-lifestyle factors over which we may have limited influence in our personal lives. What do you think happens to all the chemicals our bodies are bombarded with? They cannot be metabolised by our body, and are treated as invaders (toxins), stored in the body's rubbish bins (fat cells), meant for collection by hGH (rubbish collector) each night to be carted away by the lymphatic system (garbage truck), but when the garbage truck arrives, the rubbish bins are locked (fat cell receptors jammed) and cannot be opened. So goes the cycle, on and on.

As hGH is itself abnormally low in obese and overweight people, it is also unable to function efficiently and even without the fat cell receptors being jammed by toxins (rubbish bins locked), the hGH is less able to break down triglycerides and mobilise fat.

Let's use the garbage man analogy to explain Obesity Syndrome...



















This is how the fat cells are supposed to function.  They store energy, nutrients and toxins which are emptied by hGH (mostly while you're asleep at night), the toxins flushed away through the lymphatic system, energy released into the blood stream for use in physical activity, and nutrients used throughout the body as needed.

So what is different with Obesity Syndrome?



















Unless a person is at their body's ideal natural weight, this malfunction cannot be controlled by exercise and dieting. This is precisely why devout dieters plateau. It often has nothing to do with determination or self-control, but is actually a physiological malfunction which any amount of exercise will not rectify.

That said, careful control of how we eat can return the body to 'normality', except that the underlying condition is still there and the predisposition to fat storage and resistance to fat mobilisation never goes away.

...at least until scientists figure out a way to permanently reset the endocrine system (highly unlikely for the foreseeable future).


References:
Grun F, Blumberg B, Endocrine disruptors as obesogens, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, Volume 304, Issues 1-2, May 2009, Pages 19-29

Grun F, Blumberg B, Perturbed nuclear receptor signaling by environmental obesogens as emerging factors in the obesity crisis, Reviews in Endocrine & Metabolic Disorders, Volume 8, Number 2, June 2007, Pages 161-171

Heindel JJ, vom Saal FS, Role of nutrition and environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals during the perinatal period on the aetiology of obesity, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, Volume 304, Issues 1-2, May 2009, Pages 90-96

Meistas MT, Foster GV, Margolis S, Kowarski AA, Integrated concentrations of growth hormone, insulin, C-peptide and prolactin in human obesity, Metabolism, December 1982, 31(12), Pages 1224-1228

Ratzmann KP, Gottschling HD, Abnormal growth hormone response in obesity with normal carbohydrate tolerance and normal thyroid function, Endokrinologie, May 1978, 72(2), Pages 149-154

Could chemicals be causing obesity?

It has long been my belief that the prevalence of synthetic chemicals in food and the environment may be the single greatest contributor to the obesity epidemic.  For the past 15 years, I have been actively minimising my family’s exposure to such chemicals, but have not been able to provide any sound evidence to support this belief.

That is, until now!

A Newsweek article in September 2009 reported on the findings of several scientific studies which suggest that “early exposure to common chemicals may be programming kids to be fat”.  The article is a MUST READ for anybody interested in weight management, and especially those seeking to address the devastating scourge of juvenile obesity.

Of particular note is the observation by the Harvard School of Public Health that the obesity of infants under 6 months of age had risen 73% between 1980 and 2006.  Endocrinologist Dr Robert Lustig of the University of California highlighted the obvious, that this poses a problem for conventional explanations of obesity.

It sure does!  This aligns with my own observations that obesity is merely a symptom of an underlying medical condition called obesity syndrome which cannot be cured by exercise and diet. Dr Lustig also proposes that obesity should be regarded as a disease, not as a behaviour.

The Newsweek article talks about synthetic chemical compounds as “Obesogens” which do two previously unrealised things.  1. they act on genes in the developing foetus to turn more precursor cells into fat cells which stay there for life, and 2. they alter the body’s metabolism so it becomes more predisposed to storing fat and resistant to shedding it.  The article proposes that this could well explain much of the obesity for those under 50 years of age and explain why despite exercising no less and eating no more than slimmer people, overweight people find it so difficult to shed weight.

So what are these chemicals? They include bisphenol-A (found in hard plastics including baby bottles, food wrap and many other plastics), pesticides and plasticisers.  These and other petrochemicals can also act as hormone mimics, especially oestrogen, and in so doing lead to a condition known as oestrogen dominance, which has some all too familiar symptoms.

Listen to this 8 minute podcast now (endure the 16 second advertisment at the start - it's worth it)...

The take away message is to be very careful where you buy your food and what you eat.  Eliminate or reduce the use of plastics in food preparation and storage.

Coping with childhood tantrums

Why does my child throw tantrums?

Children typically throw tantrums because they feel overwhelmed by (usually negative) emotions and simply don’t know how to express their feelings in words.

Children DO NOT typically throw tantrums to deliberately annoy their parents, however if handled incorrectly, they may learn to see tantrums as a guaranteed way of getting attention, and stage them specifically for that purpose. To many children, attention is still attention, irrespective of whether it is positive or negative.

Dealt with incorrectly, tantrums can also become your child’s weapon of choice in manipulating you to get whatever they want, whenever they want it. They may even learn to stage tantrums in front of other people to embarrass you into doing what they want you to do.

What can I do to avoid tantrums?

Tantrums are sometimes unavoidable and inexplicable, even when you’re doing everything right. Tantrums may be minimized in many instances by:

• maintaining a calm environment where possible – avoid arguments with other adults in their presence at least until they are old enough to understand the conflict process without becoming overwhelmed or stressed
  
• maintaining consistent boundaries for the child – constantly changing rules, responses and reactions confuse a child and increase their anxiety and stress
• avoiding direct confrontation over matters which are known to trigger tantrums – you do not need to win every battle in order to win the war
  
• being a good role model by keeping your own negative emotions under control, especially in the presence of your child – children tend to imitate the behaviour of those they respect and love the most
  
• giving your child regular positive attention when they are behaving

How should I deal with my child when they throw a tantrum?

Firstly, if you feel you are going to lose your cool, walk away and cool down before you do anything. If needs be, you could ask your partner to deal with the tantrum in your place as this will reassure the child that his/her parents are a team.

Otherwise, it depends what has triggered the tantrum…

1. If the tantrum is in response to an instruction that your child does not want to follow:

• DO NOT back down under any circumstance as it will teach your child to use tantrums in order to manipulate you – thus making their tantrums longer, louder and more intense when you try to resist them later on
  
• remain calm and repeat your instruction in as positive and reassuring a manner as you can
  
• if the tantrum does not immediately subside:


• ignore the child – this teaches them that they cannot get your attention through tantrums
  
• if it is safe to do so, you may need to walk away from the child and allow them space and time to cool down


• then when they are calm again, repeat the instruction in a calm and positive manner
  
• repeat as often as needed, but do not change your instruction as it teaches your child that you can be manipulated by them using tantrums to get out of doing what you want

2. If the tantrum is in response to a reprimand for doing something naughty:

• remain calm and avoid raising your voice or losing your own temper
  
• DO NOT retract your reprimand or apologise for upsetting your child – they are not disagreeing with your reprimand, they simply are having trouble dealing with the way it makes them feel
  


• if it is safe to do so, walk away from the child and allow them space and time to cool down
  
• then when they are calm again, reassure them that you love them and are proud of them, but that what they did is not acceptable and encourage them to be good

3. If the tantrum arises out of frustration with something your child is trying unsuccessfully to do:

• calmly ask them what the matter is and if they would like you to help them
• DO NOT interfere or help them without their permission as it may anger them even more – they need to learn that they have the power to succeed through trying again
• if they refuse your help, encourage the child to try it again and reassure him/her that they CAN do it
• failing this, ignore the child altogether until they calm down, then reassure them that you believe in their ability to do anything they want, and that they should keep trying

What should I NOT DO when my child throws a tantrum?

The most important thing to remember is that YOU are an adult. The child needs you to be its comforter, counsellor, guide and mentor, not its competitor.

• DO NOT respond by throwing a tantrum yourself
  
• DO NOT lose your temper with the child
  
• NEVER call your child names or tell them they are stupid, bad or naughty – their behaviour may temporarily not be acceptable, but they are still the same child you love   
• resist the temptation to argue or confront your child when it is clear they are throwing a tantrum – remember they often throw tantrums because they are overwhelmed and possibly scared
  
• NEVER threaten your child with punishment for throwing a tantrum as it may incite them even more – remember they are most likely out of control, not deliberately being naughty
  
• NEVER lie to your child just to get them to quieten down (ie: tell them that a monster will come and take them away if they don’t quieten down) – they will stop trusting you and it could take years to regain their trust
  
• DO NOT attempt to bribe them with rewards into calming down– this will only encourage them to throw tantrums more often just to get those rewards
  
• If you are not the person at whom the child is directing the tantrum, DO NOT interfere unless invited to by that parent – the child will quickly learn to exploit any disagreement between parents and may deliberately stage a tantrum to create a spectacle that amuses them or distracts the parents away from something the child wants to do
  
• DO NOT gang up against the child by dragging other adults into support you – if you want another adult to take over, step aside and remove yourself from the vicinity to allow that adult to handle the situation their way

Setting and maintaining boundaries

Children are not born with an inherent sense of appropriateness. They learn from the role models they are exposed to, whether that be their parents, older siblings, teachers or even TV and movies. Children tend to mimic the coping behaviours they observe in their role models, so consider what they might be learning from the way you behave around them.

Children also have an innate need for security and a sense of safety. They constantly test their boundaries and keep pushing where they find weaknesses until they discover where the new boundary is. If you do not intend to follow through, DO NOT set the boundary. Children are very quick to notice inconsistency, and will exploit it to their own advantage any way they can, especially if they have a strong temperament. Once you have notified your child of the consequence for breaking a rule, failing to carry it out is sure to have undesirable results such as:

• the child may lose confidence in you because you don’t keep your word
• when you finally DO follow through, your child will resist you with much more resolve because they don’t believe you mean it, thus making it infinitely harder to enforce the boundary
• your child will do the same as you – tell others what they want to hear without intending to follow through
• believe that they can manipulate you to get their own way

Ironically perhaps to some, a child who has not been allowed to push past a boundary despite tantrums and manipulation, tends to bond closer with the parent who refused to give in. It is important however to have a sound reason for every boundary and be prepared to defend the boundary with that reason when the child is old enough to understand it. Otherwise, as soon as the child is old enough to realise that the boundary is nothing more than parental control without a fair reason, you are likely to lose their respect and find them deliberately breaking it to prove their independence.

Download a printable PDF version of this article here

Does fat, sugar and salt make you fat?

The Los Angeles Times has let itself down in a big way.

In an editorial praising Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity, the editor carelessly claims, “Addressing obesity isn't rocket science. It's usually caused by a diet high in fat, sugar and salt, and lack of exercise.”

Well gosh, if that’s true, then…umm… why are so many people STILL FAT?

Firstly, who is making the statement; the editor or Mrs Obama? If the latter, then sadly her campaign is doomed to fail dismally before it’s even started. If the editor is making this claim, then the editor obviously doesn’t have a weight problem.

Where is the scientific evidence for this sweeping and uninformed statement? If it were even remotely true, we would not have an obesity epidemic.

Claiming that obesity is caused by fat is plain ignorant. It is old news that dietary fat does not of itself make you fat – it does however promote heart disease and is therefore best minimized. Where is the evidence that eating sugar causes obesity? Where is the evidence that salt causes obesity? My diet includes sugar and salt and I have never had a weight problem. Also, I know over 1,000 people that avoided fat, sugar and salt, and exercised regularly, yet still could not lose weight.

Such irresponsible and subjective journalism only perpetuates the problem by leaving overweight readers to assume that something must be wrong with them, because they don’t eat fat, sugar or salt, yet they aren’t losing weight.

Make no mistake that overeating fat, sugar or salt is unhealthy, but it does not cause obesity.

Obesity Syndrome causes the fat gain that results in obesity, and Obesity Syndrome is (among other things) a hyper-sensitivity to carbohydrates (including sugar). Overweight people should definitely minimize sugar and everybody should go easy on fat and salt, and everybody should keep physically active for good health. But blaming the obesity epidemic on fat, sugar, salt and lack of exercise is ignorant.

Perhaps instead of spending time and money promulgating the same old rhetoric, it’s about time scientists focussed on the body chemistry differences between normal and overweight people, and objectively identified the causative factors of obesity, instead of reporting on the symptoms as they typically do.

Science gives up on obesity

Are your kids fat?  Here, give them a gastric band!

This is apparently the best scientific solution to juvenile obesity according to (credible?) professors from Monash University in Melbourne, Australia reports FoodWeek.

By the same logic, anybody with alcohol addiction should have a ball surgically inserted into their throat to limit how much they can drink.  Won’t that also limit how much water they can drink?

The problem with gastric banding is that it treats the symptom, not the condition.  It’s the equivalent of me cutting off my head because I have an excruciating headache.

The Monash study cites those treated with gastric banding as achieving a 79% reduction in their excess weight, compared to only 13% lost through healthier lifestyles.  That’s because they are being starved.  They may not feel hungry, but because they are force-fasting, their growth hormone is elevated, in turn breaking down triglycerides in the fat cells and mobilising fat reserves so they don’t die.

The fact is that even with 79% of excess weight being shed, these poor children cannot possibly maintain their resulting weight because they are not at their natural ideal weight, meaning their hormonal system is not in balance.  Therefore, they are now committed to lifelong interference just to stay healthy.  If gastric bands reduce the amount of food that can be consumed, then these children are also being deprived of the very nutrients that their body needs to function.  Since the study itself proves that natural ideal weight cannot be achieved with gastric banding, these children will never be able to eat ‘normal’ quantities of healthy food and obtain essential nutrients in the quantities needed for a healthy existence.  Nutrient deficiency is at the root of most degenerative diseases, meaning long term gastric banding patients are being set up for a lifetime of poor health.

The Monash study has made one profound observation, that healthy eating and exercise simply doesn’t work for the severely obese.  Unfortunately the professors didn’t deem it useful to work out why.  The reason is because as long as the endocrine system continues to malfunction, anything we eat goes into storage, good or bad food.  We’ve already demonstrated that exercise doesn’t have any impact on the chemical imbalance that characterises Obesity Syndrome.

By all means exercise and eat healthily; that is essential for staying healthy, but to return to your natural ideal weight, more targeted solutions are needed.

Whilst further in depth research is needed into the causes of Obesity Syndrome, this all underscores the dire importance of prevention as the best approach to staying in shape.  Fortunately, if you’re close to your natural ideal weight, it’s not difficult to stay there by eating sensibly and keeping active.

How much weight should I lose?

Daily, we are bombarded with news stories and editorial about the obesity epidemic, all championing the virtues of losing weight.  The adverse health risks of being overweight are widely known and include increased risk of diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure to name a few.  Recently scientists have identified obesity as the biggest driver of cancer. (see also a CNN report on the link between obesity and cancer and “Body weight and cancer: the evidence” by Cancer Research UK).

Scientific, medical, nutritionist and government experts are unanimous on the value of losing weight and all of the articles I’ve read seen highlight the benefits of shedding a few kilograms.

It is a (frustratingly) well known fact that weight lost tends to return, often sooner than later.  Did you ever stop to wonder why this is?  All that hard work, wasted?  After observing several thousand people lose weight through my Melbourne clinics several years ago, I can state with absolute confidence that the ONLY people who kept the weight off long term were those who achieved their body’s ideal natural weight.  For everyone who failed to achieve their natural ideal weight, the weight returned, often with more.

This is because Obesity Syndrome is not cured simply by losing weight, any more than a peanut allergy is cured by not eating peanuts.  The condition is still there, it’s just that the symptoms won’t show if the condition is under control.

In Obesity Syndrome, the body processes many foods incorrectly, especially carbohydrates.  Think of it as a ‘carbohydrate allergy’ where your insulin overreacts to the carbohydrates you eat, triggering a chain of chemical responses which switches on your fat storage ‘program’ and deactivates the process that releases fat from your fat cells.  If you modify your eating habits to minimize the foods that your body is ‘allergic’ to, the symptoms will start to reverse.   If you can manage to get your insulin reactivity to carbohydrates back to normal, the symptom of obesity will vanish.  The body only achieves this correct chemical balance when you are within your natural ideal weight range.

Herein lies a massive catch-22 for anybody thinking of losing weight.  Whilst losing a little is better than nothing and will reduce your risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, unless you go all the way to your body’s natural ideal weight, you are highly unlikely to be able to maintain your weight for very long.  This is a cause of frustration and sometimes depression for many sufferers of Obesity Syndrome.

Many weight loss programs invite you to set your own goal weight rather than informing you of your body’s natural ideal weight.  It’s quite natural to try and set a goal weight which you believe is achievable, and accordingly is likely to be substantially higher than your body’s natural ideal weight, where key body hormone levels tend to normalise.