Who Made us fat?

Published August 28, 2012; reformatted 4.7.2013 and again on 8.10.2015

Notes from the Men Who Made Us Fat

This is the link I used to watch the video, but I have no idea if that link will remain live.

On first impression, the show seems to be the British version of <HBO's The Weight of the Nation. The BBC host is Jacques Peretti. Note: In general, my commentary will be in italics, though obviously as these are my notes, everything that follows reflects that which I found of interest while watching.

I didn't really survey other opinion around the web, but Carbsane didn't like it. I suspect because that is because Lustig and Taubes were featured in it, and she takes issue with the positions and presentations of both, which you can discover if you go to her blog. The Carbsane blog is well worth a read. Lustig was also in the Weight of the Nation.

Statistics

As with the HBO special, we begin with statistics. Two thirds of Brits are overweight and 40% are obese. In England, Peretti says, obesity is classified as a disease. n the US, it's still an open question whether obesity is a diseases or a symptom of other disease— or simply a matter of over consumption.

Brits are (on average) 3 stone heavier than 50 years ago. A stone is 14 pounds, so that's 42 pounds.

The question to be considered in the program: Is it us or the companies making the food? My beginning bias is that I think it is a matter of personal responsibility. Companies do what they do, but none of them forces anyone to use their product. I know that people are trying to show that somehow the food companies "knew" their products were addictive, or somehow made them addictive, so that Big Food can be treated (and sued) just as Big Tobacco was. I think it's a stretch. My guess is that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the best bet currently for the "sue'em into submission" track.

"Invisible Obesity"

Peretti has an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan and finds that he has a lot of visceral fat. So he is an example of "skinny fat". He doesn't look fat, but has a lot of fat around his organs, particularly his liver, 4 liters worth or twice as much as he should have according to the doctor who analyzes the scan.

That doctor actually brings up the concept of the cavemen and how we haven't genetically changed much since then. He does note that cavemen would do exactly what modern people do in a supermarket, i.e. fall face first into as much food as he can eat. This I believe. I think people have always eaten whatever they can put in their pie hole that didn't kill them or make them sick.

It's all Nixon's fault

Britain got fat in last 40 years, much as the US did. So filmmaker discusses the US in the 70s. this is similar to the explanation given in the HBO's The Weight of the Nation.

The story starts with Nixon wanting to lower food prices. So Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz had the idea to industrialize food production starting in 1971. The goal was cheap food on an industrial scale. Butz's motto was "get big or get out". And that's why US farms are huge, industrialized and subsidized. Grain is much easier to industrialize then fruits and vegetables, so the rest of the discussion is going to be about grain farms.

More grain means more grain fed animals. Farmers grew more and created a surplus of grain plenty, and so Butz championed new ways to use all that corn.

Enter High Fructose Corn Syrup

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) was invented in Japan, and it made farmers rich. With HFCS, the surplus corn could be used to create an industrial sweetener. Thus Butz transformed our diet and our waist line, says Peretti.

Marion Nestle is interviewed, and notes the amount of calories produced per person went from 3200 to 3900, which is twice as much as what's needed. But that doesn't mean that they had to be eaten, but because there was so much, the prices would be low and then people could afford more food. This is the availability of food argument. Although 3200 calories is more than what the average person needs too. These are calories produced, not calories eaten, so it's a difficult statistic from which to draw definitive conclusions.

Nestle thinks this large increase in calorie production caused a "great deal of difficulty", but she's off after that very brief comment.

Americans Eat Immense Amounts

Next Peretti documents how much we eat during the Superbowl. I guess as to show an extreme example, but in general people simply eat too much. And choosing not to do so can engender some strange responses, at least in my recent experience. You're almost outcast in some circles if you don't stuff your face.

Then he shows a fast food meal while noting how much corn is in it (basically in the whole thing if you consider animal feed (meat) and sweetener(bread)). He says beverage calories are the biggest single source of calories in the US diet. Corn syrup really took off when it was added to soda (and now other drinks). This Bray authored paper supports this view. The paper also supports the view that sweetened beverages (particularly those with elevated amounts of free fructose) ARE associated with the increase in obesity, because people don't account for those drink calories. They simply continue to eat as they always did and added the drink calories.

More on the history of HFCS in colas.

Corn syrup was an innovation for the food makers. Sugar prices were going up, but food companies had to be sure the taste was the same before changing their formulations to HFCS. It was a huge risk for them to switch, but they took it and have never looked back. The taste was the same, and there was no indication that there was going to be a problem. Some people dispute this now, but the case for anyone's a priori knowledge of potential trouble has not been convincingly made as of yet.

It wasn't until 1985 that the CDC (US Center for Disease Control) started charting obesity. In the 1970s is was just not on the radar screen. Which shows how recent the issue is.

Soda DID become more popular and drink sizes DID increase after HFCS. Prices were less, so more soda could be sold at the same price. Free refills became common. Also the marketing improved and so did sales. As more soda was drunk, people got fatter.

HFCS is sweeter than sugar. But they use more HFCS than they use sugar. The Bray paper, linked above, supports this as well.

The beverage spokesman says there's no evidence of causality. HFCS was a no brainer business decision that just happened to have a bad effect. There was no venality involved.

Disclaimer

Fructose!!

Another talking head doctor (not Lustig) says fructose is very easily converted to fat. But it's the amount that we eat that makes it toxic. It's NOT lead in terms of toxicity. The Bray article supports this too. Bray himself is much more cautious in his conclusions. But the idea that we drink too much fructose and that fructose makes us fat does have support.

90 lbs of sugar eaten by average american each year 2x the recommended "safe" level- Carbsane reacted to that too, but I think her bias was showing. I don't think it's disputable that most people eat too much sugar. The easiest way to reduce calories if you drink soda is to simply begin drinking diet sodas. If you change nothing else, the calorie reduction will cause weight loss.

The sugar folks say it's CALORIES, not sugar. But others say fructose affects leptin signaling. The liver gets overloaded, and the leptin signaling stops and the brain never gets the stop message. Of course, Sugar industry rejects that too. But if Lustig and the other guy are right, then fructose is driving our weight gain.

Brits didn't snack until the 1970s?

The show claims that in 70s marketers invented snacking for the Brits. In the 1970s, eating between meals was still frowned upon. As people started snacking, their calorie count went up. I have no idea if it's true that Brits didn't snack before the 1970s. I think people DO snack more than they used to.

Packaged foods are easier for "on the go" lifestyles of people today. Snacking was a new market in Britain in the 1970s according to this show. Apparently, freezers weren't common in Britain until the 1970s. Freezer treats and desserts were created. McDonald's only got to Britain in the 1970s. And fast food has been spreading ever since.

Low fat v Deadly Sugar

Then the topic becomes Ancel Keyes. Keyes invented K-rations which were very high calorie packs. Keyes thought fat caused heart disease. He picked up that idea in England. Brits had high heart disease, and he thought it was the fatty diet brits ate.

In 1972, John Yudkin wrote, "Pure White and Deadly". Yudkin blamed sugar for heart disease. The next talking head, Bruckdorfer, worked with Yudkin. Yudkin said that sugar was the big change in the British diet. The food industry was against him, and Keyes also ridiculed him. Yudkin was discredited.

So now the show is all about sugar. The industry made new sweet foods— because people bought them. And they made them so the people would buy them.

Food Reward and the Brain

And then they talk about the brain research that is going on, which is all about the food reward. Then Peretti talks to David Kessler. I still don't buy that the industry is evil. No one has to eat what they sell.

Kessler pushes the idea that industry uses neuroscience to perfect their products. My comment: I can believe that companies did that, but I don't think that is evil. Unless they can show that companies knew sugar is addictive, I think the companies are off the hook.

The food spokesman just says that people ate more because they liked the taste. Industry believes it's personal responsibility. Kessler thinks there should be corporate responsibility.

The problem is "low fat" diets

George McGovern, after losing to Nixon, wrote the first nutritional guidelines. I didn't know this. The food industry fought back hard. Sugar Association and food industry in general buried the report. And sugar was not much mentioned in the media, instead it became all about reducing fat intake.

And then Peretti interviews Gary Taubes, who says nothing new. Seriously, if you've read any of his articles you know what he said.

And then Peretti interviews a food scientist who showed how to replace the fat in a food. She also explains why fat is so good. Fat carries the flavor, and continues to react in the mouth even after it's been swallowed. To replace fat, you have to completely reformulate the food. And most fat was replaced with sugar.

Taubes says there was a theory that low fat meant you couldn't get fat by eating it. And so it's then time to discuss Snackwells. Snackwells were a huge hit. But low fat didn't mean it was calorie-free. Never underestimate the stupidity of people, I guess. I never thought low fat foods were calorie-free or that I could eat unlimited amounts of them and not get fat.

By 2000, the tide was turning, Peretti says, and sugar was again getting attention. In 2003, there was a meeting in Geneva and the World Health Organization (WHO) was going to recommend a limit for sugar. So the US threatened their support money. The sugar lobby got their way, and the WHO backed down, the recommendation was never made. The US sec of Agriculture went to Geneva to lobby. That was in the HBO movie too.

But now we're SO fat, the industry is willing to change. But everyone is NOT fat— why is that? If the environment is so toxic, why are there still thin people?

This was the first in a series. Here is the article published at the BBC website for the same documentary.My commentary on the article follows, without italics this time:

Per the article, people are NOT eating more or moving less, but rather what they eat has changed. I do not believe that. I think portion size increased as food raw material declined in price. We (and the Brits) ARE eating more.

The piece begins by saying we don't eat more, but then goes on to show how exactly we ARE eating more. The article was written about the episode, so my notes from above are just as applicable.

In the mid 70s, I was too young to care (I'm approaching a half century on this planet, you can do the math). Is it true that doctors argued over whether it was sugar or fat that caused heart issues? I don't know.

I do remember the advent of low fat. And I do remember Snackwells. But I don't remember ever thinking that I could eat as much as I wanted of anything and not get fat.

But my mother cooked every night. Not well, but it was healthier than a diet of fast food. Of course, in the 1980s, Seinfeld mocked the whole "if it's low fat it's not fattening" idea. So I don't buy the argument that "low fat" food made us fat. Eating too much food made us fat, period.