.

Dietary study to Fight pre-diabetes

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:50:00 +0000

The Division of Experimental Diabetes and Aging is presently seeking male and female volunteers with any of the following: thick waist, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol, high triglycerides, or high fasting blood sugar for an NIH-funded study evaluating a new diet to treat pre-diabetes (or the metabolic syndrome). Participants must be non-smokers, ages 50 or above. They will be asked to provide blood and urine samples and food information. Participants will receive MRI imaging studies without contrast and will be compensated for time and travel. They will also receive blood and urine laboratory reports. For more information, call +1-212-241-2567 or +1-212-241-3746 or email AGEStudy@mssm.edu. [GCO # 03-0116, IRB approved through 06/30/12].

Links:

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01363141?term=effects+of+glycoxidative+stress&rank=2

http://www.mssm.edu/research/clinical-trials/03-0116

What's wrong with obesity drugs?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:16:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 10:40:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:59:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:31:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:32:00 +0000

“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?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:21:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:22:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:17:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:21:00 +0000

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.

Obesity: blame and accountability

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 23:29:00 +0000

Recently I was asked a few excellent questions relating to obesity. As they are questions many may have in their own minds, I thought it was appropriate to share my thoughts on them in the hope of generating further discussion.

1. Lifestyle
"Lifestyle is stuck in the blaming model, how about some shared accountability (for obesity)?"

The common view of "lifestyle choices" is that individuals have relative control over their own health destiny and therefore may take most of the blame if their health is not good (specifically insofar as obesity is concerned).

“Accountability” and blame in this context are one and the same thing, except that “accountability” requires remedial action.

So then, should “accountability” for obesity be shared by overweight individuals and the other contributors to their obesity (or inability to maintain natural ideal weight)?

I refer back to an earlier blog on Obesity Syndrome which proposes that obesity is not a lifestyle consequence, but a symptom of an underlying endocrine imbalance which once it has occurred, is chronic and (presently) irreversible by medicine or science. I think of obesity syndrome in similar terms to Coeliac’s Disease:

It is a food processing malfunction within the body
It cannot be reversed by medical treatment (to date)
It may not kill you but can increase your risk of other diseases/conditions
It is an over-sensitivity to particular foods/ingredients which will consistently produce predictable results (like an allergy)
It can be managed through dietary modification (lifestyle choice)

So who is accountable for Coeliac’s Disease? Is it the individual who has it? Is it the manufacturers of gluten containing food products? Is it the regulators for permitting gluten in foods? Is it the scientists who have failed to find a cure? Is it the sufferer’s parents for making poor lifestyle choices which resulted in a hereditary defect? I suggest none of the above. Until science unravels a verifiable cause for the endocrine disruptions that constitute Obesity Syndrome, blame cannot be attributed to anyone or anything with credibility.

So if Obesity Syndrome is not the fault of any identifiable individual or entity, who is responsible for managing it at an individual level? Answer, (in my opinion) all of the above.

Obesity is not about blame, although the weight management and fitness industry appear to perpetuate the “blaming model” as the writer calls it. Obesity is about management of the condition for quality of life and minimizing associated health risks.

2. Exercise
“Why does the food industry support activity (ie: exercise as part of weight management)?”

If we were in business to make a profit, wouldn’t we do everything in your power to maximise those profits? In doing so, which company would not select products that are highly consumable and known to be highly desired by the consumers? Would we not then seek to market those products to consumers in such a way as to maximise market participation and achieve maximum sales? If we were trying to sell a simple loaf of bread, would we market it as:
a) Something that will satisfy hunger; or
b) Something will satisfy our taste, hunger, sense of belonging, desire for optimum health, standing within our social circle and make our friends jealous of our glowing skin?

The food industry has numerous drivers including production cost, market demand, regulation, social acceptability, political correctness and I’m sure you could think of plenty more. The food industry doesn’t manufacture exercise any more than it manufactures our taste buds. However, the food industry knows that some foods have been linked with obesity and poor health by others (rightly or wrongly), and as profit-seeking is naturally risk averse, it follows that the food industry marketers will employ messaging which minimizes any risk of appearing controversial, since that is likely to turn some consumers away, hence reducing revenue.

In short, if the majority of recognised experts and regulators say that exercise is good for you, which food industry company would risk their market share to say otherwise?

Exercise & obesity
You could be forgiven for thinking I am anti-exercise! Not so. In my personal opinion, exercise is vital for good health. Our lymphatic system relies on physical movement to flush toxins from our body. Our muscles rely on repeat movement to stay toned and avoid wasting. However I contend that exercise does not cure Obesity Syndrome.

Remember that obesity is a symptom of Obesity Syndrome, and that the latter is an endocrine imbalance of (presently) indeterminable cause. No amount of physical exercise will cure Coeliac’s Disease, and likewise no amount of exercise will permanently cure the endocrine tendencies of Obesity Syndrome.

After 3 years of personally observing several thousand weight loss clients in my own clinics, I can confidently state that exercise played absolutely no part in their weight loss success. In fact to the contrary, those who exercised often slowed their weight loss and experienced unnecessary hunger and cravings which in turn only made it harder to stick to the plan.

That said, some people do seem to achieve weight loss through exercise (typically in conjunction with some diet modification). To understand why, we need to understand how body fat storage and release mechanisms work. I promise I’ll cover this in a blog shortly. For now, just hold that thought…

Your health: who do you listen to?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:21:00 +0000

According to a recent survey by the American Dietetic Association, apparently 99% of people consider most of the nutritional information they find on the internet to be trustworthy.

Wow!

From what I’ve seen, there are more incredible sites than credible ones. So where do you get your health information from?

Before the world wide web came along, we got everything we needed to know about our health from our local family doctor. Remember those days; when you had to pull a paper and cardboard ‘device’ off a shelf and look up words alphabetically to check their meaning? If you didn’t know how to spell the word correctly, you probably wouldn’t even find it at all!

Well a lot sure has changed. One super smart company even had their name morphed into a verb, and so today if we want to know something, we just ‘google’ it.

I’ll be one of the first to promote using the internet to source information. Without it, I could not possibly have learned what I have. But it begs the question, how can we trust what we read about health on the web?

Celebrities attaching their personal ‘brand’ to a cause is nothing new, but sometimes their ability to contribute meaningfully to that cause is questionable. A case in point is the recent announcement that Michelle Obama is leading the charge on childhood obesity in the US. I have no direct interest in US politics and from what I can tell, Michelle Obama seems like a charming and deserving First Lady. There would scarcely be a nobler cause than the health of our children, after all they are the future of our world and we owe them a world no worse than we were given by our predecessors.

Inevitably, Mrs Obama will be asked for her advice on losing weight (if she hasn’t already). What she says will spread through the media like a wildfire and devoted fans (or should we call them voters?) will instantly pin a copy of that checklist on their refrigerator door, abandoning whatever else they had been trying before to lose weight. Will Mrs Obama have achieved what she set out to? If all she wanted was to heighten people’s awareness of the fact that obesity is a problem requiring deliberate action to fix, then yes she will have succeeded.

But who is Michelle Obama to be giving weight loss advice? Does fame validate such advice? Has she studied biological science to understand endocrinology, lipolysis and adiposity? Has she personally guided and mentored a few hundred overweight people to their naturally ideal weight and given them the proven skills to avoid regaining the weight ever again? If not, then where is her advice coming from? We’re given an insight in this news article from 2 days ago where she appears to attribute the obesity crisis to eating pizza and fast food.

Sure, many nutritionists would agree that fast food is not helping, but I’ve observed plenty of thin people who eat fast food and have never gained weight. So logic immediately suggests that it can’t be the fast food itself that is causing the problem.

I wholeheartedly support easing up on fast food in favour of whole foods, and I practice what I preach. I totally agree with Mrs Obama’s lifestyle choices of limiting TV time, watching portion sizes and throwing apples and water bottles into children’s lunchboxes, as I suppose would most people reading this blog.

Nevertheless this demonstrates just how easy it is to assume that because a famous person tells us something we’ve heard before and lots of people agree with it, therefore it must be correct. This goes right to the very heart of internet ‘health evangelists’. How can we know who to trust? What should we look for to work out whether somebody is presenting credible information?

Here’s a start; be very wary of information presented by…

websites with advertisements on them; or
websites offering their own health products or services for sale; or
people who have not divulged their weight loss credentials (having personally lost weight is not always an objective test); or
websites which offer health advice without supporting references or lacking logical argument based on verifiable (not assumed) facts; or
people who present themselves as an internet marketer or social media expert

Each of these people have an agenda which means the information they present is not unlikely to be independent (although some may be). Where products and services are involved, they are in direct conflict with credibility.

How to pick credible sources of health information…

the person’s credentials are sound (personal experience is great, but if that’s the only credential… next!); and
the website is not-for-profit and there are no advertisements on it; or
the website or person is affiliated with a reputable health provider, centre or program

I am astounded at how many Twitter and blog health ‘experts’ are nothing more than members of network marketing programs offering health products, and who have no medical, scientific or commercial experience or qualifications to warrant their claims. In short, all such people can offer is regurgitated marketing spin designed to make their products and services look like the perfect solution to the problems as they describe them. There is nothing objective about such information.

Healthorize is not about recycling the same old ‘same ole’ about weight loss and obesity. If I can challenge you to rethink what you’ve been told about weight loss and obesity, then Healthorize has been a success. If Healthorize has helped you to think more critically about your health, please share it with your friends and family.

Multivitamins: what's all the fuss?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:09:00 +0000

The Washington Post reports that several recently high profile and (apparently) credible studies into the benefits of multivitamin supplements have concluded that taking supplements won’t hurt you, but won’t help you either.

Doubtless this will raise the ire of supplement hawking network marketers who are convinced (or at least for financial reasons, pretend to be) that their brand of supplements will cure anything from cancer to bellybutton lint. However it is has been observed that many vitamin tablets pass through our body partially or fully undigested. It appears to be a not so well kept secret that some brands of multivitamins (especially budget priced) do not dissolve properly.

Swallowing anything that is intended to provide your body with vital nutrients, and yet isn’t digested is a waste of time and money. However, the real question here is bioavailability. I’ve seen articles which claim that the body cannot distinguish between natural vitamins and chemical identical vitamins. Maybe not, but have you ever come across a Vitamin B tree? The fact is that our bodies are complex biological systems which require around 100 or so specific nutrients on a daily basis. I’ve yet to see vitamin supplement which contains more than say 20 or 30 nutrients. We get the broad spectrum of nutrients from whole foods.

“But,” protest some, “the soils are depleted of minerals, and so we need to ensure we give our bodies what is missing in our food.” Here’s a challenge for you: find a person who takes supplements instead of whole foods and see how many health problems they have. Don’t get me wrong; I like many healthy lifestyle proponents believe we cannot maintain optimum health for very long without supplementation. However, the attitude of many people taking supplements is that this gives them licence to drop their guard on the food they eat.

Recognise also that minerals come in two forms, organic and inorganic. One can be assimilated by the body and the other can’t. Most mineral supplements use inorganic minerals simply because they’re cheaper and the market prefers cheap supplements. Our body cannot properly utilise inorganic minerals. Pick up a rock from the ground and try to chew on it. Smarter supplement manufacturers try to trick the body into utilizing inorganic minerals by powdering them and chelating them (coating them with an enzyme or sugar that the body will utilize). However even in chelated form, the body is not able to utilize everything.

In nature, plants convert inorganic minerals into organic form, typically referred to as ‘colloidal’ minerals. Animals (including humans) are designed to source their nutrients from plants, or in turn from other animals which source their nutrients from plants. It makes sense then to eat real whole foods wherever possible. Supplementing with multivitamins and minerals in colloidal or organic form makes sense and stories abound of the positive health benefits of doing so.

Another great incentive for eating whole foods is to minimize the amount of synthetic chemicals we ingest, most of which cannot be metabolised by our body and can lead to endocrine breakdown, which in turn causes a whole range of disorders including Obesity Syndrome.

Weight management products: Big fat lie

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 10:23:00 +0000

Have you been on Twitter lately? Ever noticed how many health experts there are? Ever followed somebody and be offered a 'free gift' in return, only to discover it is just another sales pitch designed to relieve you of your precious cash in exchange for the best weight management product ever invented? Yeah, me too.

NutraIngredients.com reports on the relatively unregulated state of the weight management product market, noting curiously that neither the FDA (USA) or EFSA (Europe) have ever approved any weight management claims for products. Not one! Does that mean nothing works? I'm an Aussie, so I can't really comment on the FDA or EFSA, their agenda or capacity to objectively assess weight management claims. However, it is fair to say this is one giant apple waiting to be cracked.

The weight management industry is worth billions globally. I am constantly bombarded with weight management products and programs under various tags such as 'the guaranteed way to lose weight fast', 'the foolproof fat burning program', 'lose weight fast and keep it off', and my favourite 'reset your metabolism - guaranteed'.

Is it any wonder that the FDA hasn't approved any of these claims? This is nothing more than marketing. Legally it's referred to as 'puff'; something so ridiculous that nobody is actually expected to believe it is for real. I've never had a weight problem, but I've watched around 2000 people go through my weight management clinics with varying degrees of success, and I agree with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that no "supplement can cause weight loss without lifestyle changes".

But herein lies the conundrum - if supplements don't work without lifestyle changes, then surely when a product is bundled with the right lifestyle change, the health claim should be allowed? Maybe. But what kind of lifestyle changes are we talking about? Every time I hear or read about lifestyle changes, all I get is essentially "eat less and do more exercise".

Honestly, if it were that easy, we would not have an obesity epidemic. I've spoken with hundreds of deperate overwight people who swear black and blue that they have tried everything they could and if they were lucky enough to lose some weight, they usually regained it and more within a few months of finishing their diet or exercise program.

Ever wondered why? I've said previously that losing weight does not cure Obesity Sydnrome. This is the precise reason why no supplement will ever work without lifestyle changes. Obesity Syndrome is chronic, meaning it is (for the time being) incurable. Once you have it, you have it for life. In the same way as a diabetic must change the lifestyle to manage their condition, so people with Obesity Syndrome must change their lifestyle permanently in order to keep it under control (ie: maintain their ideal weight).

Understanding the causes of Obesity Syndrome is vital if the correct lifestyle changes are to be implemented. It is not simply a matter of eating less and exercising more. Calories don't make that much different, because a body with Obesity Syndrome will process virtually all food incorrectly.

Confused? Read back through some of my previous blogs and you'll start to understand the depth of the problem. Over the coming few weeks, we'll start to discuss some lifestyle changes that can (and should) be made to keep Obesity Syndrome under control. Rest assured, it doesn't include any weight loss supplements!

Human growth hormone & obesity

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:08:00 +0000

We have previously explained that Obesity Syndrome is a medical condition characterised by the following:

Hyposomatotropism (Human Growth Hormone deficiency)
Hyperinsulinemia (over-reactive insulin)

Human Growth Hormone (hGH) deficiency is known to cause the following:

Increase in body fat (especially around the abdomen)
Decrease of lean muscle
Decrease of strength and stamina
Reduction of capacity to exercise
Decrease in bone density
Changes in blood cholesterol concentrations (increase in LDL and decrease in HDL)
Increased risk of developing mild diabetes (non-insulin resistant)
Excessive tiredness
Anxiety and depression
Feelings of social isolation
Increased sensitivity to cold or heat

This sounds remarkably like Metabolic Syndrome which is defined as a cluster of symptoms including:

Excess body fat (especially abdominal)
Insulin resistance
High blood pressure
High cholesterol (especially LDL)

The difference is that one is symptomatic and the other is causative. In plain language, this means that Metabolic Syndrome is a name given to a set of symptoms, whereas Hyposomatotropism (hGH) deficiency) can actually cause all of these symptoms.

hGH (somatotropin) is produced in the pituitary gland which itself controls many of the body’s vital processes. Its production peaks around the age of 20 years, declines steadily over the next 20-30 years ending up at naturally lower levels towards the end of a person’s life.

hGH plays several roles in the body throughout our life including growth during childhood and adolescence, building lean muscle mass, mobilising fat for energy needs and maintaining bone mineral density. hGH is sometimes referred to as the anti-aging hormone for this reason. Underlying levels of hGH are a reliable indicator of biological age and overall health.

Fat cells respond to hGH directly via a cellular receptor. hGH breaks down triglycerides within the fat cells which in turn releases fat. hGH also suppresses the fat cells’ ability to accumulate more fat.

Peak secretion of hGH occurs mostly during deep sleep (Delta or Slow-Wave sleep) and is directly and significantly suppressed by high insulin levels. hGH is secreted in a circadian (24 hour) pattern and studies have proven that going to sleep later than your usual bedtime will severely reduce the amount of hGH produced.

Studies show that abnormally low levels of hGH can be caused by hyperactive insulin production and that the metabolic effects of hGH are directly and inversely affected by insulin. It has long been recognised that obesity is characterised by abnormally low levels of hGH which in turn makes it more difficult to lose weight thus creating a vicious cycle.

Put simply, when insulin levels rise abnormally, hGH production is suppressed resulting in several adverse health effects including faster fat storage and reduced release of fat from the fat cells, in other words Obesity Syndrome.

It is this over-reactivity of insulin which is of interest to me as I believe it signals the beginning of Obesity Syndrome, although science still appears unable to shed any light on what causes it in the first place.

References

Barreto-Filho JAS et al, Familial isolated growth hormone deficiency is associated with increased systolic blood pressure, central obesity, and dyslipidemia, Endocrinology Division of the Federal University of Sergipe, 49060-100 Aracaju, Brazil, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, May 2002; 87(5):2018-2023

Bowen R, Austgen L, Rouge M, Pathophysiology of the Endocrine System, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, 2006

Buijs MM et al, Blunted lipolytic response to fasting in abdominally obese women: evidence for involvement of hyposomatotropism, Department of General Internal Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands, Published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar 2003; 77(3):544-550

Carrel AL, Allen DB, Effects of growth hormone on body composition and bone metabolism. Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin Medical School, USA, published in Endocrine, Apr 2000; 12(2):163-172.

De Marinis L et al, Growth hormone secretion and leptin in morbid obesity before and after biliopancreatic diversion: relationships with insulin and body composition. Institute of Endocrinology, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy. Published in Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Jan 2004; 89(1):174-180

Hussain MN, Sirek A, Cukerman E, Sirek OV, Insulin dependence of the actions of growth hormone and somatostatin on splanchnic biogenic amines of the dog, Published in Hormone & Metabolic Research, Jul 1986; 18(7):436-440

Mendelson WB et al, Suppression of sleep-related prolactin secretion and enhancement of sleep-related growth hormone secretion, Published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, Sep 1975; 56(3): 690–697

Shadid S, Jensen MD, Effects of growth hormone administration in human obesity, Endocrine Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA, Obesity Research, Feb 2003; 11(2):170-175

Takahashi Y, Kipnis DM, Daughaday WH, Growth hormone secretion during sleep, Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Metabolism Division, St. Louis, Missouri, Published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation, Sep 1968; 47(9): 2079–2090

Obesity Syndrome: The real weight problem

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 12:10:00 +0000

The traditional focus of many weight loss ‘experts’ is on losing weight. That is, the answer to obesity and all its related health problems is best ‘treated’ by reducing body weight. Some ‘experts’ rightly point out that excess fat is what should be gotten rid of.

I’ve read many online articles championing the virtues of exercise to lose fat. Pretty much all of them fail to take into account why the excess fat exists. In fact, a large proportion of the weight loss industry seems not to understand why excess fat accumulates in the first place.

You see, obesity is not the real problem!

Obesity (excess stored fat) is a physical symptom of a chemical change that has already occurred in the body. It is this chemical change which is the problem and which if left unaddressed, means that every time you successfully shed excess fat, it returns (with ‘friends’). There are copious scientific studies (references below) which confirm that obesity is characterised by chemical abnormalities, only nobody seems yet to quite understand what is causing them.

Let’s refer to it as Obesity Syndrome.

In much the same way that Metabolic Syndrome is characterised by several specific negative health factors, so Obesity Syndrome is characterised by the following:

Hyposomatotropism (Growth Hormone deficiency)
Hyperinsulinemia (over-reactive insulin)

The symptoms include:

Excess body fat – especially truncal
Cravings – especially for sugars and carbohydrates
Predisposition to Hyper or Hypo-glycaemia

It appears that Obesity Syndrome is chronic, meaning once a person has it, they have it for life. This explains why we tend to regain weight after shedding it.

For now, there are no clear answers on the cause of Obesity Syndrome. Despite all the best intentions of the past few decades, obesity rates continue to climb in developed countries globally, which suggests that it is lifestyle related. However as we have commented previously, if obesity were simply the result of eating too much food and lack of exercise, the obesity epidemic would no longer be an epidemic and the statistics would have started dropping long ago. There is scarcely an overweight person alive that has not tried to eat less and exercise more. If it were that simple, the problem would be manageable.

I have my own theories about the lifestyle contributors to the chemical change that characterises Obesity Syndrome, but more of that in a future blog. Based on observation of the thousands of clients that came through my weight management clinic, I do not believe that a healthy, normal weight person by increasing their volume of food and reducing exercise will automatically result in obesity. Stay tuned to find out why.

Scientific studies indicating a hormonal cause of obesity:

Mukherjee A, Murray RD, Shalet SM, Impact of growth hormone status on body composition and the skeleton, 2004, Department of Endocrinology, Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK

Komorowski JM, Pawlikowski M. Relationship between insulin and somatotropin in obesity. Endokrinologie. Apr 1979; 73(2):209-13

Meistas MT, Foster GV, Margolis S, Kowarski AA, Integrated concentrations of growth hormone, insulin, C-peptide and prolactin in human obesity, Metabolism, Dec 1982, 31(12):1224-8

Ratzmann KP, Gottschling HD, Abnormal growth hormone response in obesity with normal carbohydrate tolerance and normal thyroid function, Endokrinologie. May 1978; 72(2):149-54

Slavnov VN, Epshtein EV, Somatotrophic, thyrotrophic and adrenocorticotrophic functions of the anterior pituitary in obesity, Endocrinologie. Jul-Sep 1977; 15(3):213-8

Calorie restricted diet protein changes

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:25:00 +0000

It has been reported that restricting calories can extend life and reduce the risk of chronic disease in some species.

A recent Dutch study has also discovered that a very low calorie diet (500 calories compared to the typically recommended daily 1500-2000 calorie intake) can cause substantial and quick weight loss. During the study, average weight loss achieved was 9.5kg over an 8 week period of which around 75% was fat.

The scientists observed a dramatic change in around 40 specific proteins within the body, responsible variously for antioxidant protection, regulating cholesterol, utilisation of free fatty acids and affecting the way fat cells store and release fat. It is hoped that the breakthrough research will lead to more precise mapping of chemical responses to dieting, thus potentially allowing us to eventually determine whether a particular diet is safe or not.

This is hugely significant. Starvation will trigger the body into a different chemical state that results in weight loss. Whether weight lost from starvation is ultimately healthy or not is another matter, but it works. The problem is that once the person returns to normal eating, the body chemistry ‘relaxes’ and the same fat storage tendencies return.

The study observed a reduction in levels of blood glucose, insulin, leptin, LDL (bad) cholesterol without any significant change to HDL cholesterol or triglycerides. Interestingly, there were no obvious differences between males and females.

This is consistent with my observations of hundreds of clients that came through our weight management clinics, albeit with a few differences. Similar to the above study, our approach was entirely diet-based with exercise discouraged whilst dieting. This was because the precisely balanced chemical environment created by the diet was easily upset by fluctuations in energy output and would retard the weight loss progress and induce undesirable hunger and cravings.

Our diet regime ranged from 700 - 1000 calories and varied based on sex, age and blood chemistry profiling. The intention was to restrict the body’s energy intake sufficient to stimulate the change in body chemistry required to release fat at the most efficient level possible without falling into ketosis or starvation. Interestingly, this approach resulted in average weight loss of 7-10kg in the first 4 weeks alone, almost double that of the Dutch study. By simple regular monitoring of weight and fat resistance, we could see that the loss was all fat (with the exception of a 3.7kg of retained fluids mostly in the first week):

Note that healthy fat loss differs from simple weight loss in that it is cyclical. The chart below shows the daily weight loss for the same person and demonstrates a clear 3-5 day cycle throughout the entire process. This is why you should never weigh yourself daily when losing weight.

Based on a random sample of 77 non-deviating (ie: not cheating) clients in 2004, we observed the following results:

This amply demonstrates that stimulating the body’s chemistry may prove to be the most effective and failsafe method of losing weight without inducing severe ketosis or starvation.

Let’s hope the research continues!

For the calorie, protein and carbohydrate values of 1,000 different foods, check out this great site.

The calorie theory

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 07:45:00 +0000

Apparently American women are struggling to lose weight because they take in more calories than they expend. Really? If 59% of American women are actively trying to lose weight, yet the obesity statistics are still rising, then either most American women trying to lose weight are simply taking in too many calories, or as fast as they’re succeeding, more women are putting on weight to take their place.

This just doesn’t make sense.

The Calorie Theory is not rocket science. It’s really simple:

Eat less than you expend and you’ll lose weight.
Eat more than you expend and you’ll gain weight.

Is losing weight really this simple?

I’m going to let you in on a little secret we taught our 2,000 weight loss clients in Melbourne, Australia; “baked cheesecake is your safe cake”. According to calorie theorists, the average slice of baked cheesecake packs a whopping 430 calories. Compare that to other choices from the coffee shop…

Dessert	Calories
Apple crumble	540
Pecan pie	452
Baked cheesecake	430
Gelati	321
Tiramisu	310
Lemon meringue	303
Sticky date pudding	235
Chocolate cake	180

Source: caloriecount.about.com

According to the calorie theory, baked cheesecake would NOT be an ideal choice for somebody trying to lose weight. That single piece of cheesecake is more than 1/5^th of the daily calorie intake for a normal 2,000 calorie diet. So why on earth did we recommend it as the best choice when eating out at the coffee shop?

Two reasons:

Because a baked cheesecake contains the highest level of protein compared to everything else
Because cheese has a significantly lower impact on insulin (see below)

Insulin score food testing by Sydney University in 1996 showed that cheese impacts insulin around half that of the control food, white bread. Take a look at the charts for yourself now. Cheese also has an 18% lower impact on insulin than it does on glucose (GI) compared to other cakes which have an exponential 46% higher impact on insulin.

Now can you understand why “baked cheesecake is your safe cake”?

We’ll demonstrate in a later blog how insulin affects weight gain and weight loss. Once we do, perhaps we will have debunked the calorie theory for the first time. After 7 years of observing people maintaining their ideal weight after having lost between 10kg to 90kg, this advice has stood the test of time.

For more information on the relationship between the acclaimed Glycemic Index and the Insulin Index, see David Mendosa’s webpage on the subject.

Setting the record straight on weight loss

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:09:00 +0000

Scientists at the Garvan Institute in Sydney now claim that “the only reliable way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more. Preferably both.”

…and the scientific basis for their emphatic claim? Actually they don’t have one. Their media release simply reports on the institute’s research into a particular enzyme which controls whether cells burn fats or carbohydrates. The study is however quite interesting because it demonstrates that there are many chemical processes in the body relating to obesity that have yet to be deciphered.

Associate Professor Greg Cooney talks about ACC2 inhibitor pharmaceuticals; “Many such products can also contain potentially harmful stimulants or come with a recommendation to follow a calorie-controlled diet and do more exercise while taking them. If you follow those recommendations, then of course you’ll lose weight - but you’d lose it anyway.”

Watching and speaking with the thousands of people enrolling to lose weight at my weight management clinic several years ago, I learned very quickly that losing weight is not a simple matter of eating less and exercising more. Otherwise we could justifiably conclude that people who are overweight simply have a self-control problem or a food addiction of sorts. Fascinatingly, our clients consistently shed fat (not muscle) without any exercise whatsoever.

The answer I believe does lie in the body chemistry, but has yet to be fully unravelled.

Functional foods: why?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:36:00 +0000

Do you buy functional foods and drinks? What makes a food or drink functional? Neither Europe or the US presently has a legal definition of function food. According to Wageningen University in The Netherlands, the term “functional foods” refers to a food that provides a health benefit as well as nutrients.

Say what? Isn’t that what nutrients do? When you eat a piece of fruit, does it not provide a health benefit?

The University goes on to say: "The ingredients responsible for this benefit can be naturally present or may have been added during processing. The levels of nutrients in foods can be increased beyond their natural levels to create an enriched product. Fortified products contain nutrients or ingredients that were not present in the original food.”

Gosh, this is all so confusing. If I read that right, I could whack a label on an Orange saying “may help to prevent viral infections when eaten as part of a healthy diet”, and I would have a functional food. Herein lies the conundrum for functional foods.

I worked for several years in an R&D company that prided itself on having developed a functional food. The company developed a form of raw sugar which had a lower GI than white sugar. That’s hardly surprising since raw sugar is simply white refined white sugar with a touch of molasses left in. Since molasses has a low glycemic index (GI), the more molasses a sugar has in it, logically the lower its GI will be. Brown sugar is made by spraying molasses directly onto white sugar crystals and has the highest content of molasses, therefore is likely to have the lowest GI of any cane or beet sugar.

So how does leaving in more of a food’s natural nutrients make it a functional food? Well, have a think about how the drug industry works. Companies search for natural substances which have a measurable effect on a disease or ailment, and then work out ways of synthesizing that substance. This is because naturally occurring substances cannot be patented, because they already exist and are not unique. The new synthetic substance is protected by a 20 year patent which gives the patent holder a 20 year monopoly over that drug. Basic economics shows that a monopoly can charge what it likes and providing demand continues, profits are assured. Global spending on drugs is around US$600 billion, so it’s a very profitable business to be in. However the industry has become increasingly consolidated and new drugs are few and far between. Thus entering the drug industry is extremely difficult.

Imagine if it was possible to create a unique patentable substance without having to synthesize anything. Imagine if tampering with a natural food was enough to make it patentable. Welcome to the curious world of functional foods! You don’t believe me? Global functional foods spending is tipped to be worth around US$167 representing around 5% of the global food market.

The correlation between the drug and functional food industries are unmistakeable:

Industry characteristics	Drug Industry	Functional Food Industry
Rely on patents for monopoly	Yes	Yes
Health claims	Yes	Yes
Global market value	US$600 billion	US$167 billion
Barriers to entry	High	Moderate
Current level of innovation	Low	High
Industry growth rate	Slow	Fast
Regulation	Stringent	Minimal
Time to market	3-10 years	1-3 years
Products	Synthetic	Natural

It’s not difficult to see the appeal of the functional food industry for entrepreneurs. The monopolizing effects of 20 year patent protection has long been the key success factor in the drug industry, but the quick time to market and low regulatory environment also make the functional foods market very alluring. So enticing in fact, that pharmaceutical companies are now competing for a piece of the action.

Examples of substances which can qualify a food as functional.

Are functional foods just another marketing ploy? Why not simply eat the whole foods themselves? After all, they are the source of all the natural substances that are being extracted, removed or enhanced to make functional food claims.

The rising cost of obesity

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:58:00 +0000

Nutraceuticals World published some grave statistics on obesity recently. According to World Health Organisation (WHO) predictions, there will be 2.3 billion overweight adults by 2015, 700 million of which will be obese. More worrying is the trend of childhood obesity, which according to a 2008 US report has tripled over the past 30 years.

The links between obesity and poor health are well established, and generally understood by society. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that obesity accounts for 9% of all medical spending. It also revealed that on average, obese people 42% more on medical care than people of a normal weight. Here are comparative incidences of other medical conditions linked to obesity:

Condition	Obese	Normal
High cholesterol Hypertension Stress Lack of energy Depression	39% 35% 30% 30% 23%	30% 26% 22% 20% 16%

Source: Natural Marketing Institute (NMI), Harleysville, PA
“2008 Health & Wellness Trends Survey”

In Australia, 62.7% of women and 72.1% of men are classed as overweight, with 24.9% of women and 23.8% of men obese. Check out the WHO website and see how your country rates for chronic disease and obesity statistics.

Given the alarming statistics and the fact that most responsible governments are endeavouring to responsibly educate the public to reduce obesity, overall it doesn’t seem to be working.

So what’s the problem? If the risks associated with being overweight are so clearly documented and understood, why are we not winning the battle against obesity?

Here’s an analogy: suppose you’re driving along in the countryside on a hot summer’s day and suddenly the engine temperature light comes on. You have 2 options. You can convince yourself that because it’s only a warning light, you have a little time left before the motor seizes up, and so keep driving. Or, you could stop and find out what’s causing the problem. Which would you do? When it comes to weight gain, it would appear that around 65% of Australians keep driving even though they’ve noticed the warning light. How long will you drive before that warning light annoys you so much that you take decisive action?

From experience, I know that many people will feel offended at the last paragraph, because they didn’t ‘keep driving’. The fact is in the US alone, US$47 billion is spent on weight loss each year. But according to media reports, only 59% of Americans are trying to lose weight, so that equates to around US$308 spent on weight loss per person per year.

This is the real source of heartache and despair for so many overweight people. They know they’re overweight; they see it in the mirror every day. They genuinely try to lose the weight. When they only achieve limited success through their first few attempts, anger, embarrassment and guilt set in. Given there’s so many people in the same situation, that’s a lot of angry, embarrassed and guilt-ridden people in our society, all secretly believing something is wrong with them. Of the 2,000 clients who came through my weight management clinic in Melbourne, Australia, 90% of them had attempted at least once (most several times) before to lose weight. Those who had succeeded had put it all back on again and more. Some simply didn’t succeed. Of that 90%, most reported having spent around $2,000 over a few years trying every popular weight loss method available, and a few curious ones too.

Sound familiar? You are not alone. This is the typical experience of the overwhelming majority of overweight people. Nobody deliberately chooses to be overweight, let alone obese. Nobody actually wants to knowingly increase their risk of degenerative disease or early death. To me, it suggests that we’re looking at weight loss the wrong way. I believe weight and obesity is not an illness in itself, but rather a symptom of an underlying illness. Losing weight does not fix the problem. Addressing the root problem rids the excess weight and keeps it off.

So what is the root problem that causes obesity? Ah, that’s the $47 billion dollar question!

Does sugar cause obesity?

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:14:00 +0000

With burgeoning obesity statistics in the developed world, the business and scientific communities are in a mad race to find a fix-all cure. So far, diet and lifestyle changes remain the best approach, hence the increasing popularity of nutrition and fitness programs.

Ironically, despite some mind-boggling advances in science and medicine, and despite massive government education initiatives, the statistics appear to be showing no sign of abating. In fact, for those who do succeed in losing weight, many subsequently regain it plus more.

For decades, nutritionists and governments have been attempting to lay blame for the obesity epidemic with a particular food such as sugar. The famous Atkins diet (and others like it) endeavoured to eliminate carbohydrates (including sugar) altogether and seemed to get results. Is sugar then to blame for obesity?

Sugar has been vilified as a contributor to obesity in much the same way fat did a few decades ago. Whilst it is generally accepted now that fat is best kept to a minimum, science has enlightened us to distinguish between good and bad fats. We need the good fats such as omega3 oils, but definitely are better without trans fats. So are there good sugars and bad sugars?

Think about it this way; sugar doesn’t grow on trees. We can’t go and dig up some sugar from the ground. It is a processed food derived from sugar cane or beets. Whenever you hear the word “processed”, take note. All natural plant life is balanced. That is, each plant is a highly advanced chemical ‘factory’ which draws minerals and nutrients from the ground and converts them into a form which is easily digestible by animals and humans (colloidal minerals). Each plant (and the fruit or vegetables from it) contains a broad spectrum of micronutrients, each of which play a role in growing the plant itself as well as protecting and preserving its fruit or vegetables from decay and disease. Many of these nutrients are equally as powerful in the human body and these days we’re all familiar with the value of antioxidants, vitamins, polyphenols and phytochemicals.

The more processed a food is, the less of these naturally occurring nutrients there is likely to be in it, which means it isn’t so good for us. So it is with sugar; refined white sugar has been dubbed a ‘hollow nutrient’ by some nutritionists because it contains virtually no useful nutrients. Brown sugar is refined white sugar onto which molasses has been sprayed. Molasses contains nutrients washed out of white sugar during the sugar milling and refining process and is ironically used as a feedstock for animals. Some of the components in molasses are in fact very potent antioxidants and together with other similar polyphenols exert some very desirable effects on the body, especially in relation to redistribution of body mass (reduction of fat and increase in lean muscle). A current study into molasses polyphenols by researchers at Melbourne’s LaTrobe and Deakin Universities may hold the key to the development of natural treatments for obesity. How ironic, that the cause and the cure could come from the same source; sugarcane!

A recent study published in Clinical Nutrition cautions against attributing obesity to sugar. The study found no evidence of sugar addiction in humans although it did appear to occur in some animal trials. The researchers evidently did not reach any definitive conclusion however, noting that if sucrose is responsible for obesity, then responses should concentrate on this one ingredient. They went on to point out that if sugar addiction was proven, it would have widespread implications for food manufacturers and the fast food industry. Too right it will!

Finally, it is curious to note that whilst sugar consumption has declined in Australia and USA over the past decade (ISO 2008 World Book), the incidence of obesity has continued to rise over the same period. Unless it can be demonstrated that sugar consumption has a latent effect in regards to obesity, sugar may not be the real culprit.

Genetic contribution to obesity overstated

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:56:00 +0000

Following a genetic survey of over 20,000 people in Europe, researchers have concluded that genetics play a lesser role in obesity than previously thought.

Food Navigator reports…

“Obesity is a complex condition, but the food industry and its products have been targeted as a major culprit by many. The new research, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, indicates that genes for body mass index may be responsible for less than one per cent of obesity.”

Interesting, but not surprising. My own observations of over 2,000 weight loss clients in Australia had led me to the same conclusion 5 years ago.

This… “puts the spotlight firmly back on lifestyle and diet.” Indeed it does.

We ought to point out that lifestyle and diet are also hereditary; that is they are handed down from one generation to the next. It’s easier to keep doing what we’ve always done than it is to rock the boat and challenge habits we’ve adopted from our childhood.

Consider this story about Peter, Susie and Frank.

Discussions over several years with weight loss clients has in my mind demolished the theory that obesity is simply the result of eating too much food and exercising too little. I have spoken with countless folk who had become so disillusioned and disheartened after exercising their butt off for months and in some cases years without being able to shed more than a few lousy kilograms. These same people were eating smaller meal portions, more whole foods, less sugars and carbs, yet the fat wasn’t going anywhere.

Something more complex is evidently at work.

If you’ve been trying to lose weight and have become frustrated at a lack of progress, I’d be very keen to hear your story.

Healthorize yourself

noreply@blogger.com (TD) — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:43:00 +0000

Welcome to my blog... healthorize.com!

Good health is no accident! That's the conclusion I've come to after many years of researching and lecturing on health.

After operating a prominent weight management clinic for several years and making some rather startling observations about obesity, I then joined a scientific R&D company working on novel solutions to obesity and diabetes.

“To whom much is given, much is required” said the great teacher Jesus, and I do feel compelled to share what I’ve learned. Ignorance is not much of an excuse when you realise your health has gone beyond the point of no return.

My aim through this blog is that we can discuss and learn together how to keep ourselves and our loved ones healthy.

Life is not something to be taken for granted and sadly too many realise this when it’s too late. Nature is a powerful force for the benefit and pleasure of those who understand and respect it.

A bit more about me...
I'm a husband of 6 years and proud father of an amazingly talented 3 year old boy. I had a fairly strict religious (Christian) upbringing and have read and studied the bible copiously. I believe that the universe as we know it was created by an all-powerful being who is in complete control, but that as the custodians of this planet, we have a fundamental responsibility to keep it healthy.

I commenced my working life as a stonemason and can proudly say I personally restored many heritage listed historic buildings and homes in Adelaide, South Australia. After 15 years as a fair dinkum tradie, I tumbled into bookkeeping and have spent the past decade in business and financial management. Somewhere in the middle of all that, I became keenly interested in health and wellbeing. Thanks to a very steep learning curve in association with a health & longevity clinic, I began leading seminars on health, with a focus on antioxidants, hormones and skincare I also became a certified Cosmetologist!

Establishing a weight management clinic was a challenge, but taught me volumes about metabolism and how food affects our body chemistry. This motivated me to dig deeper into available research on obesity, endocrinology and metabolism. Surprisingly, I discovered that there is an abundance of credible research in existence, but much of it has never been stitched together to complete the story. This is a story I hope to share through Healthorize.