Quick Notes for Mid April 2015

Updated 4.23.2015
Short takes on recently read items. Not really mid-April at this point, but there you go.

Does eating many mini-meals per day matter?

Probably not is the conclusion of a recent paper co-authored by Alan Aragon. It’s a meta-study, which showed not much of anything. Per the discussion, any effect was the result of a single paper that showed a large effect, the other included studies did not. I'm not really sure how this paper got published, but Aragon et al did it because meal frequency is one of those things people argue about.

Fiber in the diet

Eat a diet high in fiber is a cornerstone of the dietary guidelines, and I have no problem withe the recommendation. I do have a problem with the focus on eating whole wheat. You do NOT have to eat whole wheat anything to get fiber into your diet. In fact, you don’t have to eat whole grain anything to get fiber into your diet. If you eat a lot of veggies and fruits, you’re probably good, even without the wheat and grains.

Even my vegetable phobic son, because he’ll eat kale chips is probably okay on the fiber front. At least now while he lives at home. And the fact that he will eat a carrot or some green beans or peas also means that his diet has fiber. And that’s before you get to the legume filled breads that we make. And why, oh why, do people only mention soluble fiber for legumes. Legumes have a shit-ton of INsoluble fiber too.

I understand that many people don't eat a lot of fruits and vegetables and that therefore grains are where most of the fiber in their diets will be found. But it is entirely possible to construct a healthy diet that doesn't center on grains and still has a lot of fiber— with zero need to follow any fad such as "Paleo" or "low carb."

The HAES fallacy

Read long enough in any community, and eventually the truth comes out. Diets do NOT fail. Finally a HAES proponent states explicitly where the falsehood lies (Health At Every Size).

Because of our human physiology, weight loss is followed by a period of rapid eating and weight regain.

This quoted statement is NOT true, at least if you avoid fad diets. (A fad diet is any that eliminates or restricts any one macronutrient.) No part of human physiology requires "rapid eating." If you eat the amount of food required to support the size human you want to be (calorie needs vary by both height and age) you will become that size over time.

It works, and it works for the long term.

What she's describing is bingeing, and there isn't any physiological reason to binge, unless you've been doing a fad diet. As I've noted before, there are bits of the HAES that make sense, but the INSISTENCE that weight is not related to health renders the entire concept useless and ridiculous. Of course weight is related to health, regardless of whether BMI is an adequate marker — and I agree that for individuals it is not.

Where's there's a problem, there's a profit

Stores are not targeting fatties as a market. Not everyone is happy about this (the author of the linked article certainly is not. There are both positive and negative aspects to the push for better fatty fashion options.

Obviously, everyone needs to be clothed, and it's great that larger people will have a greater choice. The health effects of being so large while so young are real, however. Health at every size is not really possible. The body compensates for the excess poundage until it cannot, and then all form of hormonal, joint and other issues become apparent. Reading through the fatosphere shows this time and time again. So called "smaller fats" may will well be within their body's ability to compensate, but for people who've exceeded that mark, the stories get ugly quickly.

The author also touches on the issue of backlash for fatties that leave the fold and decide to improve their health by losing some weight. Something that is entirely possible to do and maintain despite all the HAES shouting otherwise.

Eat more carbs!

Maybe the low carb/high fat pendulum is beginning to swing back again? This Daily Mail article says eliminating carbs can harm your health and maybe make you fat (although that will only happen if you overeat).

Beyond the usual reasons for eating carbs, health effects noted in the article are low fiber intake on typical low carb, ketosis makes the blood slightly acidic (the assertion, which I have never researched, is that the body prefers the blood pH to be slightly alkaline or basic). Most bodily functions prefer an alkaline pH, so remaining in a constant state of ketosis makes the body work harder to function. And the body compensates, at least until it cannot.

Given the number of high profile low carb gurus who have dropped dead of heart attacks at relatively young ages, I'm not at all convinced that long term ketosis is healthy. While it isn't a novel observation, it's also notable how easy it is to fall out of ketosis, strongly suggesting that ketosis is NOT a preferred state for the human body.

Site Maintenance note.

Recently this site's format was changed yet again. As noted, the change was to make the site mobile friendly. As editor, I've made the decision to bite the bullet and have the entire site conform to the new format. The (monumental, truth be told) effort to do this will occur mostly behind the scenes, but there may be the occasional broken link as a result. Any such errors will be fixed as they are found.

Disclaimer