No Magic Bullet

A diet based on your metabolic profile sounds interesting don't you think? Its name has the patina of science all over it. Yet, to date, I can't find any reliable scientific studies to back up its claims. What I have found are numerous anecdotal accounts of people who have said they use this method for weight control and are happy with it. Isn't that the same mantra as the folks who swear by blood type diets?

In his best selling book, Biochemical Individuality, Dr. Roger J. Williams says that, "There is no such thing as an average person-we are all genetically and biochemically unique." As members of the human race, we are all snow and as individuals, we are snowflakes and not two of us are alike. If that is so, and I believe it is, how can we have confidence in an approach that claims we fall into certain categories?

Various schools of thought contribute conflicting ideas. One says that we fall into one of three categories depending on the results of a lengthy written questionnaire. You are either a protein type, a carbohydrate type, or a mixed type. Another school says that there are five types, T-thyroid, A-adrenal, G-gonad, P-pituitary, and GP-gonad pituitary. There are others, but you get the point. The law of contradiction says that they can't all be right. But, they could all be wrong.

I answered a free on-line questionnaire and was shocked by the number of questions that included the term "normal." as in " Do you eat a big lunch, a small lunch, or a normal lunch?" What is normal anyway? Whats normal for a Sumo wrestler or Lance Armstrong may not be normal for me. I find it hard to give the questionnaires any credence. To date, I have not found any local source who offers either blood or urine tests for metabolic profiling.

First, lets take a look at the definition of metabolism as outlined in the text book Understanding Clinical Nutrition [ second edition ]-Cataldo, Rolfes, and Whitney, "Metabolism: the sum total of all the chemical reactions that go on in living cells." That's a lot of chemical reactions to be crammed into three or four specific types of metabolisms.

Here's what the Mayo Clinic staff says: That besides the chemical reactions in our trillions of cells, other factors include body size-body composition-sex-age-homogenises-physical activity-aerobic exercise-strength training-and lifestyle activities. " While its true that metabolism is linked to weight, it may not be in the way you expect. In fact, contrary to popular belief, a slow metabolism is rarely the cause of excess weight gain. Although your metabolism influences your basic energy needs, it is your food and beverage intake and your physical activity that ultimately determine how much you weigh. Your body generally balances your metabolism to meet your individual needs. People who are said to have a fast metabolism are probably more active than are others."

It seems to me that people are always looking for that magic bullet. That one bullet that solves all the problems of weight control. But, there is no magic bullet. A more reasoned approach can be found in the facts outlined in Dr. Barbara Rolls important book The Volumetrics Weight-Control Plan which teaches you how to feel full on fewer calories and The New Glucose Revolution by Miller,Wolever,Colagiuri, Powell et. al. with a forward by Dr. Andrew Weil which says," The concept of the glycemic index has been distorted and bastardized by popular writers and diet gurus. Here , at last, is a book that explains what we know about the glycemic index and its importance in designing a diet for optimum health...." They are both based on science and clinical experience. The two plans are complimentary and apply to all of us .



Bottom line: We can opt for diets based on the machinations of an unscientific approach clothed to look scientific or we can rely on the work of reputable professionals supported by one of the most respected nutritional exerts in the country.

Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil

According to the Mayo Clinic, trans fats [ partially hydrogenated vegetable oils ] are harmful to your health. Food processors add hydrogen to polyunsaturated fat through a process called hydrogenation. Those oils become more solid than regular oil making them less likely to spoil. Using trans fats in the manufacturing of food helps that food stay fresh longer, provides a longer shelf life and a less greasy feel. Commercial baked goods and many fried foods may contain trans fats [ fats that have been transformed ] as can shortenings and margarine.

Sounds like a good thing doesn't it? But, there are consequences. Doctors worry about trans fat because of its unhealthy affect on two main levels of your cholesterol. Trans fat increases your level of LDL [bad ] cholesterol and decreases HDL [GOOD ] cholesterol which can have a major impact on heart health. Trans fat can cause atherosclerosis, increase triglycerides [ fat in the blood ] and cause inflammation by damaging the blood vessels in the cells.

We can practice due diligence by reading food labels. They will indicate if the food contains trans fat. But, beware, if the label indicates that the package contains 0 grams of trans fat, it can by law contain 0.5 grams of the nasty stuff. Though that is relatively small amount, if you eat multiple servings of food with 0.5 grams or less of trans fat, you could unwittingly consume unhealthy amounts.

If the label reads "fully" or "completely" hydrogenated oil, that oil does not contain trans fat. Unlike partially hydrogenated oil, the process to make fully or completely hydrogenated oil doesn't result in creating trans fatty acid. However, if the label reads just "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated" vegetable oil, it could mean the oil contains some trans fat. Although small amounts of trans fat occur naturally in some meat and dairy products, its the trans fat in
processed food that is the most harmful.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

In his best selling book The Omnivores Dilemma, Michael Pollan describes a national eating disorder. Notice that he calls it an omnivore's problem, not a carnivore's or an herbivore's problem. Omnivores consume everything that's edible. We are engineered that way. One clue to that fact can be found in our dental structure. We have incisors for biting, canines for ripping and tearing, premolars and molars for chewing and grinding.

Now here comes Dr. Peter D'Adamo with the mind tickling theory that we should eat according to our specific blood type; type O, A, B, and AB. This has become one of the more popular diets of the day and one that has garnered a lot of scrutiny from the medical community.

Here is how I understand the theory. Type O is the oldest blood type dating back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. So we should eat like they did i.e., lots of meat and very few grains and no dairy. Type A came in with the dawn of of primitive agriculture and this type thrives on a plant based diet. Type B and AB appeared about 10,000 years ago with the domestication of livestock and those types can eat pretty much anything.

The Dr. D'Adamo school of thought holds that the different blood types appeared at specific junctures in history while the opposing view holds that blood type genetics evolved together over eons of time. That argument is on-going. But lets look at how a few of the most respected sources weigh in:

Dr. Andrew Weil, " I have not seen any scientific evidence or a correlation between blood type and dietary requirements, I also don't see any evidence for his argument that different blood types evolved in different parts of the world..."

Mayo Clinic," ..There's no scientific evidence to support the so-called "blood type diet"...At this time, eating or avoiding certain foods according to your blood type isn't thought to have any favorable influence on weight or overall health. In fact, a "blood type diet" may not meet your nutritional needs."

The Harvard Medical School, "Eat Right 4 Your Type" diet promotes the wholly unscientific idea that your blood type determines what you should eat..."

Its difficult to fly in the face of the opinions of such prestigious sources. But, maybe we should put this diet into the "probably won't hurt" category. After all, it does not advocate eating wing dings and pop tarts. People have tried it and swear by it, although that can either be a placebo effect, which is not uncommon, or the positive mental effect of trying something new. If you want to try it, talk to your physician, nurse practitioner, or dietitian first. Please know that we need more peer reviewed studies and corroborated scientific data to make any positive evaluation about this diet.

A Biological Absurdity!

If you drive through the west, especially western Kansas, you will often see steel-fenced, rectangular grids as far as the eye can see. The grids are called CAFOs [ Concentrated Animal Feed Lots ] in which thousands upon thousands of cattle live and lay in manure lagoons created by their own waste. This environment turns a potential source of important fertilizer [ animal manure ] into toxic waste.

The government and big agribusiness have created a hugh mass of bio energy [corn ] which provides the producers cheap animal "feed." 125,000 square miles have been devoted to growning cheap corn on combined areas equal to twice the size of New York State. They are using corn as the "magic" fattening pill so the producers can add more weight to the animals faster and cheaper. Chemicals are also used to promote fast weight gain. Since 1976, increasing use of growth-promoting feed additives have been used.

Here is absurdity number 1: We are forcing animals to live under conditions which are toxic. They are existing in polluted air and water, toxic wastes, and deadly pathogens.

Absurdity number2: We have taken animals that have been exquisitely adapted by natural selection to live on GRASS and forced them to live in an alien environment and fed alien food. 100 million cattle are consuming mountains of corn instead of their natural prairie grasses.

When we eat the flesh of the animals raised under those stressful conditions, we're eating whatever junk is in that flesh. Corn-fatted tissue, growth hormone and whatever other ingredients are in the chemical cocktail fed to the animals are likely to find their way into our tissues. Some experts say that there is compelling evidence linking the enormous growth in synthetic chemicals with the current epidemic of overweight. The same might be said of corn which is ubiquitous in commercial feed lots. If the corn can fatten the animals. Guess what? You can do the math.

Here is a good example to consider. According to the Nutrition Action Health letter, "If you had to pick a single food that inflicts the most damage on the American diet, ground beef would be a prime contender. Whether it's Tacos, meatloaf, lasagna, or the ubiquitous hamburger, Americans stuff themselves with ground beef without a second thought about its consequences. "Billions and billions served" means "billions and billions" spent"...on doctors visits and hospital bills. Cheap meat which was once eaten eaten only on special occasions is now eaten three times a day.
We have become industrial eaters and our sense of taste has been ruined by McDonalds and others while also becoming increasingly over corn fed, fat and unhealthy. The short , unhappy life of a corn-fed feedlot steer represents the ultimate triumph of industrial thinking over the logic of evolution.



Additional sources of info on this subject: The Omnivore's Dilemma-Michael Pollan

The Body Restoration Plan-Dr. Paula Baillie- Hamilton

You Gotta Have Heart

Lub dub, lub dub, lub dub. That's what the heart beat sounds like through a stethoscope. The little, approximately 10 ounce" , engine that could" is pumping blood at the prodigious rate of around 1,900 gallons per day, 700,000 gallons per year, and a whopping 48 million gallons by the time we reach age 70. On a relative basis, that's probably better than the Alaska pipeline. Not bad for an organ about the size of a human fist.

The heart is a muscle pump and, like most of our other muscles, it responds well to moderate, frequent aerobic [ means living in air ] exercise in which we get the rate up for a period of time. One of the standard assessment tests for fitness is the resting heart rate which should be, for the average person, between 70 and 100 beats per minute, depending on your age and physical fitness.

Anaerobic exercise, or strengthening of the skeletal muscles, is also important but the system, as a whole, works more efficiently when we supply oxygen-rich blood to the cells. That's the job for the "little engine that could." The goal is to deliver the most volume of oxygen-rich blood with the least amount of effort possible. We need to maximize the blood volume pumped with each stroke! This can greatly reduce the threat of heart disease, enhance the ageing process, and produce HDL cholesterol [ the good kind].

We don't really need to train like Lance Armstrong [ not unless you're so inclined ] to be aerobically fit. Many doctors recommend a nice brisk walk several times each week, working in the garden, dancing, bike riding, swimming and just plain moving. Moving is the operative word. Chuck that sedentary lifestyle. We are not engineered to be couch potatoes. If you have any doubts about the intensity of training, ask your doctor, a nurse practitioner or a certified personal trainer. Like the cartoon characters said, you've got to move it, move it move it!