LOW ENERGY SWEETENERS VS. REGULAR SUGAR AND YOUR HUNGER, CONFLICTING EVIDENCE! VOL. 1 NO. 69

The consumption of low-energy sweeteners (LES) substituting for regular sugar, in children and adults, has been found to reduce caloric intake and body weight. It may possibly do the same when comparing low energy sweetener to water possibly because of taste. This according to a review led by researchers at the University of Bristol published in the International Journal of Obesity, November 2015.

For the first time, a single meta-review evaluates the real effect of LES, such as saccharine (e.g. Sweet And Low®), aspartame (e.g. Equal®), sucralose (e.g. Splenda®), and Stevia (e.g. Truvia®), on energy intake (EI) and body weight (BW) over the short and long term. A considerable body of evidence correlates the consumption of LES in place of sugar reduces relative energy intake and body weight.

Professor Peter Rogers
Biological Psychology

Lead author Professor Peter Rogers from the University of Bristol said: “We believe that we should shift the question from whether LES are ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ and rather focus on how they should be best used in practice to help in the achievement of specific public health goals, such as the reduction of intakes of free sugars and energy.” (Rogers, 2015)

The researchers carried out systematic reviews of pertinent studies in non-primates and humans consuming LES in a non-restricted diet.
In total, 12 human prospective cohort studies, 228 comparisons in human intervention studies (short and long-term), and 90 animal studies were examined.

“Managing energy balance (that is, energy intake vs. energy expenditure) well results in a steady body weight. On the contrary, eating an excessive amount of food causes an increase in body weight as this extra energy is stored in the body as adipose tissue (fat). Low energy sweeteners were developed for consumers looking for ways to reduce their sugar and energy intake.” (Evidence shows low-energy sweeteners help reduce energy intake and body weight, 2015)

The comparison between LES drinks and water is of interest because it shows that low energy sugar does not increase hunger. The evidence found in this study purports that LES drinks reduced weight more than water. A cogent reason for this may be that changing from regular sugar drinks to those with low energy sugar may be easier and a more palatable dietary change than switching to water.

This study seems to contradict another study by Monica Dus a researcher at the University of Michigan as reviewed in an earlier edition of The Fat Bastard Gazette,
FRUIT FLY NEURONS AND HUMAN NEURONS CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REAL SUGAR AND ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER CAUSING A HUNGER RESPONSE! VOL. 1 NO. 40.

Monica Dus, Ph.D., assistant professor in the U-M Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology

“From an evolutionary perspective, sweet taste means sugar (traditionally from fruit or high concentrate carbohydrates) and a subsequent big energy boost. Fruit flies can’t call out for pizza–their brains expect calories if they eat something sweet, and that’s why they chose the regular sugar, Dus says.” (diet sweeteners could exist in humans, 2015)

“If our brains work the same way, this helps explains why diet foods don’t satiate or satisfy us, and we gain weight while dieting. It’s analogous to a person eating that entire sleeve of low-calorie cookies and the body telling her she’s still hungry. She keeps snacking until she eats something with nutritional value that meets her energy needs.” (Bailey, 2015)

This male fruit fly (Zaprionus vittiger) devoid of abdominal pigments.

“In two previous studies, Dus and her colleagues found that flies that couldn’t taste preferred real sugar to a zero-calorie sweetener, which underscores the theory of energy preference. They also characterized a neural circuit, dubbed Cupcake+, which functions as a behavioral on/off switch for eating. Turning off the Cupcake neurons makes the fruit flies “feel” hungry, Dus says.” (Bailey, 2015)

Further information on low energy sugar study (LES)

What makes this new or different?

For the first time, the totality of evidence on the question of low-energy sweeteners’ effects on energy intake and body weight has been considered in a systematic review, including both human and animal research.

What is a ‘systematic’ review and why is that important?

In a systematic review, researchers identify all relevant scientific papers that address a question. It is a way to overcome possible bias (for example, from selecting or ignoring certain evidence), and ensure the totality of relevant evidence is considered. A systematic review is also transparent and open to direct replication by other experts.

Are ‘low energy’ sweeteners the same as ‘artificial’ sweeteners?

Some low-energy sweeteners are derived from natural sources, but the majorities are manufactured, so they are often called ‘artificial’ sweeteners.

Why do some people say that low-energy sweeteners might cause weight gain?

The hypothesis that low-energy sweeteners might cause weight gain has come from a subset of animal and observational studies. However, the current paper shows that this hypothesis is not supported by the majority of studies with animals, nor by any of the many controlled studies with humans consuming low energy sweeteners for weeks or years.

What about the safety of low-energy sweeteners?

This paper did not evaluate safety. The low-energy sweeteners used in commercial foods and beverages have all undergone safety evaluations needed to achieve regulatory approval for use by the general public.

Why do you say that low-energy sweeteners are beneficial, “possibly even also when compared to water”?

This comes from intervention studies showing that people tended to lose more weight when they consumed low-energy sweetened (‘diet’) drinks rather than water.

Does this mean using low-energy sweeteners will cause weight loss?

No. Weight change is dependent on the total diet and activity pattern, not a single component of foods and beverages. However, using low-energy sweeteners is a helpful alternative to caloric sweeteners, to reduce the risk of weight gain or as part of weight loss.

What was the role of the food industry in this paper?

Of the 11 authors, two are research scientists in the food industry, eight are independent academics, including four full professors recognized as international authorities in the areas of eating behaviour and nutritional epidemiology. (Evidence shows low-energy sweeteners help reduce energy intake and body weight, 2015)

Dear readers, if you have read this far, the Captain would be most heartened if you would rate this and future articles and/or leave a comment at the top of the blog posts whether positive or negative. In this way, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” may better serve you and our entire readership.

---

 

Bailey, L. (2015, June 11). MICHIGAN NEWS University of Michigan. Retrieved November 13, 2015, from Regular soda, please: Hormone that differentiates sugar, diet sweeteners could exist in humans: http://ns.umich.edu/new/multimedia/videos/22948-regular-soda-please-hormone-that-differentiates-sugar-diet-sweeteners-could-exist-in-humans

Evidence shows low-energy sweeteners help reduce energy intake and body weight. (2015, November 10). Retrieved November 13, 2015, from University of Bristol: http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2015/november/low-energy-sweeteners-and-weight.html

Rogers, P. e. (2015, November 10). Does low-energy sweetener consumption affect energy intake and body weight? A systematic review, including meta-analyses, of the evidence from human and animal studies, Online publication. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2015.177

Captain Hank Quinlan, Owner, and Publisher, Chief Curmudgeon with Sam Borsalino, Assistant Publisher

Dear Hail-Fellows well met, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is written and edited by your favorite curmudgeons Captain Hank Quinlan and

Flatfoot Willie, Correspondent at Large with fellow Staff Writers

Staff (monkeys in the back room). We offer an ongoing tirade to support or offend anyone of any large dimension, cultural background, religious affiliation, or color of skin. This gazette rails against an eclectic mix of circus ring ne’er do wells, big ring fatty and fatso whiners, congenital idiots, the usual motley assortment of the profoundly dumbfounded, and a favorite of intelligent men everywhere, the

May the Most Venerable H. L. Mencken bless our unworthy but earnest attempts at tongue in cheek jocularity.

“Great Booboisie.” Nor shall we ignore the wide assortment of shirkers, layabouts, and slugabeds.

Latest office staff confab at Fat Bastard HQ.

All this and more always keeping our major focus on “Why so fat?”  Enough said? We at “The Fat Bastard Gazette” think so. If you like what you read, and you know whom you are, in this yellow blog, tell your friends. We would be elated with an ever-wider readership. We remain cordially yours, Captain Hank Quinlan and the Monkeys in the back room

“The Fat Bastard Gazette” does not purport to offer any definitive medical or pharmaceutical advice whatsoever in any explicit or implied manner. Always consult a qualified physician in all medical or pharmaceutical matters. “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is only the opinion of informed nonprofessionals for the general edification and entertainment of the greater public. 

No similarities to any existing names or characters are expressed or implied. We reserve the right to offend or support anybody, anything, or any sacred totem across the globe.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A FASTING DIET AND NOT JUST WATER Vol. 1 No. 65

Dietary restriction as demonstrated by various animal models shows many health benefits. Fasting as understood by the majority of people is the consumption of water only, an extreme form of restriction. Studies in animals and people suggest repeated cycles of fasting may strengthen certain metabolic and immune functions. However, fasting for two or more days is difficult and can have untoward health effects.

Dr. Valter D. Longo Ph.D., USC Davis School of Gerontology, Edna Jones Professor in Gerontology and Professor in Biological Science. Dietmar-photo

Researchers led by Dr. Valter Longo at the University of Southern California examined diets incorporating “the beneficial effects of fasting while minimizing the risks and difficulty associated with complete food restriction. The research was funded in part by NIH’s National Institute on Aging (NIA). Results were published in Cell Metabolism on July 7, 2015.” (Torgan, 2015)

Longo et al. initially tested cycles of extended fasting in yeast. It was noted that yeast cycled back and forth from a nutrient rich environment to water “had a longer lifespan and were better able to survive toxin exposure—a marker of increased stress resistance—than yeast not exposed to periodic starvation.” (Torgan, 2015)

Researchers then tested a very low calorie, low protein diet in mice. The diet structured to copy some of the healthful effects of fasting, including improving markers of longevity in metabolism. “Middle-aged mice (16 months old) were fed the diet for 4 consecutive days, followed by 10 days of unlimited access to food. The mice overate during these phases so that their overall calorie intake was similar to mice continuously fed a regular diet.” (Torgan, 2015)

These mice fed the diet twice a month continuing for several months experienced various metabolic changes, including lower blood glucose and insulin levels, then mice fed the control diet. The metabolic markers reverted to baseline levels during cycles of refeeding. “Mice fed the diet had less fat around their organs (known as deep or visceral fat) at 28 months of age. They also had a greater bone density at old age and increased nerve cell development in the brain. At the end of life, mice on the diet had fewer tumors and skin lesions than control mice.” (Torgan, 2015)

Finally, a pilot study was administered on a small group of people. “Nineteen healthy adults consumed a proprietary plant-based diet that provided between 34% and 54% of the normal caloric intake with at least 9–10% protein, 34–47% carbohydrate, and 44–56% fat. Participants consumed the diet 5 days a month for 3 months (3 cycles), resuming their normal diet at the end of each diet period. A control group of 19 adults ate a normal diet.” (Torgan, 2015)

Again, people on the diet showed improvements in blood glucose and decreased body weight compared to the control group. Individuals with elevated C- reactive protein levels (a marker of heart disease risk) had decreased levels; individuals with normal levels had no change. Some side effects were noted by individuals on the diet is especially the T, weakness, and headache.

“Strict fasting is hard for people to stick to, and it can also be dangerous, so we developed a complex diet that triggers the same effects in the body,” Longo says. “It’s not a typical diet because it isn’t something you need to stay on.”Longo went on to say, “I’ve personally tried both, and the fasting mimicking diet is a lot easier and also a lot safer.”  (Perkins, 2015)

Although the diet has many positive aspects, Dr. Longo raised a caution flag against water only fasting and warned that the fast mimicking diet should not be attempted without first consulting a MD. and remaining under their guidance  throughout the dieting  process.

“Not everyone is healthy enough to fast for five days, and the health consequences can be severe for a few who do it improperly,” Longo said. “Water-only fasting should only be done in a specialized clinic. Also, certain types of very low-calorie diets, and particularly those with high protein content, can increase the incidence of gallstones in women at risk.” (Perkins, 2015)

“In contrast,” he added, “the fasting mimicking diet tested in the trial can be done anywhere under the supervision of a physician and carefully following the guidelines established in the clinical trials.” (Perkins, 2015)

More research with a larger study group is needed to resolve the long-term effects of this particular diet on human health and offer information on when and how such a diet might be applied.

Dear readers, if you have read this far, the Captain would be most heartened if you would rate this and future articles and/or leave a comment at the top of the blog posts whether positive or negative. In this way, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” may better serve you and our entire readership.

---

 

Perkins, R. (2015, June 18). Diet that mimics fasting appears to slow aging. Retrieved October 19, 2015, from USC News: https://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-to-slow-aging/

Torgan, C. (2015, July 13). Health Effects of a Diet that Mimics Fasting. Retrieved October 19, 2015, from NIH RESEARCH MATTERS: http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/july2015/07132015fasting.htm

 

 

Captain Hank Quinlan, Owner, and Publisher, Chief Curmudgeon with Sam Borsalino, Assistant Publisher

Dear Hail-Fellows well met, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is written and edited by your favorite curmudgeons Captain Hank Quinlan and

Flatfoot Willie, Correspondent at Large with fellow Staff Writers

Staff (monkeys in the back room). We offer an ongoing tirade to support or offend anyone of any large dimension, cultural background, religious affiliation, or color of skin. This gazette rails against an eclectic mix of circus ring ne’er do wells, big ring fatty and fatso whiners, congenital idiots, the usual motley assortment of the profoundly dumbfounded, and a favorite of intelligent men everywhere, the

May the Most Venerable H. L. Mencken bless our unworthy but earnest attempts at tongue in cheek jocularity.

“Great Booboisie.” Nor shall we ignore the wide assortment of shirkers, layabouts, and slugabeds.

Latest office staff confab at Fat Bastard HQ.

All this and more always keeping our major focus on “Why so fat?”  Enough said? We at “The Fat Bastard Gazette” think so. If you like what you read, and you know whom you are, in this yellow blog, tell your friends. We would be elated with an ever-wider readership. We remain cordially yours, Captain Hank Quinlan and the Monkeys in the back room

“The Fat Bastard Gazette” does not purport to offer any definitive medical or pharmaceutical advice whatsoever in any explicit or implied manner. Always consult a qualified physician in all medical or pharmaceutical matters. “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is only the opinion of informed nonprofessionals for the general edification and entertainment of the greater public. 

No similarities to any existing names or characters are expressed or implied. We reserve the right to offend or support anybody, anything, or any sacred totem across the globe.

TOO MUCH SALT IN PREPARED FOODS! Vol.1 No. 42

 

salt mine

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) states, too much salt corresponds unquestionably with high blood pressure, and “Fewer than half of selected food products met Food and Drug Administration sodium-per-serving conditions for labeling as ‘healthy’.”

“Excess sodium intake is a major preventable risk factor for hypertension. More than 90% of U.S. adults consume more sodium than recommended.” The CDC went on to state that adherence to low salt diets is difficult at best given the fact that most commercially prepared foods do not meet the low salt standards.

The CDC listed the top 10 food categories that contribute the most salt in the U.S. diet:

• Meat mixed dishes
• Pasta mixed dishes
• Pizza
• Soups
• Cold cuts
• Sandwiches
• Poultry
• Bread
• Savory snacks
• Cheese

“more than 70% of pizzas, pasta mixed dishes, and meat mixed dishes and 50% to 70% of cold cuts, soups, and sandwiches exceeded FDA ‘healthy’ labeling standards for sodium, whereas less than 10% of breads, savory snacks, and cheeses did.”

Ultimately, 50% or more of commercially prepared foods exceeded the salt- per-serving conditions for a healthful food.

The study found that there was very little variation in salt content in commercially prepared foods across the U.S. Therefore, it concluded that too much salt in commercially prepared foods was the likely culprit contributing to hypertension.

Dear readers, if you have read this far, the Captain would be most heartened if you would rate this and future articles and/or leave a comment at the top of the blog posts whether positive or negative. In this way, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” may better serve you and our entire readership.

 

Captain Hank Quinlan, Owner and Publisher, Chief Curmudgeon with Sam Borsalino, Assistant Publisher

Dear Hail-Fellows well met, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is written and edited by your favorite curmudgeons Captain Hank Quinlan and

Flatfoot Willie, Correspondent at Large with fellow Staff Writers

Staff (monkeys in the back room). We offer an ongoing tirade to support or offend anyone of any large dimension, cultural background, religious affiliation, or color of skin. This gazette rails against an eclectic mix of circus ring ne’er do wells, big ring fatty and fatso whiners, congenital idiots, the usual motley assortment of the profoundly dumbfounded, and a favorite of intelligent men everywhere, the

May the Most Venerable H. L. Mencken bless our unworthy but earnest attempts at tongue in cheek jocularity .

“Great Booboisie.” Nor shall we ignore the wide assortment of shirkers, layabouts, and slugabeds.

Latest office staff confab at Fat Bastard HQ.

All this and more always keeping our major focus on “Why so fat?”  Enough said? We at “The Fat Bastard Gazette” think so. If you like what you read, and you know whom you are, in this yellow blog, tell your friends. We would be elated with an ever-wider readership. We remain cordially yours, Captain Hank Quinlan and the Monkeys in the back room

“The Fat Bastard Gazette” does not purport to offer any definitive medical or pharmaceutical advice whatsoever in any explicit or implied manner. Always consult a qualified physician in all medical or pharmaceutical matters. “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is only the opinion of informed nonprofessionals for the general edification and entertainment of the greater public. 

No similarities to any existing names or characters are expressed or implied. We reserve the right to offend or support anybody, anything, or any sacred totem across the globe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIETING DRIVES ME NUTS!!! VOL. 1 NO. 39

A press release by the University of Buffalo entitled “Thoughts drive dieting plans but feelings drive dieting behavior” states that a majority of the American adult population has tried dieting. Approximately one third of adults are currently on a diet.

A whopping 60% of American adults are overweight or obese. Over a 16% of deaths are related to diet and lack of physical activity.

Marc Kiviniemi

Marc Kiviniemi, a public health researcher at the University of Buffalo says, “There is clearly a disconnect if we have a majority of the population that has tried to lose weight and a majority of the population that is overweight. People are planning to diet and trying to diet, but that’s not translating into a successful weight-loss effort.”

Many factors determine ones weight control from biological to environmental, but behavioral management plays a big part in one’s weight control.

Dieting involves changing ones eating pattern and behave according to that new pattern. “But the factors that guide diet planning differ from those that guide actual diet behavior,” according to the results of Kiviniemi’s new study with Carolyn Brown-Kramer of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln published May,2015  in the Journal of Health Psychology.

“The crux of the disconnect is the divide between thoughts and feelings. Planning is important, but feelings matter, and focusing on feelings and understanding their role can be a great benefit,” says Kiviniemi.

Plans to change dieting behavior are a cerebral function, the understanding that weight-loss is a possibility in making better food choices. Executing the diet however becomes an issue of feelings that determine the behavior.

Click to enlarge

“If you’re sitting back conceiving a plan you may think rationally about the benefits of eating healthier foods, but when you’re in the moment, making a decision, engaging in a behavior, it’s the feelings associated with that behavior that may lead you to make different decisions from those you planned to make.”

The findings of Kiviniemi and Kramer underscore the pitfalls of extreme deprivation diets or diets that do not take into account individual preferences.

“First of all, the deprivation experience is miserable. If you didn’t associate negative feelings with it to start, you will after a few days,” says Kiviniemi. “The other thing that’s important is the distinction between things that require effort and things that are automatic.”

“Planning is an effort that demands mental energy, but feelings happen automatically. Deprivation or anything that demands a high degree of self-control is a cognitive process. If you put yourself in a position to use that energy every time you make a food choice that energy is only going to last so long.”

Kiviniemi says dieters should think about enjoyment when planning their diet strategy and executing said diet.

“In the dietary domain, eating more fruits and vegetables is fabulous advice. But if you have negative feelings about those food choices, they might not represent elements of a good plan,” says Kiviniemi. “It’s not just about eating healthy foods. It’s about eating the healthy foods you like the most.”

And let’s be frank a diet is a diet It takes a lot of energy to move good intentions into actions that is why diet planning should be based on both thoughts and feelings .

“Think seriously about how you’re going to implement the plans you make to change your behavior, and that includes not only the feeling component, but how you plan to overcome a negative reaction that might surface during a diet.”

One of the key features of successful dieting is not just knowing what we’re eating is healthful, but how we will feel eating what we know to be healthful.

Dear readers, if you have read this far, the Captain would be most heartened if you would rate this and future articles and/or leave a comment at the top of the blog posts whether positive or negative. In this way, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” may better serve you and our entire readership.

 

Captain Hank Quinlan, Owner and Publisher, Chief Curmudgeon with Sam Borsalino, Assistant Publisher

Dear Hail-Fellows well met, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is written and edited by your favorite curmudgeons Captain Hank Quinlan and

Flatfoot Willie, Correspondent at Large with fellow Staff Writers

Staff (monkeys in the back room). We offer an ongoing tirade to support or offend anyone of any large dimension, cultural background, religious affiliation, or color of skin. This gazette rails against an eclectic mix of circus ring ne’er do wells, big ring fatty and fatso whiners, congenital idiots, the usual motley assortment of the profoundly dumbfounded, and a favorite of intelligent men everywhere, the

May the Most Venerable H. L. Mencken bless our unworthy but earnest attempts at tongue in cheek jocularity .

“Great Booboisie.” Nor shall we ignore the wide assortment of shirkers, layabouts, and slugabeds.

Latest office staff confab at Fat Bastard HQ.

All this and more always keeping our major focus on “Why so fat?”  Enough said? We at “The Fat Bastard Gazette” think so. If you like what you read, and you know whom you are, in this yellow blog, tell your friends. We would be elated with an ever-wider readership. We remain cordially yours, Captain Hank Quinlan and the Monkeys in the back room

“The Fat Bastard Gazette” does not purport to offer any definitive medical or pharmaceutical advice whatsoever in any explicit or implied manner. Always consult a qualified physician in all medical or pharmaceutical matters. “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is only the opinion of informed nonprofessionals for the general edification and entertainment of the greater public. 

No similarities to any existing names or characters are expressed or implied. We reserve the right to offend or support anybody, anything, or any sacred totem across the globe.

IS A HIGH PROTEIN DIET THE CURE? VOL. 1 NO. 38

According to Heather J Leidy, an assistant professor in the MU Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology in “The role of protein in weight loss and maintenance,” “Over the past 20 y, higher-protein diets have been touted as a successful strategy to prevent or treat obesity through improvements in body weight management. These improvements are thought to be due, in part, to modulations (adjustments) in energy metabolism, appetite, and energy intake. Recent evidence also supports higher-protein diets for improvements in cardio metabolic risk factors.” She and her colleagues found a reduction in triglycerides, blood pressure, and waist circumference. They found in the studies “greater perceived fullness and elevated satiety hormones after higher protein meals” in the test subjects. Their study did not support any effect on food intake at the next meal. Meta-analysis confirmed, “persistent benefits of a higher protein weight-loss diet on a body weight and fat mass.” It was found that any discrepancy in the results came from the lack of dietary compliance by the test subjects. 25 to 30 g of high protein per meal provided “improvements in appetite, body weight management, cardiometabolic risk factors, or all of these health outcomes.”

So what more can be said? Eat breakfast, “There is evidence that supports unique benefits with increased protein consumption at breakfast for improved satiety and reductions in unhealthy snacking in the evening.”

Consume ‘complete protein’(proteins found in animal-based foods such as beef, pork, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy products contain all the essential amino acids and are easily digestible) over three meals as evenly as possible. “Quantities of at least ~ 25–30 g protein/meal provide improvements in appetite, body weight management, and/or cardiometabolic risk factors compared with lower-protein diets. In addition, under isoenergetic (equally active) conditions, the increase in protein appears to be the critical component, not the reduction in carbohydrates or fat” in your diet. Do not forget the fruit, vegetables, dairy, and fiber.

Dear readers, if you have read this far, the Captain would be most heartened if you would rate this and future articles and/or leave a comment at the top of the blog posts whether positive or negative. In this way, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” may better serve you and our entire readership.

---

 

Heather J Leidy, P. M.-P. (2015, April 29). AJCN. Retrieved from The role of protein in weight loss and maintenance: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/recent 

Sponsorship was provided by The Beef Checkoff, with additional support from The Dairy Research Institute, Egg Nutrition Center, Global Dairy Platform, Hillshire Brands and the National Pork Board. To view an informational supplement about research on the benefits of protein, visit:

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/recent

University of Missouri-Columbia

 

 

 

Captain Hank Quinlan, Owner and Publisher, Chief Curmudgeon with Sam Borsalino, Assistant Publisher

Dear Hail-Fellows well met, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is written and edited by your favorite curmudgeons Captain Hank Quinlan and

Flatfoot Willie, Correspondent at Large with fellow Staff Writers

Staff (monkeys in the back room). We offer an ongoing tirade to support or offend anyone of any large dimension, cultural background, religious affiliation, or color of skin. This gazette rails against an eclectic mix of circus ring ne’er do wells, big ring fatty and fatso whiners, congenital idiots, the usual motley assortment of the profoundly dumbfounded, and a favorite of intelligent men everywhere, the

May the Most Venerable H. L. Mencken bless our unworthy but earnest attempts at tongue in cheek jocularity .

“Great Booboisie.” Nor shall we ignore the wide assortment of shirkers, layabouts, and slugabeds.

Latest office staff confab at Fat Bastard HQ.

All this and more always keeping our major focus on “Why so fat?”  Enough said? We at “The Fat Bastard Gazette” think so. If you like what you read, and you know whom you are, in this yellow blog, tell your friends. We would be elated with an ever-wider readership. We remain cordially yours, Captain Hank Quinlan and the Monkeys in the back room

“The Fat Bastard Gazette” does not purport to offer any definitive medical or pharmaceutical advice whatsoever in any explicit or implied manner. Always consult a qualified physician in all medical or pharmaceutical matters. “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is only the opinion of informed nonprofessionals for the general edification and entertainment of the greater public. 

No similarities to any existing names or characters are expressed or implied. We reserve the right to offend or support anybody, anything, or any sacred totem across the globe.

SMALL CHANGES MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN LONG TERM WEIGHT LOSS! VOL.1 NO.27

“Making small, consistent changes to the types of protein-and carbohydrate-rich foods we eat may have a big impact on long-term weight gain, according to a study led by researchers at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy at Tufts University in the USA. They found that people who increased intake of red meat or increased the glycemic load (GL) ¹ of their diet gained more weight over 4 years than those who increased their intake of nuts, dairy foods, and legumes or decreased their GL. The study suggests there is more to weight gain than calorie intake, diet composition matters too. The results published in the The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.” (Tufts University News Release, 2015)

 Jessica Smith, Ph.D. corresponding author and fellow researcher said, “There is mounting scientific evidence that diets including less low-quality carbohydrates, such as white breads, potatoes, and sweets, and higher in protein-rich foods may be more efficient for weight loss. We wanted to know how that might apply to preventing weight gain in the first place.” (Tufts University News Release, 2015)

The research was based on more than 16 years of follow-up among 120,000 men and women from the results of three long-term studies. Smith et al. looked at the relationship between protein-rich foods and long-term weight gain every four years of follow-up. Their results found:

• Increasing intakes of red meat and processed meat were most strongly associated with weight gain.
• Increasing intakes of yogurt, seafood, skinless chicken, and nuts were most strongly associated with weight loss – the more people ate, the less weight they gained.
• Increasing other dairy products, including whole milk and low-fat milk, did not enough significantly relate to either weight gain or weight loss.

“The fat content of dairy products did not seem to be important for weight gain,” Smith said. “In fact, when people consumed more low-fat dairy products, they actually increased their consumption of carbs, which may promote weight gain. This suggests that people compensate, over years, for the lower calories in low-fat dairy by increasing their carb intake.” (Tufts University News Release, 2015)

The researchers noted interacting relationships between changes in protein-rich foods and changes in glycemic load¹ of the diet. As an example, increasing the amount of food associated with weight gain, like red meat, and white bread raised the glycemic load. Decreasing in glycemic load¹ by eating red meat with vegetables decreased the amount of weight gain as well.

For fish, nuts, and poultry like chicken there was an association with weight-loss. If the glycemic load were, also decreased weight-loss would be enhanced. Foods like eggs and cheese were not linked to weight change on average, but an increased intake in combination with an increased glycemic load¹ are seen to cause weight gain. However, when eggs and cheese or increased in glycemic load¹ decreased participants lost weight.

“Our study adds to growing new research that counting calories is not the most effective strategy for long-term weight management and prevention,” said senior author Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., Dr.P.H. dean of the Friedman School. “Some foods help prevent weight gain, others make it worse. Most interestingly, the combination of foods seems to make a big difference. Our findings suggest we should not only emphasize specific protein-rich foods like fish, nuts, and yogurt to prevent weight gain, but also focus on avoiding refined grains, starches, and sugars in order to maximize the benefits of these healthful protein-rich foods, create new benefits for other foods like eggs and cheese, and reduce the weight gain associated with meats.” (Tufts University News Release, 2015)

This research relied on validated self-reported food questionnaires from three studies that enrolled doctors, and nurses and other healthcare professionals from across the U.S.

---

1. Glycemic load

Excerpt is from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Go to hyperlink for full text.

The glycemic load (GL) of food is a number that estimates how much the food will raise a person’s blood glucose level after eating it. One unit of glycemic load approximates the effect of consuming one gram of glucose.^[1] Glycemic load accounts for how much carbohydrate is in the food and how much each gram of carbohydrate in the food raises blood glucose levels. Glycemic load is based on the glycemic index (GI), and is defined as the grams of available carbohydrate in the food times the food’s GI.

Glycemic load estimates the impact of carbohydrate consumption using the glycemic index while taking into account the amount of carbohydrate that is consumed. GL is a GI-weighted measure of carbohydrate content. For instance, watermelon has a high GI, but a typical serving of watermelon does not contain much carbohydrate, so the glycemic load of eating it is low. Whereas glycemic index is defined for each type of food, glycemic load can be calculated for any size serving of a food, an entire meal, or an entire day’s meals.

Glycemic load of a serving of food can be calculated as its carbohydrate content measured in grams (g), multiplied by the food’s GI, and divided by 100. For example, watermelon has a GI of 72. A 100-g serving of watermelon has 5 g of available carbohydrates (it contains a lot of water), making the calculation 5 x 72/100=3.6, so the GL is 3.6. A food with a GI of 100 and 10 g of available carbohydrates has a GL of 10 (10 x 100/100=10), while a food with 100 g of carbohydrate and a GI of just 10 also has a GL of 10 (100 x 10/100=10).

For one serving of a food, a GL greater than 20 is considered high, a GL of 11-19 is considered medium, and a GL of 10 or less is considered low. Foods that have a low GL in a typical serving size almost always have a low GI. Foods with an intermediate or high GL in a typical serving size range from a very low to very high GI.

---

Hoskins, I. (2015, April 10). Diet composition can affect long term weight gain. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from Nutrition and Food Sciences: http://www.cabi.org/nutrition/news/24369

Smith JD, Hou T, Ludwig DS, Rimm EB, Willett W, Hu FB and Mozaffarian D. “Changes in intake of protein foods, carbohydrate amount and quality, and long-term weight change: results from 3 prospective cohorts.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2015; 101:1-9. Published online ahead of print April 8, 2015. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/04/08/ajcn.114.100867.abstract

Tufts University News Release. (2015, April 9). Choice of Protein- and Carbohydrate-Rich Foods May Have Big Effects on Long-Term Weight Gain – See more at http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/choice-protein-and-carbohydrate-rich-foods-may-have-big-effects-long-term-weight-gain#sthash.mBCvjzF9.dpuf. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from TuftsNow: http://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/choice-protein-and-carbohydrate-rich-foods-may-have-big-effects-long-term-weight-gain

 

 

Captain Hank Quinlan, Owner and Publisher, Chief Curmudgeon with Sam Borsalino, Assistant Publisher

Dear Hail-Fellows well met, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is written and edited by your favorite curmudgeons Captain Hank Quinlan and

Flatfoot Willie, Correspondent at Large with fellow Staff Writers

Staff (monkeys in the back room). We offer an ongoing tirade to support or offend anyone of any large dimension, cultural background, religious affiliation, or color of skin. This gazette rails against an eclectic mix of circus ring ne’er do wells, big ring fatty and fatso whiners, congenital idiots, the usual motley assortment of the profoundly dumbfounded, and a favorite of intelligent men everywhere, the

May the Most Venerable H. L. Mencken bless our unworthy but earnest attempts at tongue in cheek jocularity .

“Great Booboisie.” Nor shall we ignore the wide assortment of shirkers, layabouts, and slugabeds.

Latest office staff confab at Fat Bastard HQ.

All this and more always keeping our major focus on “Why so fat?”  Enough said? We at “The Fat Bastard Gazette” think so. If you like what you read, and you know whom you are, in this yellow blog, tell your friends. We would be elated with an ever-wider readership. We remain cordially yours, Captain Hank Quinlan and the Monkeys in the back room

“The Fat Bastard Gazette” does not purport to offer any definitive medical or pharmaceutical advice whatsoever in any explicit or implied manner. Always consult a qualified physician in all medical or pharmaceutical matters. “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is only the opinion of informed nonprofessionals for the general edification and entertainment of the greater public. 

No similarities to any existing names or characters are expressed or implied. We reserve the right to offend or support anybody, anything, or any sacred totem across the globe.

A BALANCED DIET AND EXERCISE WIN AGAIN! VOL. 1 NO. 35

It is time once again to sound the clarion call to the benefits of diet and exercise.

As the decades march on, the body of scientific evidence grows. A good diet and physical activity are the cornerstones of health and disease prevention.

Americans are living large both figuratively and literally with most people preferring there 60 inch flat screen and a nice comfy couch to what science says is good for us.

Cheryl Anderson. Photo by Erik Jepsen/UC San Diego Publications

According to the article “Recipe for Wellness” Cheryl Anderson, a member of the national 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and other nutrition research specialists spent more than 18 months reviewing what is known about diet related disease prevention. In no uncertain terms, the committee, which meets every five years with the Federal government regarding nutrition policy and food assistance programs, called “for bold action and sound innovative solutions” to address the nation’s health problem.

The statistics are plain. Approximately 50% of all American adults—117 million people—have one or more preventable, chronic diseases related to poor nutritional habits and physical inactivity. The list includes heart disease, high blood pressure, colon cancer, and breast cancer.

More than two thirds of adults and nearly one third of children and adolescents are clinically overweight or obese.

The committee in its scientific report stated, “These devastating health problems have persisted for decades, strained U.S. health care costs and focused the attention of our health care system on disease treatment rather than prevention. Unfortunately, few improvements in consumers’ food choices have occurred in recent decades.”

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

So what is healthful nutrition that prevents diet related maladies? The research team found vegetables and fruits are a consistent part of the healthful dietary pattern. Vegetables and fruits were “consistently identified in every conclusion statement across health outcomes” as having strong signs for promoting health.” Less corroboration was also shown for nutritional patterns that include whole grains, low or nonfat dairy, seafood, beans and nuts.

More than any one diet, the committee stressed the ‘critical importance’ on an individual’s general eating tendencies and habits.

Anderson stated, “Our take-away message is that people need to shift their dietary patterns, control the size of food portions and decrease overall caloric intake. We want to move away from the idea that people should reduce intake of certain isolated foods and instead emphasize the idea of replacing some foods with more healthful options like fruits and vegetables.”

The committee of experts felt the media frequently alter or confuse the committee’s main message.

Anderson, an expert on nutrition and chronic disease prevention, stated, “The media often give the impression that nutritionists are saying ‘this food is good for you one week’ and then ‘that food is bad for you the next.’ It creates the impression that nutritional advice is always changing and that there is not a scientific consensus on what good nutrition is. That is not true.”

An example of this was the media brouhaha over the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee’s decision not to put specific limits on dietary cholesterol, creating headlines such as “Cholesterol is back on the menu in new federal dietary guidelines” or “Cholesterol in food not a concern, new report says.”

Anderson, a member of UC San Diego’s Cardiovascular Epidemiology and Prevention Center of Excellence and a fellow of the American Heart Association, stated, “We did not set a recommended guideline on daily dietary cholesterol levels, as has been done in previous guidelines, because dietary cholesterol does not have an appreciable impact on serum cholesterol. Further, there was no evidence that cholesterol is a nutrient of concern for over or under consumption by the population. There is, however, scientific evidence showing that saturated fats do impact a person’s cardiovascular health. Our recommendation is that Americans get no more than 10 percent of their daily calories from saturated fat. That is not a green light to eat as many eggs as you want.”

“The lack of specific guidance on cholesterol was a subtle decision that recognizes a few nuanced foods, such as shrimp and shellfish, that are high in cholesterol but low in saturated fat, and can be part of a healthful diet,” Anderson explained. “To see the media focus on cholesterol in isolation of the report in its entirety was disheartening and was in direct contradiction to what the report focused on.”

In addition, the panel acknowledged for the first time the larger socioeconomic and sociocultural indicators that influence a person’s ability to eat well and exercise.

“Where a person lives, works, plays, and prays can facilitate or hinder a person’s ability to make healthy lifestyle choices,” Anderson said. “For example, we know there are ‘food deserts’ in America where people don’t have easy access to grocery stores.”

The committee noted that greater than 49 million people, including nearly 9 million children, living in food troubled households.

“She and the other committee members have urged the federal government to develop policies that foster a culture of health. These, Anderson said, might include making population health a national priority; ensuring resources for healthy lifestyles are accessible, affordable and normative for everyone; shifting health care and public health systems toward a greater emphasis on prevention; and enacting incentives to encourage environmental and policy changes, as well as better food and beverage standards and products.”

The federal government will develop new Dietary Guidelines for Americans based on information in the report, and from public comments and federal agency input.

Dear readers, if you have read this far, the Captain would be most heartened if you would rate this and future articles and/or leave a comment at the top of the blog posts whether positive or negative. In this way, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” may better serve you and our entire readership.

---

Johnson, C. (2015, May 14). Recipe for Wellness UC San Diego nutrition expert helps define national prescription for healthy diet. Retrieved May 15, 2015, from UC San Diego News Center: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/recipe_for_wellness

Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. (2015, February). Retrieved from health.gov: http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/

 

 

Captain Hank Quinlan, Owner and Publisher, Chief Curmudgeon with Sam Borsalino, Assistant Publisher

Dear Hail-Fellows well met, “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is written and edited by your favorite curmudgeons Captain Hank Quinlan and

Flatfoot Willie, Correspondent at Large with fellow Staff Writers

Staff (monkeys in the back room). We offer an ongoing tirade to support or offend anyone of any large dimension, cultural background, religious affiliation, or color of skin. This gazette rails against an eclectic mix of circus ring ne’er do wells, big ring fatty and fatso whiners, congenital idiots, the usual motley assortment of the profoundly dumbfounded, and a favorite of intelligent men everywhere, the

May the Most Venerable H. L. Mencken bless our unworthy but earnest attempts at tongue in cheek jocularity .

“Great Booboisie.” Nor shall we ignore the wide assortment of shirkers, layabouts, and slugabeds.

Latest office staff confab at Fat Bastard HQ.

All this and more always keeping our major focus on “Why so fat?”  Enough said? We at “The Fat Bastard Gazette” think so. If you like what you read, and you know whom you are, in this yellow blog, tell your friends. We would be elated with an ever-wider readership. We remain cordially yours, Captain Hank Quinlan and the Monkeys in the back room

“The Fat Bastard Gazette” does not purport to offer any definitive medical or pharmaceutical advice whatsoever in any explicit or implied manner. Always consult a qualified physician in all medical or pharmaceutical matters. “The Fat Bastard Gazette” is only the opinion of informed nonprofessionals for the general edification and entertainment of the greater public. 

No similarities to any existing names or characters are expressed or implied. We reserve the right to offend or support anybody, anything, or any sacred totem across the globe.