Image from http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com - click to read an additional article supporting this post.
By Team ICG® Master Trainer Joan Kent
A while ago, based on some long-held suspicions, I ran a PubMed search on weight gain and weight loss to assess the accuracy of a widely held belief. The belief, as the above title suggests, is that weight management hinges on the so-called “simple arithmetic” of calories in and calories out.
Even with the limited time I had for the search, I still located approximately 35-40 articles in various science journals that seem to challenge the calorie theory. I”™ve categorized the results below, but need to start with a caveat. Most of the studies cited in this post were done on animals. (I”™ve indicated specifically when the subjects were human.)
Some people will object because of that. For their benefit, I”™d like to make two points: 1) Studies of this type would be unethical to perform on human subjects. No review board anywhere would approve research that involves locking people in a room, taking all control of their food intake away from them, and forcing them to gain or lose weight. 2) Are you truly prepared to state that weight management centers on calories in/calories out in the human body, while it”™s Anything Goes with animals? Knowledgeable veterinarians, for example, have confirmed that the metabolic effects of Cushing”™s disease, including the role of hormones in weight gain, are identical in humans and dogs.
So what happened in the studies? To sum it up, dietary factors were found to disrupt the link between calorie intake and weight, and different nutrients and hormones affected the weight outcome.
Fat content of the diet affected weight gain and loss.
- Rats on high-fat diets developed severe obesity without overconsumption of calories (4 studies).
- Mice showed greater weight gained per calories consumed (called “feeding efficiency”) on high-fat versus low-fat diets (1 study).
- Calorie-restricted, isocaloric diets of 10% and 50% fat both reduced body weight in rats, but body fat was higher in the 50% group (1 study).
- Total fat intake, rather than calorie intake, correlated with weight gain and was due principally to the saturated fat component (1 study).
- Saturated fat is associated with greater weight gain than unsaturated fat (2 studies). [This makes no sense from a calorie standpoint, since all fats contains 9 calories per gram. But saturated and unsaturated fats affect hormones differently, as mentioned briefly in a previous ICG® post on Cholesterol.]
- Fecal analysis showed people who consume nuts regularly excrete more fat, suggesting a discrepancy in gross calorie intake and calories absorbed (1 study).
Sugar content of the diet affected weight gain and loss.
- Abdominal fat deposits were caused by high-sucrose, isocaloric diets in rats, although the rats showed no differences in weight gain when compared with controls (1 study).
- Rats fed sucrose plus standard chow did not eat more calories than controls, but gained significantly more weight per calorie consumed (feeding efficiency) and had higher body fat than controls (1 study).
- Severe obesity developed in rats on a high-sugar diet and in rats on a high-fat diet, although controls eating standard chow ate significantly more calories than either the sugar group or the fat group (1 study).
- In a study of human identical twins, the dietary factor isolated as causing a difference in BMI between twins was sugar intake (1 study).
Nutrients affected sugar-induced weight gain.
- The protein content of a high-sucrose diet was inversely related to the effects of sucrose on weight gain and feeding efficiency (1 study). [Protein triggers the release of glucagon; its effects oppose those of insulin. More on insulin below.]
- Minerals added to a standard chow-plus-sucrose diet did not change calories, but decreased weight gain and feeding efficiency and improved glucose tolerance (1 study).
Insulin, a “fat storage” hormone, is a factor in weight gain.
- Rats injected with insulin gain weight with no change in diet or calorie intake (standard textbooks).
- Diet-induced insulin resistance preceded obesity development in rats (1 study).
- Insulin resistance functions as an adaptive mechanism to prevent further weight gain in obese human subjects (3 studies).
- A good nightӪs sleep vs. restless sleep altered hormone balance. Restless sleep caused fat storage to increase (2 studies). ӬӬ [This result seems contradictory in light of calorie balance: WouldnӪt tossing and turning all night burn more calories than sleeping soundly?]
- The 24-hour rate of fat oxidation by skeletal muscle may be determined either by genetics or by diet. Insulin-triggering foods lower it (2 studies).
- High fructose intake induces high insulin levels, which can cause weight gain (5 studies).
- Chronic stress increases insulin and decreases brain dopamine, norepinephrine and beta-endorphin. The changes shift food preferences to carbs (specifically sugar) and fats, leading to weight gain (9 studies).
What appears to be a balance of calories in/calories out is often the result of a change in diet composition. That, in turn, changes the hormonal response. Hormones can affect weight more profoundly than calories. (More about hormones in a future post.)
Despite the documentation, some of you will believe this, some will not. What I hope is you”™ll avoid telling your students that weight management is just simple arithmetic. Instead, please suggest that they shift their diets in a more healthful direction.
Contact her at drjoan@foodaddictionsolutions.com
- New Year’s Resolutions: A Sugar Addict’s Survival Guide - April 15, 2024
- Motivation vs. Enthusiasm - October 12, 2023
- Why Exercise Shouldn’t Be Just One Thing - November 9, 2022
Joan,
I get the message about simplifying to an arithmetic problem. Still, when interested in weight loss a good place to start is to really determine how much one is stuffing in their bodies on a daily basis. After that being smart about what is working and what is not will a long way toward sustained weight loss.
From my own weight management efforts I’ve also noticed that a reduced caloric diet still relatively high in simple sugars seemed to promote weight gain, at least in me.
The take away for me was basically; Garbage in – no weight off regardless of calorie reduction efforts.
Hi, Chuck.
Thanks for reading and commenting on my post. What works in getting someone started is probably individual. Some people may log their food intake online to get daily calorie data and become aware of it. Some may need that and a real-time readout of calorie expenditure to see the over-consumption.
I use food to change brain chemistry. Adding foods that stabilize glucose and neurochemicals to a troublesome diet can shift food preferences away from cravings for junk and toward more healthful foods. Taking addictive foods, such as sugar, out of a bad diet can actually make good foods taste better. When addiction isn’t driving appetite, participants can trust that hunger reflects the need for food, rather than compulsion or withdrawal. The same thing is true for which foods they want. A lot of issues work themselves out from that point forward.
If you’re getting good results with the method you use, great job! The important thing is we’re helping people who want help.
Thanks, Chuck.
Joan
Truth be told, Joan…..if you access valid studies that have stood the test of time and attempts to refute them, thermodynamic (calories in vs. calories out) works every time.
One mistake that a lot of folk make when doing a PubMed search…….and I’m not even talking about the fact that just because a study gets *publsihed* it ddoesn’t necessarily mean it *The Truth*…..is looking at studies on rodents. These are very popular because grants are awarded quite generaously for animal studies and you can get lots of standardised answers……unfortunately to the wrong questions. There’s a huge difference between rodent physiology and metabolism and that of adult primates and it skews the results of studies big time and is responsible for a good many of the myths surrounding weight management.
FWIW, I actually emphasise the energy balance equation to folk I interact with because that’s what does make the difference at the end of the day.
Vivienne
Vivienne,
Thanks for reading my post. As you read, the beginning of the post anticipated objections to rodent research. Perhaps rodent metabolism operates on an “anything goes” basis. If anything goes, there isn’t much point in discussing it.
Several studies done on human subjects appear to refute thermodynamics. How would calories explain, for example, that obese, insulin-resistant individuals gain less weight than non-insulin resistant on diets of comparable calorie intake? How would calories explain that the primary dietary factor in different BMIs of human identical twins was the sugar content of their diets, rather than a difference in calorie intake?
Weight Watchers discovered that the approach of addressing only calories, and later points (reflecting calories), led some participants to eat junk until they reached their day’s calorie/point limit and then stop eating for the day. That undesirable consequence contributed to the WW decision to emphasize healthful foods, rather than just zero in on a target number.
As I wrote to Chuck, if a method you’re using is working, there’s no need to change it. The important thing is we’re trying to help people. If your students are getting results, you’re doing a great thing.
Joan
Well, you’ve sort of answered the questions yourself. The vast majority of studies on human subjects aren’t performed under the strict conditions of the laboratory or metabolic ward. Not because they’re unethical, BTW but they’re just very expensive and it’s tough to get enough willing volunteers to stay the course.
Consequently, results are frequently confounded by dietary habits and exercise levels of the individuals themselves. Almost without fail, when conditions are controlled for to the extent that there’s no opportunity for free feeding and exercise is closely monitored, the primary factor in weight loss (or gain) is energy content of the diet rather than macronutrient content…….just as thermodynamicss predicts. The seminal work on this was done over 50 years ago by Ancel Keyes during WWII and frequently repeated by others (not to mention the experience of prisoners of war, refugees etc. on on nutritionally poor but calorie deficient diet) The caveat, of course, is that diets consisting of all or mainly one macronutrient aren’t practical to study……but folk don’t generally eat like that anyway.
Wasn’t there a highly publicised example of someone a year or so back going on a calorie restruited diet of nothing but Twinkies for a while…..as a way to refute a lot of the claims being made for low carb diets. He lost weight, lipid profile improved etc. etc.
Over the years I’ve had patients….young kids who were faddy eaters whose parents gave up with the nutritious diet thing and let them eat crap and candies and whatnot. They had rotten teeth, for sure, but were surprisingly skinny for the most part.
There’s plenty of reason not to include sugar in the diet to a great extent….if you’re wasting your calorie allowance on “empty” stuff, there’s not enough room for what you need to eat for a balanced diet, but it still comes down to energy balance in the end.
Vivienne
Thanks for writing the article and stay on this focus because 99% of the people in the world believe that the human body is so simple that CI=CO is how human physiology works. Wrong. your PubMed results certainly show that. It will take a long and persistent effort and time to dispel the myth about calorie counting which works for such a small percent of the people that it is relatively useless.
Rather, what needs to happen is something that we can use to replace this and most formula’s that purport to quantify human response to most things. In one book that I wrote on weight loss (yes that term works) titled Fit AND Fat I used the model of the metabolic “Black Box” to explain how complex human physiology is. Maybe there is some other way to explain that it’s not a useless formula.
Keep writing and talking about it Joan. And thanks, SALLY EDWARDS
Sally,
Thanks for reading my post, and thanks so much for your comment. As you obviously realize, this viewpoint is a tough sell, and people will reject it in favor of the familiar. (Then again, serving fruit on and after rides and runs was long the norm — and took eons to shift to taters, so the familiar lingers.)
I appreciate your support and look forward to reading your book.
Thanks,
Joan