Today is a continuation of Gary Taubes' "Why We Get Fat". I will be focusing my discussion on chapters 16 and 17.
A Historical Digression on the Fattening Carbohydrate
The idea of the carbohydrate being the root cause of fat accumulation first appeared in the early 1800s when Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin wrote a book called The Physiology of Taste. In his book, he concluded that there was both a natural predisposition to fatten and that starches and flours produce this effect of fat accumulation more quickly and surely when it is used with sugar (Taubes, 149). Therefore, "it can be deduced, as an exact consequence, that a more or less rigid abstinence from everything that is starchy or floury will lead to the lessening of weight." (Taubes, 149)
Then, in the 1960s, the theories that had been tested and believed about fat accumulation were blown out of the water by the calories-in, calories-out theories.
Prior to the introduction of this theory, the notion of the fattening carbohydrate has been around for the last two hundred years (Taubes, 150). One French physician, Jean-Francois Dancel came to the same conclusions as Brillat-Savarin and wrote a book about the results of the carbohydrate-restricted diet (Taubes, 151). Taubes tells us that "Dancel argued that physicians of his era believed obesity to be incurable because the diets they prescribed to cure it were precisely those that happened to cause it" (151).
Another British doctor, William Harvey came to similar conclusions when he began prescribing low-carbohydrate diets to his obese patients. When William Banting took on the diet and experienced massive results, he wrote a best selling Letter on Corpulence (Taubes, 153). While he attributed Harvey for the diet, Banting's name became the one to enter both the English and Swedish language as a verb meaning "to diet" (Taubes, 153).
Throughout the early 1900s, more and more theories, experimental results, and articles emerged furthering the evidence for the fattening carbohydrate; such as statements in The Principles and Practice of Medicine, A Text-book of the Practice of Medicine, and in the Lancet (Taubes, 154). Diets were written between 1943 and 1952 encouraging dieters to decrease the amount of carbohydrate and especially sugar consumption (Taubes, 155). And all of these diets, that kept normal caloric intake based on gender but that decreased the percent of calories that came from carbohydrates, were found to increase sense of well-being and physical energy while stifling hunger (Taubes, 157). It was found that "weight loss, fat loss, and percent weight loss as fat appeared to be inversely related to the level of carbohydrate in the diets" (Taubes, 159).
But when the 1960s rolled around, obesity began to be perceived as an eating disorder and the actual science of the regulation of fat was considered irrelevant (Taubes, 159). The problem of obesity perceived as an eating disorder while people continued to eat carbohydrates was furthered by Health Officials who came to believe that fat caused heart disease. Shortly after, the famous Food Guide Pyramid of the U.S. Department of Agriculture was released; putting fats and oils at the top and encouraging the consumption of carbohydrates at the bottom (Taubes, 160). Finally, the idea of being able to eat anything so long as it is low in fat reached the height of its absurdity in 1995, when people were advised to eat low-fat cookies, low-fat candy, unsalted pretzels, syrup, jelly, etc in order to lose their weight (Taubes, 162).
This idea of the fat being the cause of weight gain and increase in occurrence of heart disease would be perfectly fine if it was proven true. But the problem is that even with low-fat prescribed diets, people are still getting fatter and sicker.
Meat or Plants?
For many years, nutritionists, researchers, and doctors have been trying to figure out the causes of many of today's most chronic diseases; such as obesity, heart disease, cancer, and more. In order to figure out the causes, however, they first have to figure out the differences between today's diseased populations and the habits of the healthy previous generations. To find these differences, we have to go to the studies of anthropologists. In 1919, when one cardiologist Blake Donaldson asked anthropologists about the diets of our prehistoric ancestors, he was told they consumed a diet of meat, and mostly fatty meat (Taubes, 163). Donaldson then began prescribing high meat diets to his patients. In the forty years of his practice, Donaldson claimed that he was able to cure over 17,000 patients of their weight problems (Taubes, 163). Taubes tells us that, like in Donaldson's practices, the only way to restore our health is to go back to the diets and habits that our bodies are genetically adapted to live on (164).
"Our genes", Taubes says, "were effectively shaped by the two and a half million years during which our ancestors lived as hunters and gatherers prior to the introduction of agriculture twelve thousand years ago." (164) The pre-historic age of humanity makes up over 99.5% of our history, compared to the 600 generations of farmers or the 10 generations of humans that have lived since the industrial age (Taubes, 164).
In order to learn more about our ancestors' diets, since they existed before the age of recording history, we have to look at and research societies that have been isolated and still use the hunter-gatherer techniques for obtaining their food. One of the best and most comprehensive studies on these societies was completed in 2000. This study led to a few conclusions that are relevant to the question of whether abstaining from carbohydrates will in fact make us lean. First, they discovered that the hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts of animal foods and not a single one was fully vegetarian. In fact, the consumed about 2/3 of their diet in animal foods and 1/3 in plants (Taubes, 165). Secondly, they found that their diets were very high in protein and fat when compared with today's diet standards (Taubes, 166). Finally, their diets were extremely low in carbohydrates, averaging at about 22 to 40% of their caloric energy (Taubes, 166). When they did consume carbohydrates, they were laced with indigestible fiber, making them difficult and very slow to digest (reducing insulin secretion) (Taubes, 166). The biggest point of the study was to show that the major foods of the modern western diet (that makes up about 60% of the diet); such as grains, dairy products, beverages, oils and dressings, sugar, and candy, wouldn't have contributed at all to the typical hunter-gatherer diet (Taubes, 167).
As evidence that the Western diet, constituting of refined flours and sugars, have led to many of today's chronic diseases, we need only look at societies that have gone through "nutrition transition" and adopted the Western diet in the place of their traditional ones. It is seen invariably that when a society begins eating a Western diet, diseases soon follow (Taubes, 169). It is especially evidenced that when a society begins eating a Western diet, the first products to enter into their nutrition are sugar and white flour - mostly because it doesn't spoil, is easily transportable, and bugs and rodents wont get into it (Taubes, 172). If we were to simply stay away from the Western diet, from processed foods and sugars, then we would steer clear of the diseases that come with it and live longer (Taubes, 170).
While Taubes says it seems perfectly sensible to consider sugar and flour the likely causes of diseases such as obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc; this theory has also been rejected because it clashes with the idea that dietary fat causes heart disease, which is the preferred hypothesis of nutritionists and doctors today (Taubes, 172).
Exercise: Today is a yoga day. While my class was a Vinyasa 1 level, we mainly focused on slow stretches that got into the deep fibers of our muscles. We especially focused on the spine and the hips today. I suggest spending some time doing a deeply stretching yoga workout today.
Eat: So now that we know what to avoid buying organic because they are not likely to contain any pesticides or chemicals, what fruits and vegetables do come in contact often with these chemicals? Which ones are best to get organic? According to Cooking Light, we should buy lettuce, celery, carrots, bell peppers, potatoes, spinach, apples, cherries, strawberries, nectarines, and peaches all organic because they are the most likely to contain trace levels of pesticides.
Relax: To relax today, I spent a bit of my time making lists of goals I want to meet this weekend as well as next week. I find it greatly satisfying to make goals way ahead of time in order to motivate myself to do them in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment