Julia Belluz Wonders Why Diets Succeed or Fail

You won’t gain weight from this meal

Julia Belluz has an interesting article at Vox regarding low-fat and low-carb diet success over the course of 12 months. Her focus is on a few individuals who participated and were outliers.

As I read this, I was reminded that successful long-term weight management starts and ends in the kitchen. It also took me back to 2009, when I determined that low-carb diets were just as legitimate as low-fat.

I don’t recall the author mentioning the typical pattern with 12-month weight loss studies: most folks lose significant weight in the first few month, then at six months they start gaining it back. Cuz they go back to their old eating habits. Sure, diets don’t work………..if you don’t follow them.

From Ms. Belluz:

As a longtime health reporter, I see new diet studies just about every week, and I’ve noticed a few patterns emerge from the data. In even the most rigorous scientific experiments, people tend to lose little weight on average. All diets, whether they’re low in fat or carbs, perform about equally miserably on average in the long term.

But there’s always quite a bit of variability among participants in these studies.Just check out this chart from a fascinating February study called DIETFITS, which was published in JAMA by researchers at Stanford.

The randomized controlled trial involved 609 participants who were assigned to follow either a low-carb or a low-fat diet, centered on fresh and high-quality foods, for one year. The study was rigorous; enrollees were educated about food and nutrition at 22 group sessions. They were also closely monitored by researchers, counselors, and dietitians, who checked their weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol, and other metabolic measures throughout the year.

Overall, dieters in both groups lost a similar amount of weight on average — 11 pounds in the low-fat group, 13 pounds in the low-carb group — suggesting different diets perform comparably. But as you can see in the chart, hidden within the averages were strong variations in individual responses. Some people lost more than 60 pounds, and others gained more than 20 during the year.

Read the whole thing. It’s not long.

Source: Why do dieters succeed or fail? The answers have little to do with food. – Vox

The DIETFITS Trial

Is There a Role for Magnesium Supplementation in Type 2 Diabetes?

Not the magnesium used in the study at hand

I hadn’t thought so until I read about an experiment published in 2003. Now I’m wondering.

The study was done in northern Mexico and all participants were taking glibenclamide, a sulfonylurea known as glyburide in the U.S. Importantly, study participants had low blood magnesium levels at the outset.

So if you’re not a hypomagnesemic Mexican taking glibenclamide, results may not apply to you.

Nevertheless, results were impressive. Compared to the control group, magnesium supplementation…

  • reduced insulin resistance
  • fasting glucose was 144 mg/dl (185 in controls)
  • Hemoglobin A1c was 8% (10% in controls)

The experiment lasted 16 weeks and the specific form of magnesium used was magnesium chloride solution.

Maybe we should be checking magnesium levels more often. BTW, magnesium supplements are difficult for our bodies to absorb. I know of at least three magnesium compounds: oxide, citrate, and chloride. There are probably others. Degree of absorption varies from one to the other. Adding a supplement on top of kidney impairment could cause toxicity.

The researchers conclude:

Oral supplementation with MgCl2 solution restores serum magnesium levels, improving insulin sensitivity and metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with decreased serum magnesium levels.

Source: Oral Magnesium Supplementation Improves Insulin Sensitivity and Metabolic Control in Type 2 Diabetic Subjects | Diabetes Care

 

T1 Kelley Shares Her Details on U.S. Healthcare Costs

Kelley at her Below Seven blog writes about the sad state of the U.S healthcare “system,”  mostly about how insanely expensive it is for those of us not in a socialized program like Medicare or Medicaid. If you’re tempted to put the blame only on doctors, hospitals, and Big Pharma, know that insurance companies and politicians are also at fault. Politicians alone could solve the cost problem.

If you want to learn how to negotiate lower healthcare prices, check out this post at ZeroHedge. You could save thousands of dollars.

If you have 15 minutes to spare, read Karl Denninger’s article on comprehensive healthcare reform.

From Kelley:

This year, I have a deductible of $6,500, which means that I have to pay 100% of expenses until I reach that deductible.  I’m not sure if “healthy” people realize how much money a person with a chronic disease spends on healthcare each year, but $6,500 isn’t chump change.  That’s a whole lot of money!

Since my husband and I have our own company, we go through peaks and valleys when it comes to income.  Sometimes, it’s just not feasible to spend $3,000 in one month for diabetes supplies, which is when I’m thankful I was able to stock up so I can make it another month.

I’m not trying to write a woe is me post, but because I have to pay so much out of pocket, I am frustrated at how the health care system works.  You never get an exact price of how much something is going to cost before it goes through insurance.   But because of my insurance plan, I am on the hook for 100% of whatever they decide the cost is.

Source: Unknown Costs with Healthcare – Below Seven

Physicians are not immune to this malarky either. Health insurance for my family-of-four is about $12,000/year, with individual deductibles of $1000/year, family deductible of $3000/year, and family out-of-pocket maximum of $9000/year. And of course if I want to keep my out-of-pocket expenses at a mininum, I have to use the healthcare providers the insurer picks for me.

Steve Parker, M.D.

At Three Years, Gastric Bypass Superior to Intensive Medical Therapy for Obese Type 2 Diabetes

…in terms of weight loss, lowering of HgbA1c, and weight-related quality of life. The specific gastric bypass surgery used in the study is the Roux-en-Y version.

bariatric surgery, Steve Parker MD

Band Gastric Bypass Surgery (not the only type of gastric bypass): very successful at “curing” T2 diabetes if you survive the operation

Average initial weight of participants was 104 kg (229 lb). Bypass patients dropped their weight by 25 kg (55 lb)and HgbA1c decreased by 1.8% (absolute decrease), compared to intensive medical management participants who lost 10.3 kg (32 lb) and dropped HgbA1c only by 0.4%.

I doubt that intensive medical therapy included a low-carb Mediterranean or paleo diet.

Source: Clinical and Patient-Centered Outcomes in Obese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes 3 Years After Randomization to Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery Versus Intensive Lifestyle Management: The SLIMM-T2D Study | Diabetes Care

 

Physician Organizations Fight Over How Aggressively to Treat Diabetes

If you’re a patient, you probably don’t like to hear this. You like to think that doctors have looked carefully at the appropriate scientific studies, understand  the underlying pathophysiology in detail, then reach a consensus on treatment. Sorry, but not in the case of diabetes. NPR has the story. For example:

A major medical association today suggested that doctors who treat people with Type 2 diabetes can set less aggressive blood sugar targets. But medical groups that specialize in diabetes sharply disagree.

Half a dozen medical groups have looked carefully at the best treatment guidelines for the 29 million Americans who have Type 2 diabetes and have come up with somewhat differing guidelines.

The American College of Physicians has reviewed those guidelines to provide its own recommendations, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. It has decided that less stringent goals are appropriate for the key blood sugar test, called the A1C.

“There are harms associated with overzealous treatment or inappropriate treatment focused on A1C targets,” says Dr. Jack Ende, president of the ACP. “And for that reason, this is not the kind of situation where the college could just sit back and ignore things.”

The ACP, which represents internists, recommends that doctors aim for an A1C in the range of 7 to 8 percent, not the lower levels that other groups recommend.

Source: The American College of Physicians Recommends A1C Levels Between 7 And 8 Percent : Shots – Health News : NPR

I come down in favor of the lower HgbA1c values.

Even short bursts of exercise can reduce risk of disease and death

Steve Parker MD

Bouts of 5 minutes may be enough

From ABC News:

The old benchmark of 150 minutes per week of moderate activity (or 75 minutes of vigorous activity) originated in 1995. The “rules”: Each time you exercise, it should be for at least 10 minutes.

“For about 30 years, guidelines have suggested that moderate-to-vigorous activity could provide health benefits, but only if you sustained the activity for 10 minutes or more,” an author of the research, William E. Kraus, M.D., of the Duke University School of Medicine, said in a press release. “That flies in the face of public health recommendations, like taking the stairs instead of the elevator, and parking farther from your destination. Those don’t take 10 minutes, so why were they recommended?

“The new study finds that the length of each bout or episode of exercise is unrelated to the benefit seen in living longer. Five minutes of jogging, researchers said, “counts” toward better health.

Source: Even short bursts of exercise can reduce Americans’ risk of disease and death, study says – ABC News

Do You Know Anything About Nutritics?

I’m thinking about using Nutritics for my nutrient analysis, rather than some of the free options like SparkPeople or FitDay. NutritionData still seems to be very popular, too, but they don’t keep up with new versions of the USDA database (currently on Release 28). The fine print at NutritionData shows they use Release 21. FitDay doesn’t say.

I looked up two cups of broccoli florets at FitDay and NutritionData, and was surprised to see zero grams of fiber. How could that be correct? Nutritics shows 3.3 grams, as does the USDA Nutrient Database. I believe Nutritics and USDA on this one. The free nutrient analysis tools you find on the internet all use some version of the USDA database as far as I know.

Click the link below to see Nutritics’ report.

https://www.nutritics.com/app/rec/4b82cb50b2

In that report you’ll see “%RI”, which I assume is short for  percentage of Dietary Reference Intake. The National Health Institutes defines DRI or Dietary Reference Intake:

DRI is the general term for a set of reference values used to plan and assess nutrient intakes of healthy people. These values, which vary by age and gender, include:

  • Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA): average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97%-98%) healthy people.

  • Adequate Intake (AI): established when evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy.

  • Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL): maximum daily intake unlikely to cause adverse health effects.

So what does Nutritics mean by %RI? I don’t know yet.

And by the way, Nutritics isn’t free like the other sources I mentioned above.

Any comments on Nutritics, or your source for nutritional analysis?

Steve Parker, M.D.

Which Foods Cause Obesity?

At my Advanced Mediterranean Diet website a few years ago I asked visitors to answer a poll question. 2,367 responded thusly:

What single food category makes you gain the most fat weight?

Fatty foods like bacon, butter, oils, nuts:
5%
Protein-rich foods: meat, eggs, fish:
0%
Sugary sweet items:
23%
Starches: bread, potatoes, peas, corn:
16%
Carbohydrates:
30%
Pastries, cake, pie, cookies:
25%
Other:
1%

Total Votes: 2367

Yes, I know it’s not a scientific poll, but it’s something. I’m not surprised at the results. I’m wishing I’d offered nuts as a choice since there are at least a few folks who gain weight on nuts, perhaps not realizing that nut calories are mostly from fat. To participate in the poll, click the link above.

Steve Parker, M.D.

Book Review: “Fit With Diabetes” by Christel Oerum

Front cover

Ginger Vieira introduced me recently to Christel Oerum via email. I was pleased to hear about Christel’s brand new e-book, “Fit With Diabetes.”

*  *  *

Physical fitness is a major determinant of longevity. It’s truly our only fountain of youth, and it’s available to most everybody. The only way to get and stay physically fit is through regular exercise. Some studies document shorter life spans for PWDs (persons with diabetes). So it’s particularly important for them to maintain a good level of fitness.

I like this e-book and highly recommend it to adults taking insulin for diabetes who need a great physical activity program but don’t know how to go about it. Use of insulin, whether in type 1 or 2 diabetes, significantly complicates exercise due to sometimes mysterious effects on blood sugar. Christel de-mystifies the issue in a clear and science-based manner.

The most dangerous interaction between insulin and exercise is hypoglycemia, although the opposite can be a problem, too. Much of the book is about avoiding dramatic swings in blood sugar, particularly hypoglycemia. Christel teaches the reader how to balance insulin, food, and exercise to keep sugars on an even keel. Aerobic exercise tends to cause hypoglycemia, whereas anaerobic exercise tends to cause high sugar spikes. But your own reaction may be a little different, if not a lot. As you might imagine, monitoring and record-keeping are critical, and Christel shares her own downloadable log.

Trust me, most primary care physicians and many endocrinologists are not going to be much help in the exercise advice department. I only remember one thing my first-ever accountant told me 30 years ago: “No one cares about your money as much as you do.” Likewise, no one cares about your health as much as you do. You’ll have to become your own expert.

The author is like a trusted old friend who’s “been there, done that,” and is sharing freely with you.

Christel has had type 1 diabetes for 21 years and is a diabetes coach. She’s been an avid exerciser since 2010. At that time there were very few resources that addressed vigorous exercise in the setting of T1 diabetes. Learn from her clients’ experience and her own N=1 experimentation so you don’t have to make the same trial-and-error mistakes.

The author works out five days a week. That doesn’t mean you have to. I suspect you can achieve 80–90% of the maximal longevity and other health benefits with just three days a week, maybe two. (Note: I am contradicting several authoritative medical panels!) If you’re sedentary now, two or three days a week should definitely improve your fitness. But you have to exercise right.

Early on, the author talks about how to get motivated for exercise. I like her SMART goal setting-checklist: Goals must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.

She recommends a combination of aerobic exercise (“cardio”) and weight training. (I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out one day that the right weight-training program alone is good enough.) Christel tells exactly how to get started and maintain both types of exercise. She outlines both home-based and gym-based training programs.

Dietary calories for adults in the U.S. come 16% from protein, 48% from carbohydrates, and 34% from fats. Alternatively, the author recommends dietary calories come 40% from protein, 30% from carbohydrates, and 30% from fats. So 150 carb grams/day if eating 2000 calories, limiting meal carbs to 30 grams. I wonder if most folks will end up closer to 30% protein and 40% fat, especially for those not doing as much exercise as Christel. (Protein is important for muscle building and maintenance.) Many of my patients do well with additional carbohydrate restriction, but most don’t exercise as much as Christel despite my encouragement.

You can easily track your macronutrients and calories at MyFitnessPal.com.

The author shares some recipes and tells you how to get started on the all-important meal-planning and coming up with your own recipes. There’s even a helpful and realistic chapter on loss of excess weight.

As a reviewer, I always feel like I have to pick a few nits, so here it is. Christel says cardio exercise is great for losing weight. That probably true if you’re competing for $250,000 on TV’s Biggest Loser show. But usually exercise contributes at most 10% to a successful weight-loss program. Diet’s is critical. Exercise does help with prevention of weight regain and has many other benefits.

Again, I like this e-book and highly recommend it to adults taking insulin for diabetes who need a great physical activity program but don’t know how to go about it. Get the e-book here.

Of course, get the blessings of your personal healthcare provider before making any changes to your diet, exercise program, or medications.

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: Disclosure: Christel kindly gave me a copy of the e-book. Otherwise there was not, and will not be, any remuneration for this review.

 

Why Are We in the U.S. Fat?

Your average Americans

There’s no shortage of speculation as to why 70% of us in the U.S. are overweight or obese. A few possibilities include:

  • we’re too sedentary
  • we eat too many carbohydrates
  • we eat too much fat
  • our foods are over-processed
  • we eat away from home too often
  • we eat too many industrial seed oils
  • our water and food are contaminated with persistent organic pollutants that disrupt our endocrine systems

I was reading an article at Nutrition Today and came across this graph of calorie consumption change from 1971 to 2004 (or 2000?):

A verbal summary is from this article cited by the the Nutrition Today authors: “During 1971—2000, a statistically significant increase in average energy intake occurred. For men, average energy intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals, and for women, from 1,542 kcals to 1,877 kcals.”

So men’s daily calorie intake went up by 168, and women’s by 335.

The original article I read states, alternatively, that men’s daily caloric consumption rose from 2450 to 2693, a gain of 243. I can’t explain the discrepancy between 243 and 168, nor why 2004 is in the graph instead of 2000.

Maybe you don’t think an extra 168 calories a day is much. If you believe in the validity of the Energy Balance Equation, those 168 daily calories will turn into  17.5 pounds of fat in a year unless you “burn them off” somehow. If you weigh 150 lb (68 kg), you can burn those 168 calories by doing a daily 15-minute jog at 5.5 mph (8.9 km/hr). But you ain’t gonna do that. (I’m not getting into a debate about validity of the equation now; for another perspective, read Lyle McDonald.)

But year 2000 was a long time ago. How much are Americans eating now? According to a 2016 report from Pew Research Center:

Broadly speaking, we eat a lot more than we used to: The average American consumed 2,481 calories a day in 2010, about 23% more than in 1970. That’s more than most adults need to maintain their current weight, according to the Mayo Clinic’s calorie calculator. (A 40-year-old man of average height and weight who’s moderately active, for instance, needs 2,400 calories; a 40-year-old woman with corresponding characteristics needs 1,850 calories.)

Bottom line? We’re eating more than we did in 1970. Which could explain why we’re fat. Unless we’re burning more calories than we did in 1970, which I doubt.

Steve Parker, M.D.

PS: In scientific literature, “kcal” is what everybody else calls a calorie.

PPS: Why we’re over-eating is a whole ‘nuther can o’ worms.