Fat is enigmatic stuff and there’s literally much more to it than meets the eye. It was fat that first got me interested in nutritional health, one day stumbling upon Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill by Canadian Udo Erasmus who broke through the anti-fat fascism of the Eighties and Nineties (when all fats were condemned as dangerous) by showing us the difference between good and bad fats.
The good fats are the Omega 3s, found in some seed oils (flax, hemp, cranberry) and in a highly converted form in certain fish oils. The bad fats are the saturated fats, as well as transfats used in processed foods like margarines, plus high levels of Omega 6 fats also found in many plant oils and used extensively in the manufacture of fast and baked foods.
Since then researchers have shown that saturated fats also need to be differentiated into good and bad categories, rehabilitating oils like coconut and palm kernel that had been sentenced to death by the anti-fat lobby.
Now, there’s a new school of thought that says even those saturated meat and dairy fats have been given a bad rap and that the real health issue is not the type but the quality of the fats we eat. If you eat meat or drink milk from free-ranging herds that have been spared antibiotics and bovine growth hormone, that have grazed on pesticide-free and fertiliser-free pastures (not on meal made with chicken faeces, bones from their own species, powdered feathers for protein and plastic pellets to provide “roughage”), the fat quality (and therefore the nutritional benefit) is light-years apart from that of their industrially-reared counterparts, which truly is toxic.
So the fat story is complex and keeps on changing as we learn more about the wobbly stuff. What is abundantly clear is that the fat-free fad has been a disaster for human nutrition and is likely one of the leading causes of the obesity epidemic and has also probably fuelled the growth of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease as well.
I collaborate with some leading players in the weight-loss industry, always on the lookout for new trends and research that might suggest the way forward in helping people manage their weight healthily. On Workers’ Day I did some work (how many calories does reading a book consume?), devouring an important new book, The 21st Century is Making You Fat by Pat Thomas (Gaia Thinking), health editor of Ecologist Magazine in the UK.
Thomas’s Book assembles all the latest research that points to a far more complex obesity model, arguing that environmental co-factors — not just the simplistic calorie counting/fat people are willpowerless lazy slobs model — are key to understanding the epidemic.
What really struck home was the chapter on “chemical calories”, how poisonous pollutants have impacted on our bodies’ ability to metabolise fat.
The starting point of this environmental model of obesity is some Italian research in the Nineties, which found that people who had undergone gastric bypass surgery showed a dramatic increase in the levels of organochlorines (DDT, dieldrin etc) in their bloodstreams as their body weight came down.
A further study in Quebec found that as these toxins were released into the bloodstream they also suppressed key thyroid hormones responsible for maintaining efficient metabolism. Now the slowing down of metabolism during weight loss is a well-known natural survival instinct (that’s why losing weight is so damned hard), but the Quebec research showed that the slowdown was so much greater in the presence of these poisons. Worse, levels of enzymes that determine how muscles use energy were also negatively impacted. Says Thomas: “To put this in lay terms, organochlorines essentially shut down the metabolic furnace that helps the body burn fat.”
Another researcher, Paula Baillie-Hamilton, describes these pollutants as a “chemical cosh” which bludgeons the body’s ability to produce hormones that regulate fat metabolism and destroys hormone receptors in fat cells.
The research suggests that the body, confronted by increasing levels of toxins, responds by creating fat cells to stash them in, effectively insulating and protecting the organs (liver, kidneys, heart, etc) from these poisons. But when you go on a diet, the fat cells shrink and release this toxic soup back into the blood stream, which now starts reducing the levels of fat-burning hormones and enzymes, slowing down your metabolism. Ergo the vicious circle known as the rebound-effect that dieters know oh-so-well.
The implications of these findings on dieting — especially yo-yo dieting — are ominous. If you keep going on diet you are likely not only to be releasing organ-damaging poisons into the bloodstream but you are also stuffing up the body’s fat-burning system. It’s a double-whammy.
So, contrary to conventional wisdom, increased fat levels might in fact be protective, helping us to dilute organochlorines and other toxins in the body. Thomas sums it up: “… it is possible the obesity epidemic is really an adaptive response by the body to a chemically toxic environment”.
Backing up the environmental model is the publication of so-called fat maps in the UK and USA which show that the incidence of obesity occurs in the most polluted regions of these countries.
The research must seem like mannah from heaven for those fatties who would love to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their weight and who can now pass the buck to the agri-chemical industry (do I hear a class action suit rumbling into action in the US?). But that is a small price to pay for a fat lot of new research that is helping us to better understand the story of fat.
Thomas’s book is provocative, well researched and well worth reading. Fat is indeed fascinating.
What a load of bollocks. Obesity is caused by over-eating. Finished. How many fat people did you ever see coming out of a concentration camp?
Sounds all quite feasible but the sad fact is that people still guzzle junk food down in copious quantities. I sat transfixed the other day in a shopping mall, watching an already obese man stuff his face with 2 huge cheeseburgers, fries, 2 drinks, dessert – the list goes on. His even larger wife and extremely pudgy child also tucked in with gusto. Our eating habits are out of control (and I admit, I do like junk food too but there is such a thing as moderation). And now the depressing news is that whatever we do, the polluted environment we live in is a contributing factor to obesity!
I know that us humans have a value system that places thin people higher than fat people. I have no problem with that however when we look at any species of animal we judge them completely in reverse with our negatives being pitched at the thin animals! Just an observation.
A processing of loosing weight is too sophiscated (just like your article). Keep it short and sweet, people must avoid eating a lot of crap whilst they are laying their bums on fluffy couches, they should learn to exercise (i dont think that hurts). They are endanger to themselves as much as they are to us (average citizens).They sweat a lot and they struggle to breath too, you cannot live for long if you cannot perform the basic thing “breathing”. Just sit next to fattie and you’ll hear that “siren” noise alarming out of rinkled neck, so boring.
Although a great many Americans (and other people around the world, of course) are simply fat because they eat too much and don’t exercise enough, I do believe that there is truth in these new findings. As a South African living in the States, I can honestly say that shopping for real food in this country is quite a task. There is so much horrendous fake stuff on the shelves, it’s no wonder Americans are so unhealthy! It wouldn’t surprise me if all these additives are to some extent to blame for the fat epidemic.
And every decent gardener mixes and sprays his or her plants with organochloride phosphate poisons like good old Malathion, procured at supermarkets or garden shops?
Just to point out to the self righteous that obesity is not confined to rich people who eat junk food. Look at obesity in Africa. A lot of African women are clinically obese and suffer for it. When it comes to diesease like hypertension and diabetes there is an increasing level of these in this population. Furthermore they are at great risk of surgical complications.
I think we all need to be a little less judgemental. The ongoing targeting of children by McDonalds is also something that must be addressed.
Fat = Eat + Lazy. Simple as that. If you eat less junk and enjoy an active lifestyle, you simply wont be fat. Go watch any running or cycling event, and tell me how many fat people you see? Being fat is a choice you make, all of this scientific dribble is just an excuse to face the facts: you are lazy and have no self control.
Our obese western culture life-styles are producing an alarming number of fat people with an unnatural relationship and sometimes obsession with food. WTF has a point in saying how many fat people have you seen out of a concentration camp. The formula is simple : Fat = calories in less calories out. Bruce points out the toxicity associated with modern day mass production of food. Back to Organic food is imperative. Not enough pressure has been put on growers/producers and distributors of food to be resposible corporate citizens.
As usual Bruce – Your “science” is disgustingly dishonest.
It’s a well known fact that most of the negative “research”(in quotations) on DDT was a deliberate lie. This lie has caused millions of human deaths in the 3rd world, particularly Africa. It didn’t have much negative effect on bald eagles as was claimed though. Just Google man, just Google. For example…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55843,00.html
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
It even got into the top 10 as junk science or outright lies…
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/771895/top_ten_junk_science_moments_for_2006_announced_by_junksciencecom/index.html?source=r_health
And health fanatics don’t understand fats that well either. Just google. This was one of my 19450 results…
http://www.junkscience.com/feb05/transfat.htm
(Yes, I love the site JunkScience.com)
In the past, I have shown you a fraction of the research that vegetable based Omega 3, particularly flaxseed is ineffectual yet you continue to laud its benefits. (As I said before, just show me the science, not the folk-law)
In a country struggling with issues of honesty and morality, it’s disappointing to see a blog that is so blatantly dishonest. When it involves people’s health, this is also immoral and scandalous.
reminds me of an Oprah episode. And then she told ppl to love themselves when she got fat.
Go figure!
BLAME APARTHEID!!!!
or the ANC. or Zille, or Zuma.
Blame Manto and her GM-veggies.
This is great. People are finally wising up about the problems of obesity. Even with all the rhetoric about how fat America is. People still overlook that they are responsible for themselves.
You can only say it so many times. And if they choose to ignore the facts. There is nothing else you can do.
People are lazy in general and always looking for the easy way out. Mostly by blaming everyone but themselves.
If they put as much effort into taking better care of themselves than beyatching about it.
There wouldn’t be such a problem.
@ John Bond
Of course when you bring Fox News into the equation
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55843,00.html
you really have to remember their absolute honesty in reporting and that their integrity is well beyond reproach…
I am not lazy
I am not fat
I just roll with the flow
“Obesity is caused by over-eating.”
Several disagree with that statement. The contrary statement is, “overeating is *caused* by obesity”. Obesity is associated with overeating; however, it’s a fallacy to state that is the cause. Applying this theory to starvation diets (which are on an extreme end of the diet spectrum) of those that experienced in a concentration camp has little merit; due to biological limitations we have (and for everything else that exists).
“Fat = Eat + Lazy”
Replacing that equation with the energy-balance equation…
energy store = energy input + energy expenditure
…equates to a more standardized one. It’s the relationship (or lack of) between energy input and energy expenditure that are controversial. Are they dependent or independent of each other? In other words, if you increase or decrease one, does it affect the other? Studies show stronger evidence which indicates that these are dependent variables. It’s practically impossible to account for every calorie someone consumes. It’s also practically impossible to account for every calorie that someone expends. If these were independent variables our weight would be sporadic, over time we would be obese or anorexic. Also our energy input (appetite) and energy expenditure would be constantly fluctuating to find an equilibrium level. But since we can safely assume these are dependent variables, our bodies have a tolerance that prevents these disorders. However this isn’t a golden umbrella where you can consume any quality of food. There is something about consuming refined carbohydrates and sugar (sucrose and fructose) that fatten people (this is at least due to the secretion of the growth hormone insulin).
If one eliminates these carbohydrates from his or her diet, it would be no surprise that there would be a loss of adipose tissue and food cravings. And if they consume these foods, then it would be expected that they would *overeat*, due to food cravings, which will *cause* an increase of adipose tissue.
Gary Taubes mentioned about scientist incorrectly making the assumption that the cause *must* be from overeating. And this is the same assumption that you have two made.
Reference:
“Good Calories, Bad Calories”
By: Gary Taubes
Chapter 17: Conservation of Energy