A professor who helped conduct a new study showing harms from ultra-processed foods explains what they are and why we should avoid them.
Consuming ultra-processed foods can cause harm to major organs, in addition to a host of other health problems, a new study published Tuesday in the medical journal the Lancet revealed.
Another report released Thursday from researchers at Virginia Tech shows that young adults are more vulnerable to indulging in ultra-processed foods, according to Brenda Davy, a professor in the school’s Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, who helped conduct the study.
Davy told WTOP that people need to pay attention to what they’re buying to avoid ultra-processed food, which are dangerous to our health.
“An ultra-processed food is most easily recognized by having ingredients that would not be used in home cooking,” Davy said.
Her study tested young adults who were put on diets with ultra-processed foods. After two weeks, the adults aged 18 to 21 ate more calories using a diet that was high in ultra-processed food even though they weren’t hungry. But this wasn’t true for adults in the 22-25 age group, Davy said.
The study’s results suggest that adolescents may be more vulnerable to ultra-processed foods, which can be addictive.
Some examples of ultra-processed foods include “things like Sunny Delight, rather than 100% fresh orange juice,” she said. “A Pop-Tart, which would be an ultra-processed food, compared to a homemade banana nut muffin.”
“When you’re shopping at the grocery store, if you pick up an item and look at the ingredient list, if you see things like ‘fat, flour, oil, salt, sugar,’ those are things that are typically used in home cooking,” she said. “Those would not be considered ultra-processed ingredients.”
“On the other hand, if you saw very long-sounding chemical names that you do not recognize, that’s one tip off of an item considered an ultra-processed food,” she added.
She said the research released this week shows that these ingredients could be more dangerous than you think.
“Ultra-processed foods are linked to increased risks of obesity and weight gain and a whole host of chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases,” Davy said.
She said in order to avoid ultra-processed foods, people should “prepare as many of their meals as possible at home.”
“That might help folks reduce their risk of some of these chronic diseases related to their diet,” she said.
Davy said that there are some advantages to food processing by manufacturers.
“One of the biggest advantages for using processed foods is that they do have a longer shelf life,” she said. “That is an important benefit of ultra-processed foods.”
But she said that one of the big drawbacks is how addictive they can be.
“They may drive us to overeat them,” she said.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY OF NEXT WEEK. NICE TO SEE SOME RAIN. WE’RE NOW SEEING SHORTER DAYS, LONGER NIGHTS. SOME PEOPLE MAY EXPERIENCE WHAT THEY CALL SEASONAL AFFECTIVE DISORDER. OUR OWN ALYSSA MUNOZ JOINS US IN THE STUDIO THIS MORNING. AND ALYSSA, YOU SPOKE WITH A HEALTH EXPERT ON SOME WAYS TO HELP WITH THIS. YEAH, I DID ROYALE AND TODD AND SEASONAL AFFECTIVE DISORDER, KNOWN AS SAD OR WINTER DEPRESSION STARTS AROUND LATE FALL OR EARLY WINTER WHEN THERE’S LESS SUNLIGHT. NOW HERE’S SOME SIGNS YOU CAN LOOK OUT FOR. IT’S NORMAL TO HAVE DAYS WHERE YOU JUST FEEL DOWN OR SLEEPY, BUT BE WARY. IF YOU START OVERSLEEPING A LOT. APPETITE CHANGES, SUCH AS CRAVING FOODS WITH HIGHER CARBOHYDRATES LIKE CAKE, CHOCOLATE OR CANDY. AND IF YOU NOTICE ANY WEIGHT GAIN OR LOW ENERGY. NOW, CHRISTINA SAUER, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT UNM, SAYS, HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP YOURSELF. THEY’RE NOTICING CHANGES WITH THE SEASON AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STRATEGIES PEOPLE CAN USE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THEMSELVES, LIKE MAKING SURE THAT YOU DO GET SOME TIME OUTSIDE EVERY DAY, TRYING TO GET LIGHT EXPOSURE EARLY IN THE DAY. YOU KNOW, THERE’S OTHER NUTRITIONAL STRATEGIES, AND IF YOU FEEL DOWN FOR DAYS AT A TIME, AND THESE METHODS AREN’T HELPING, SEE A HEALTH CARE
Signs and strategies to cope with seasonal affective disorder
Doctors say seasonal affective disorder is common in the fall and winter months
As the days become shorter and nights grow longer, some individuals may experience seasonal affective disorder, commonly known as SAD or winter depression.The disorder typically begins in late fall or early winter due to reduced sunlight, but there are some cases in the summer.Kristina Sowar, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico, said there are a few symptoms to look out for with SAD.”If someone is really feeling like, you know, my mood is just really low, and in turn, I have very limited motivation. It’s hard for me to get out of bed. It’s hard for me to socialize with people who I care about. It’s pretty hard for me to go to work or school,” Sowar said. “Like, when there’s enough impairment that it’s impacting your day-to-day life. We definitely recommend that people seek some professional support.”Symptoms to watch for include oversleeping, changes in appetite such as cravings for high-carbohydrate foods like cake, chocolate, and candy, weight gain, and low energy levels. “If they’re noticing changes with the season, there are strategies people can use to provide some additional support for themselves, like making sure that you do get some time outside every day, trying to get light exposure early in the day,” Sowar said. “You know, there’s other nutritional strategies.” If feelings of sadness persist for days at a time and self-help methods are ineffective, Sowar advised consulting a health care provider.
As the days become shorter and nights grow longer, some individuals may experience seasonal affective disorder, commonly known as SAD or winter depression.
The disorder typically begins in late fall or early winter due to reduced sunlight, but there are some cases in the summer.
Kristina Sowar, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico, said there are a few symptoms to look out for with SAD.
“If someone is really feeling like, you know, my mood is just really low, and in turn, I have very limited motivation. It’s hard for me to get out of bed. It’s hard for me to socialize with people who I care about. It’s pretty hard for me to go to work or school,” Sowar said. “Like, when there’s enough impairment that it’s impacting your day-to-day life. We definitely recommend that people seek some professional support.”
Symptoms to watch for include oversleeping, changes in appetite such as cravings for high-carbohydrate foods like cake, chocolate, and candy, weight gain, and low energy levels.
“If they’re noticing changes with the season, there are strategies people can use to provide some additional support for themselves, like making sure that you do get some time outside every day, trying to get light exposure early in the day,” Sowar said. “You know, there’s other nutritional strategies.”
If feelings of sadness persist for days at a time and self-help methods are ineffective, Sowar advised consulting a health care provider.
WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY OF NEXT WEEK. NICE TO SEE SOME RAIN. WE’RE NOW SEEING SHORTER DAYS, LONGER NIGHTS. SOME PEOPLE MAY EXPERIENCE WHAT THEY CALL SEASONAL AFFECTIVE DISORDER. OUR OWN ALYSSA MUNOZ JOINS US IN THE STUDIO THIS MORNING. AND ALYSSA, YOU SPOKE WITH A HEALTH EXPERT ON SOME WAYS TO HELP WITH THIS. YEAH, I DID ROYALE AND TODD AND SEASONAL AFFECTIVE DISORDER, KNOWN AS SAD OR WINTER DEPRESSION STARTS AROUND LATE FALL OR EARLY WINTER WHEN THERE’S LESS SUNLIGHT. NOW HERE’S SOME SIGNS YOU CAN LOOK OUT FOR. IT’S NORMAL TO HAVE DAYS WHERE YOU JUST FEEL DOWN OR SLEEPY, BUT BE WARY. IF YOU START OVERSLEEPING A LOT. APPETITE CHANGES, SUCH AS CRAVING FOODS WITH HIGHER CARBOHYDRATES LIKE CAKE, CHOCOLATE OR CANDY. AND IF YOU NOTICE ANY WEIGHT GAIN OR LOW ENERGY. NOW, CHRISTINA SAUER, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT UNM, SAYS, HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP YOURSELF. THEY’RE NOTICING CHANGES WITH THE SEASON AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STRATEGIES PEOPLE CAN USE TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR THEMSELVES, LIKE MAKING SURE THAT YOU DO GET SOME TIME OUTSIDE EVERY DAY, TRYING TO GET LIGHT EXPOSURE EARLY IN THE DAY. YOU KNOW, THERE’S OTHER NUTRITIONAL STRATEGIES, AND IF YOU FEEL DOWN FOR DAYS AT A TIME, AND THESE METHODS AREN’T HELPING, SEE A HEALTH CARE
Signs and strategies to cope with seasonal affective disorder
Doctors say seasonal affective disorder is common in the fall and winter months
As the days become shorter and nights grow longer, some individuals may experience seasonal affective disorder, commonly known as SAD or winter depression.The disorder typically begins in late fall or early winter due to reduced sunlight, but there are some cases in the summer.Kristina Sowar, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico, said there are a few symptoms to look out for with SAD.”If someone is really feeling like, you know, my mood is just really low, and in turn, I have very limited motivation. It’s hard for me to get out of bed. It’s hard for me to socialize with people who I care about. It’s pretty hard for me to go to work or school,” Sowar said. “Like, when there’s enough impairment that it’s impacting your day-to-day life. We definitely recommend that people seek some professional support.”Symptoms to watch for include oversleeping, changes in appetite such as cravings for high-carbohydrate foods like cake, chocolate, and candy, weight gain, and low energy levels. “If they’re noticing changes with the season, there are strategies people can use to provide some additional support for themselves, like making sure that you do get some time outside every day, trying to get light exposure early in the day,” Sowar said. “You know, there’s other nutritional strategies.” If feelings of sadness persist for days at a time and self-help methods are ineffective, Sowar advised consulting a health care provider.
As the days become shorter and nights grow longer, some individuals may experience seasonal affective disorder, commonly known as SAD or winter depression.
The disorder typically begins in late fall or early winter due to reduced sunlight, but there are some cases in the summer.
Kristina Sowar, an associate professor at the University of New Mexico, said there are a few symptoms to look out for with SAD.
“If someone is really feeling like, you know, my mood is just really low, and in turn, I have very limited motivation. It’s hard for me to get out of bed. It’s hard for me to socialize with people who I care about. It’s pretty hard for me to go to work or school,” Sowar said. “Like, when there’s enough impairment that it’s impacting your day-to-day life. We definitely recommend that people seek some professional support.”
Symptoms to watch for include oversleeping, changes in appetite such as cravings for high-carbohydrate foods like cake, chocolate, and candy, weight gain, and low energy levels.
“If they’re noticing changes with the season, there are strategies people can use to provide some additional support for themselves, like making sure that you do get some time outside every day, trying to get light exposure early in the day,” Sowar said. “You know, there’s other nutritional strategies.”
If feelings of sadness persist for days at a time and self-help methods are ineffective, Sowar advised consulting a health care provider.
How can we use sensory-specific satiety to our advantage?
When we eat the same foods over and over, we become habituated to them and end up liking them less. That’s why the “10th bite of chocolate, for example, is desired less than the first bite.” We have a built-in biological drive to keep changing up our foods so we’ll be more likely to hit all our nutritional requirements. The drive is so powerful that even “imagined consumption reduces actual consumption.” When study participants imagined again and again that they were eating cheese and were then given actual cheese, they ate less of it than those who repeatedly imagined eating that food fewer times, imagined eating a different food (such as candy), or did not imagine eating the food at all.
Ironically, habituation may be one of the reasons fad “mono diets,” like the cabbage soup diet, the oatmeal diet, or meal replacement shakes, can actually result in better adherence and lower hunger ratings compared to less restrictive diets.
In the landmark study “A Satiety Index of Common Foods,” in which dozens of foods were put to the test, boiled potatoes were found to be the most satiating food. Two hundred and forty calories of boiled potatoes were found to be more satisfying in terms of quelling hunger than the same number of calories of any other food tested. In fact, no other food even came close, as you can see below and at 1:14 in my video Exploiting Sensory-Specific Satiety for Weight Loss.
No doubt the low calorie density of potatoes plays a role. In order to consume 240 calories, nearly one pound of potatoes must be eaten, compared to just a few cookies, and even more apples, grapes, and oranges must be consumed. Each fruit was about 40 percent less satiating than potatoes, though, as shown here and at 1:45 in my video. So, an all-potato diet would probably take the gold—the Yukon gold—for the most bland, monotonous, and satiating diet.
A mono diet, where only one food is eaten, is the poster child for unsustainability—and thank goodness for that. Over time, they can lead to serious nutrient deficiencies, such as blindness from vitamin A deficiency in the case of white potatoes.
The satiating power of potatoes can still be brought to bear, though. Boiled potatoes beat out rice and pasta in terms of a satiating side dish, cutting as many as about 200 calories of intake off a meal. Compared to boiled and mashed potatoes, fried french fries or even baked fries do not appear to have the same satiating impact.
To exploit habituation for weight loss while maintaining nutrient abundance, we could limit the variety of unhealthy foods we eat while expanding the variety of healthy foods. In that way, we can simultaneously take advantage of the appetite-suppressing effects of monotony while diversifying our fruit and vegetable portfolio. Studies have shown that a greater variety of calorie-dense foods, like sweets and snacks, is associated with excess body fat, but a greater variety of vegetables appears protective. When presented with a greater variety of fruit, offered a greater variety of vegetables, or given a greater variety of vegetable seasonings, people may consume a greater quantity, crowding out less healthy options.
The first 20 years of the official Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended generally eating “a variety of foods.” In the new millennium, they started getting more precise, specifying a diversity of healthier foods, as seen below and at 3:30 in my video.
A pair of Harvard and New York University dietitians concluded in their paper “Dietary Variety: An Overlooked Strategy for Obesity and Chronic Disease Control”: “Choose and prepare a greater variety of plant-based foods,” recognizing that a greater variety of less healthy options could be counterproductive.
So, how can we respond to industry attempts to lure us into temptation by turning our natural biological drives against us? Should we never eat really delicious food? No, but it may help to recognize the effects hyperpalatable foods can have on hijacking our appetites and undermining our body’s better judgment. We can also use some of those same primitive impulses to our advantage by minimizing our choices of the bad and diversifying our choices of the good. In How Not to Diet, I call this “Meatball Monotony and Veggie Variety.” Try picking out a new fruit or vegetable every time you shop.
In my own family’s home, we always have a wide array of healthy snacks on hand to entice the finickiest of tastes. The contrasting collage of colors and shapes in fruit baskets and vegetable platters beat out boring bowls of a single fruit because they make you want to mix it up and try a little of each. And with different healthy dipping sauces, the possibilities are endless.
Big Food uses our hard-wired drive for dietary diversity against us.
How did we evolve to solve the daunting task of selecting a diet that supplies all the essential nutrients? Dietary diversity. By eating a variety of foods, we increase our chances of hitting all the bases. If we only ate for pleasure, we might just stick with our favorite food to the exclusion of all others, but we have an innate tendency to switch things up.
Researchers found that study participants ended up eating more calories when provided with three different yogurt flavors than just one, even if that one is the chosen favorite. So, variation can trump sensation. They don’t call it the spice of life for nothing.
It appears to be something we’re born with. Studies on newly weaned infants dating back nearly a century show that babies naturally choose a variety of foods even over their preferred food. This tendency seems to be driven by a phenomenon known as sensory-specific satiety.
Researchers found that, “within 2 minutes after eating the test meal, the pleasantness of the taste, smell, texture, and appearance of the eaten food decreased significantly more than for the uneaten foods.” Think about how the first bite of chocolate tastes better than the last bite. Our body tires of the same sensations and seeks out novelty by rekindling our appetite every time we’re presented with new foods. This helps explain the “dessert effect,” where we can be stuffed to the gills but gain a second wind when dessert arrives. What was adaptive for our ancient ancestors to maintain nutritional adequacy may be maladaptive in the age of obesity.
When study participants ate a “varied four-course meal,” they consumed 60 percent more calories than those given the same food for each course. It’s not only that we get bored; our body has a different physiological reaction.
As you can see below and at 2:13 in my video How Variation Can Trump Sensation and Lead to Overeating, researchers gave people a squirt of lemon juice, and their salivary glands responded with a squirt of saliva. But when they were given lemon juice ten times in a row, they salivated less and less each time. When they got the same amount of lime juice, though, their salivation jumped right back up. We’re hard-wired to respond differently to new foods. Whether foods are on the same plate, are at the same meal, or are even eaten on subsequent days, the greater the variety, the more we tend to eat. When kids had the same mac and cheese dinner five days in a row, they ended up eating hundreds fewer calories by the fifth day, compared to kids who got a variety of different meals, as you can see below and at 2:35 in my video.
Even just switching the shape of food can lead to overeating. When kids had a second bowl of mac and cheese, they ate significantly more when the noodles were changed from elbow macaroni to spirals. People allegedly eat up to 77 percent more M&Ms if they’re presented with ten different colors instead of seven, even though all the colors taste the same. “Thus, it is clear that the greater the differences between foods, the greater the enhancement of intake,” the greater the effect. Alternating between sweet and savory foods can have a particularly appetite-stimulating effect. Do you see how, in this way, adding a diet soda, for instance, to a fast-food meal can lead to overconsumption?
The staggering array of modern food choices may be one of the factors conspiring to undermine our appetite control. There are now tens of thousands of different foods being sold.
The so-called supermarket diet is one of the most successful ways to make rats fat. Researchers tried high-calorie food pellets, but the rats just ate less to compensate. So, they “therefore used a more extreme diet…[and] fed rats an assortment of palatable foods purchased at a nearby supermarket,” including such fare as cookies, candy, bacon, and cheese, and the animals ballooned. The human equivalent to maximize experimental weight gain has been dubbed the cafeteria diet.
It’s kind of the opposite of the original food dispensing device I’ve talked about before. Instead of all-you-can-eat bland liquid, researchers offered free all-you-can-eat access to elaborate vending machines stocked with 40 trays with a dizzying array of foods, like pastries and French fries. Participants found it impossible to maintain energy balance, consistently consuming more than 120 percent of their calorie requirements.
Our understanding of sensory-specific satiety can be used to help people gain weight, but how can we use it to our advantage? For example, would limiting the variety of unhealthy snacks help people lose weight? Two randomized controlled trials made the attempt and failed to show significantly more weight loss in the reduced variety diet, but they also failed to get people to make much of a dent in their diets. Just cutting down on one or two snack types seems insufficient to make much of a difference, as seen below and at 4:44 in my video. A more drastic change may be needed, which we’ll cover next.
I debunk the myth of protein as the most satiating macronutrient.
The importance of satiety is underscored by a rare genetic condition known as Prader-Willi syndrome. Children with the disorder are born with impaired signaling between their digestive system and their brain, so they don’t know when they’re full. “Because no sensation of satiety tells them to stop eating or alerts their body to throw up, they can accidentally consume enough in a single binge to fatally rupture their stomach.” Without satiety, food can be “a death sentence.”
Protein is often described as the most satiating macronutrient. People tend to report feeling fuller after eating a protein-rich meal, compared to a carbohydrate- or fat-rich one. The question is: Does that feeling of fullness last? From a weight-loss standpoint, satiety ratings only matter if they end up cutting down on subsequent calorie intake, and even a review funded by the meat, dairy, and egg industries acknowledges that this does not seem to be the case for protein. Hours later, protein consumed earlier doesn’t tend to end up cutting calories later on.
Fiber-rich foods, on the other hand, can suppress appetite and reduce subsequent meal intake more than ten hours after consumption—even the next day—because their site of action is 20 feet down in the lower intestine. Remember the ileal brake from my Evidence-Based Weight Loss lecture? When researchers secretly infused nutrients into the end of the small intestine, study participants spontaneously ate as many as hundreds fewer calories at a meal. Our brain gets the signal that we are full, from head to tail.
We were built for gluttony. “It is a wonderful instinct, developed over millions of years, for times of scarcity.” Stumbling across a rare bounty, those who could fill themselves the most to build up the greatest reserves would be more likely to pass along their genes. So, we are hard-wired not just to eat until our stomach is full, but until our entire digestive tract is occupied. Only when our brain senses food all the way down at the end does our appetite fully dial down.
Fiber-depleted foods get rapidly absorbed early on, though, so much of it never makes it down to the lower gut. As such, if our diet is low in fiber, no wonder we’re constantly hungry and overeating; our brain keeps waiting for the food that never arrives. That’s why people who even undergo stomach-stapling surgeries that leave them with a tiny two-tablespoon-sized stomach pouch can still eat enough to regain most of the weight they initially lost. Without sufficient fiber, transporting nutrients down our digestive tract, we may never be fully satiated. But, as I described in my last video, one of the most successful experimental weight-loss interventions ever reported in the medical literature involved no fiber at all, as you can see here and at 2:47 in my video Foods Designed to Hijack Our Appetites.
At first glance, it might seem obvious that removing the pleasurable aspects of eating would cause people to eat less, but remember, that’s not what happened. The lean participants continued to eat the same amount, taking in thousands of calories a day of the bland goop. Only those who were obese went from eating thousands of calories a day down to hundreds, as shown below and at 3:22 in myvideo. And, again, this happened inadvertently without them apparently even feeling a difference. Only after eating was disconnected from the reward was the body able to start rapidly reining in the weight.
We appear to have two separate appetite control systems: “the homeostatic and hedonic pathways.” The homeostatic pathway maintains our calorie balance by making us hungry when energy reserves are low and abolishes our appetite when energy reserves are high. “In contrast, hedonic or reward-based regulation can override the homeostatic pathway” in the face of highly palatable foods. This makes total sense from an evolutionary standpoint. In the rare situations in our ancestral history when we’d stumble across some calorie-dense food, like a cache of unguarded honey, it would make sense for our hedonic drive to jump into the driver’s seat to consume the scarce commodity. Even if we didn’t need the extra calories at the time, our body wouldn’t want us to pass up that rare opportunity. Such opportunities aren’t so rare anymore, though. With sugary, fatty foods around every corner, our hedonic drive may end up in perpetual control, overwhelming the intuitive wisdom of our bodies.
So, what’s the answer? Never eat really tasty food? No, but it may help to recognize the effects hyperpalatable foods can have on hijacking our appetites and undermining our body’s better judgment.
Ironically, some researchers have suggested a counterbalancing evolutionary strategy for combating the lure of artificially concentrated calories. Just as pleasure can overrule our appetite regulation, so can pain. “Conditioned food aversions” are when we avoid foods that made us sick in the past. That may just seem like common sense, but it is actually a deep-seated evolutionary drive that can defy rationality. Even if we know for a fact a particular food was not the cause of an episode of nausea and vomiting, our body can inextricably tie the two together. This happens, for example, with cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. Consoling themselves with a favorite treat before treatment can lead to an aversion to their favorite food if their body tries to connect the dots. That’s why oncologists may advise the “scapegoat strategy” of only eating foods before treatment that you are okay with, never wanting to eat again.
Researchers have experimented with inducing food aversions by having people taste something before spinning them in a rotating chair to cause motion sickness. Eureka! A group of psychologists suggested: “A possible strategy for encouraging people to eat less unhealthy food is to make them sick of the food, by making them sick from the food.” What about using disgust to promote eating more healthfully? Children as young as two-and-a-half years old will throw out a piece of previously preferred candy scooped out of the bottom of a clean toilet.
Thankfully, there’s a way to exploit our instinctual drives without resorting to revulsion, aversion, or bland food, which we’ll explore next.
I dive into one of the most fascinating series of studies I’ve ever come across.
Anyone can lose weight by eating less food. Anyone can be starved thin. Starvation diets are rarely sustainable, though, since hunger pangs drive us to eat. We feel unsatisfied and unsatiated on low-calorie diets. We do have some level of voluntary control, of course, but our deep-seated instinctual drives may win out in the end.
For example, we can consciously hold our breath. Try it right now. How long can you go before your body’s self-preservation mechanisms take over and overwhelm your deliberate intent not to breathe? Our body has our best interests at heart and is too smart to allow us to suffocate ourselves—or starve ourselves, for that matter. If our body were really that smart, though, how could it let us become obese? Why doesn’t our body realize when we’re too heavy and allow us the leeway to slim down? Maybe our body is very aware and actively trying to help, but we’re somehow undermining those efforts. How could we test this theory to see if that’s true?
So many variables go into choosing what we eat and how much. “The eating process involves an intricate mixture of physiologic, psychologic, cultural, and esthetic considerations.” To strip all that away and stick just to the physiologic variable, Columbia University researchers designed a series of famous experiments using a “food dispensing device.” The term “food” is used very loosely here. As you can see at 2:02 in my video 200-Pound Weight Loss Without Hunger, the researchers’ feeding machine was a tube hooked up to a pump that delivered a mouthful of bland liquid formula every time a button was pushed. Research participants were instructed to eat as much or as little as they wanted at any time. In this way, eating was reduced to just the rudimentary hunger drive. Without the usual trappings of “sociability,” meal ceremony, and the pleasures of the palate, how much would people be driven to eat? Put a normal-weight person in this scenario, and something remarkable happens. Day after day, week after week, with nothing more than their hunger to guide them, they eat exactly as much as they need, perfectly maintaining their weight, as shown below and at 2:36 in my video.
They needed about 3,000 calories a day, and that’s just how much they unknowingly gave themselves. Their body just intuitively seemed to know how many times to press that button, as seen here and at 2:48 in my video.
Put a person with obesity in that same scenario, and something even more remarkable happens. Driven by hunger alone, with the enjoyment of eating stripped away, they wildly undershoot, giving themselves a mere 275 calories a day, total. They could eat as much as they wanted, but they just weren’t hungry. It’s as if their body knew how massively overweight they were, so it dialed down their natural hunger drive to almost nothing. One participant started the study at 400 pounds and steadily lost weight. After 252 days of sipping the bland liquid, he lost 200 pounds, as you can see here and at 3:35 in my video.
This groundbreaking discovery was initially interpreted to mean that obesity is not caused by some sort of metabolic disturbance that drives people to overeat. In fact, the study suggested quite the opposite. Instead, overeating appeared to be a function of the meaning people attached to food, “aside from its use as fuel,” whether as a source of pleasure or perhaps as relief from boredom or stress. In this way, obesity seemed more psychological than physical. Subsequent experiments with the feeding machine, though, flipped such conceptions on their head once again.
When researchers covertly doubled the calorie concentration of the formula given to lean study participants, they unconsciously cut their consumption in half to continue to perfectly maintain their weight, as seen here and at 4:24 in my video. Their body somehow detected the change in calorie load and sent signals to the brain to press the button half as often to compensate. Amazing!
When the same was done with people with obesity, though, nothing changed. They continued to drastically undereat just as much as before. Their body seems incapable of detecting or reacting to the change in calorie load, suggesting a physiological inability to regulate intake, as shown below and at 4:40 in my video. Might the brains of persons with obesity somehow be insensitive to internal satiety signals? We don’t know if it’s cause or effect. Maybe that’s why they’re obese in the first place, or maybe the body knows how obese it is and shuts down its hunger drive regardless of the calorie concentration. Indeed, the participants with obesity continued to steadily lose weight eating out of the machine, regardless of the calorie concentration and the food being dispensed, as you can see here and at 5:19 in my video. It would be interesting to see if they regained the ability to respond to changing calorie intake once they reached their ideal weight. Regardless, what can we apply from these remarkable studies to facilitate weight loss out in the real world? We’ll explore just that question next.
What if the very hormone designed to help you survive is actually the reason you’re struggling to thrive?
My mother relentlessly saved and sacrificed so that she could enjoy her life in retirement. But two years into retirement, she was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s.
Here’s what I’ve learned since becoming a Functional Diagnostic Nutrition Practitioner: she didn’t just “get” Alzheimer’s two years after retirement. It was building and building for years before that. She was making it worse with lifestyle choices: the over-exercising that women in their 40s and 50s often do, eating trans fats during the low-fat craze of the 80s and 90s.
Had I known what I know now, her outcome might have been different.
This is why I’m passionate about functional health. This is why thousands of practitioners are learning to identify and address the root causes of dysfunction before they become disease. If we can reach people in that gray space (when things are out of balance but before they become diagnosable conditions), we can change their trajectory. We can save lives.
As functional health practitioners, we see it every day: clients who’ve tried everything, followed every protocol, cleaned up their diet, and taken all the right supplements, yet they’re still stuck in that frustrating place of “I’m okay, but I’m not great.”
The missing piece? Understanding cortisol and its profound impact on every system in the body.
If you’ve ever wondered why some clients get amazing results while others plateau, or why you yourself might be experiencing symptoms that doctors dismiss as “normal aging,” this deep dive into cortisol will change everything.
What Is Wellness, Really?
Before we dive into cortisol, let’s get clear on what we’re actually working toward. At FDN, we don’t believe in “fine” or “okay.” We believe in abundant vitality.
Picture this as a spectrum:
The Right Side (The Medical Model): Symptoms → Sickness → Disease → Death
The Middle (Neutral Health): No symptoms, but no energy either. This is the “I’m fine, I guess” zone where most people live.
The Left Side (True Wellness): High energy, optimal function, metabolic fire, abundant vitality, joy for life.
Here’s the thing: neutral health equals a neutral life. When you’re operating from “I’m okay, I don’t have any complaints,” you’re not building empires, writing books, raising joyful kids, or showing up as your best self in relationships.
Good health, abundant vitality, is your birthright. It’s not just for the lucky few.
The Body’s Incredible Healing Power (And What’s Limiting It)
Your body is a self-healing machine. You know this because when you get a cut, it heals. When you break a bone, it mends. When you catch a cold, you recover.
But this healing ability isn’t infinite. If it were, we’d never age or die.
So what’s the difference between what your body can heal and what it can’t?
It’s a savings versus spending problem.
Think of your body as having a bank account called “Vital Reserve.” This is your innate intelligence: your body’s natural ability to function at 100% and fix imbalances before they become problems.
Where do you spend this precious currency? On your environment.
This has always been the case. Our paleolithic ancestors spent their Vital Reserve on not knowing if food would be available, dealing with harsh weather, avoiding predators, and navigating tribal conflicts.
Today? We spend it on mental-emotional stress, environmental toxins, and poor lifestyle habits that are constantly draining our account.
The main spender of Vital Reserve is stress.
The Modern Stress Problem: It’s Not What You Think
When most people think of stress, they picture this: work deadlines, traffic, relationship conflicts, financial pressure. And yes, these mental-emotional stressors are huge.
But there are two other categories most people completely miss:
Physical Stressors:
Sitting too long
Blue light exposure from screens
Too much coffee
Not exercising enough (or exercising too much)
Needing wine to fall asleep
Poor sleep quality
Environmental Stressors:
Depleted soils
EMF exposure
Chemicals in food, water, and air
Toxins our paleolithic ancestors never encountered
Plus, there’s the existential stress of modern life: What’s my purpose? How do I make my life meaningful when I’ll likely be forgotten in 100 years?
All of these are constantly withdrawing from your Vital Reserve account.
Meet Cortisol: Your Body’s “Energy on Credit” System
Cortisol is your primary stress hormone, and it’s actually designed to help you survive. When your environment throws stressors at you, cortisol says, “We need to put internal spending on hold and take all available resources to deal with this external threat.”
Cortisol breaks the body down for quick energy. We call this “catabolic.”
Why would your body have a mechanism for breaking itself down? Because sometimes you need energy RIGHT NOW. When your boss says, “This project is actually due in 30 minutes,” you can’t drive to the store, buy food, cook it, eat it, digest it, and then produce energy. You need quick fuel immediately.
So cortisol reaches for easy-to-break-down tissues like cartilage, tendons, connective tissue, and muscle, converting them to blood sugar.
Here’s the kicker: Cortisol is also a natural painkiller and anti-inflammatory. It masks the damage it’s doing, which is why it makes you feel amazing in the moment: clear thinking, quick reactions, pain-free movement.
Think of cortisol as your body’s credit card. You’re borrowing energy now and promising to pay it back later through rest, recovery, and healing.
When “Energy on Credit” Becomes a Problem
Throughout history, humans dealt with stress that was intense but occasional and short-lived. A wild animal attack, a natural disaster, a tribal conflict: these were serious but temporary.
Take a moment to think about this: Does this describe the stress in your life?
For most of us, stress is intense, constant, and never-ending. We wake up stressed, work stressed, drive home stressed, and lie in bed stressed about tomorrow’s stress.
This creates what we call “catabolic debt”: you’re constantly running up charges on your cortisol credit card without ever paying it back.
Chronic stress is not within our biological design.
Consider this: Anthropological studies show paleolithic humans worked only 15-20 hours per week. How many of you work only 15-20 hours per week? (And remember, “work” includes housework, childcare, and all the other responsibilities that don’t stop when you leave the office.)
They lived in close communities with cooperative resource sharing and had each other’s backs. Think about your own life: Do you know your neighbors? If you do, would they really have your back if things got serious?
Most of us are duplicating resources instead of sharing them. We’re all figuring out our own childcare, making our own meals, maintaining our own everything. There’s no interdependence, no shared load.
The cost of modern life is enormous:
70-80% of doctor visits are for stress-related illnesses
People with high anxiety are 4-5 times more likely to die from heart attack or stroke
Stress contributes to 50% of all illnesses
The Stress Response Curve: Your Roadmap to Understanding Where You Are
This is where it gets really interesting. Understanding this curve will change how you see your health (and your clients’ health) forever.
We all start in the green zone: Homeostasis. When you experience occasional stressors, cortisol and adrenaline spike, you handle the situation, then return to baseline to rest and repair.
But when stress becomes chronic, you move into the orange zone: Acute Stress. You’re constantly producing cortisol and adrenaline, never returning to homeostasis.
Here’s the thing: on your way up this curve, you feel AMAZING. Remember when you could pull all-nighters and still ace exams? When you could eat junk food without consequences? When you had laser focus for 12-16 hours straight?
That’s the acute phase. You’re running on cortisol, and it feels like superpowers.
Then you hit Peak Production. Your body says, “We’ve put way too much on the cortisol credit card. We have to cut back.”
Now you fall into the Compensatory Phase. Your cortisol numbers might look normal to a doctor, but the distribution is all wrong. Maybe you have too much in the morning and crash by afternoon, or you spike at night and can’t sleep.
Plus, you have a relativity problem. You’re used to feeling like Superman from the acute phase, so normal cortisol levels feel terrible by comparison.
Continue down this path, and you reach the Exhaustive Phase. Like a phone on low battery mode, everything still works but at 30% capacity and not for long. You’re devoting everything to just getting through the day.
The Hidden Cost: What Happens to Your Body’s Core Systems
At FDN, we focus on six foundational systems that chronic stress systematically shuts down. We call them the H-I-D-D-E-N systems, and understanding what happens to each one under chronic stress is crucial for practitioners:
H – Hormones DHEA is your anabolic hormone: the one responsible for building you back up after cortisol breaks you down. This is how you pay off your cortisol credit card. But when stress is constant, DHEA steps back and says, “I’ll come back when it’s safe to focus internally, but right now we need to keep spending on the environment.” DHEA becomes chronically low, which means your healing potential becomes chronically low.
Then sex hormones get the message: “We don’t have enough resources to fund fertility right now.” Sex hormones plummet, taking motivation and joy for life with them. This is when you get to that neutral state where you’re thinking, “I have dreams I want to pursue, but it’s just too much effort. I’ll just watch Netflix instead.”
I – Immune Your immune system is expensive to run. Under chronic stress, it says, “I cost a ton of money, so I’m going to operate at 30% capacity and not for very long.” Now you’re getting sick often, it takes forever to heal, you can’t shake that cough, and if anyone around you is sick, you know you’re going down.
D – Digestion Digestion costs a lot of energy to function properly. When you’re spending everything on stress, digestion goes into low-power mode. Now you’re only digesting at 30% capacity. Even if you’re eating the cleanest diet in the world, you can’t use it. You’re not getting the building blocks to repair or the nutrients your body needs to power metabolic functions at full capacity.
D – Detoxification Detoxification is another huge system that’s expensive to run. When your body’s bank account is overdrawn from cortisol debt, detox says, “I don’t have enough money to find these toxins, bind them up, and effectively remove them. So I’ll put them in storage instead.” Your body shoves toxins into fat cells, brain tissue, and bones, creating a toxic backlog that makes you feel slow, gives you acne, throws off digestion, and impairs hormone production.
E – Energy Production Your mitochondria can’t function optimally when all resources are diverted to stress response. This leads to that “tired but wired” feeling where you’re exhausted but can’t actually rest.
N – Nervous System Sleep, mood, and cognitive function all suffer. This is where we see the brain fog, insomnia, anxiety, and depression that so many people struggle with.
The fundamental principle of FDN: These systems don’t operate in isolation. You can’t just say, “Oh, you have classic hormone symptoms, so let’s run a hormone test.” You miss immunity, digestion, detoxification: all the other systems contributing to what we call “Metabolic Chaos.”
This is why the “take this supplement for that symptom” approach rarely works long-term. You’re not dealing with isolated problems: you’re dealing with systemic dysfunction where multiple systems are compromised simultaneously.
Real-Life Case Studies: The Stress Curve in Action
Let’s look at three real clients to see how this plays out. As FDN practitioners, we use what we call “clinical correlation,” which means we never look at lab numbers in isolation. We always consider how someone feels alongside their test results.
Case Study 1: Adam – The Acute Phase Crash
Profile: 35-year-old male, broker at a mid-size investment firm, former athlete still crushing CrossFit workouts
Symptoms: Weight gain, trouble concentrating, loss of muscle mass despite rigorous workouts, headaches
Doctor’s Assessment: “Your results are unremarkable. This is normal aging.”
Lab Results:
Cortisol sum: 9 (acute phase)
Four-point pattern: Way too high in morning, drops low at noon, crashes severely in afternoon, bounces back up at night
The Reality: How do we know Adam isn’t on the left side of the stress curve going up into acute phase? His symptoms tell us everything. If he were on the way up, he’d feel amazing and wouldn’t be in our office. Instead, he’s on the right side coming down from peak production.
His cortisol pattern explains everything: sky-high morning cortisol makes him feel wired and anxious, the afternoon crash leaves him unable to concentrate (not ideal for an investment broker), and the nighttime spike disrupts his sleep.
Even though his DHEA looks “normal,” when we compare it to his cortisol level of 9, he’s clearly catabolic dominant. He’s breaking down faster than he’s building up, which explains why his intense CrossFit sessions aren’t building muscle: they’re just adding more stress to an already overloaded system.
The Reality: Caitlyn’s cortisol sum looks normal, but the distribution is completely dysfunctional. She can barely drag herself out of bed in the morning, crashes hard in the afternoon (imagine trying to accurately record legal proceedings when your cortisol is plummeting), and lies awake at night because her cortisol spikes just when it should be lowest.
She also has a relativity problem. When she was in the acute phase, she felt like Superman. Now that she’s in compensatory with “normal” cortisol levels, she feels terrible by comparison. Her DHEA is low, confirming she’s still in catabolic debt despite the lower cortisol numbers.
Case Study 3: Maggie – The Exhaustive Phase Crisis
Profile: 43-year-old chef at a popular five-star restaurant, diagnosed with hypothyroid
Symptoms: Weight gain in hips and belly, trouble keeping up at work, depression, irregular menstrual cycle
Lifestyle: Working 60+ hours per week, consistently sleeping only 5 hours per night
Medical Status: Seeing a counselor, considering antidepressant medication
Lab Results:
Cortisol sum: 3.1 (exhaustive phase)
Four-point pattern: Way too low in morning, drops low at noon, slight bounce in afternoon, drops again at night
DHEA: Very low
Clinical correlation: Still catabolic dominant despite low cortisol
The Reality: Maggie’s body is operating like a phone on low battery mode: everything still works, but at 30% capacity and not for long. Her thyroid has downregulated because there’s literally not enough energy in the system to maintain normal function.
The depression isn’t just psychological: it’s physiological. Her body can’t afford to fund optimal brain function. Even though her cortisol is very low and her DHEA is very low, she’s still cortisol dominant and in catabolic debt.
This is why understanding the stress curve is so crucial. Three people, three different phases, three different approaches needed.
The Path Forward: Why Understanding Cortisol Changes Everything
Here’s why this matters for you as a health practitioner:
1. It explains why some clients plateau. If you’re not addressing the stress component, you’ll hit a ceiling on healing no matter how perfect the diet or supplement protocol.
2. It validates your clients’ experiences. When someone says, “I used to be able to handle so much more,” or “I don’t feel like myself anymore,” you now understand the physiology behind it.
3. It gives you a roadmap for intervention. Different phases require different approaches. Someone in the acute phase needs different support than someone in the exhaustive phase.
4. It highlights the importance of comprehensive testing. A single cortisol measurement tells you almost nothing. You need the full pattern plus clinical correlation.
The FDN Approach: Test, Don’t Guess
At FDN, we don’t just talk about stress: we measure it. We use what we call “clinical correlation,” which means we never look at lab numbers in isolation. We always consider how someone feels alongside their test results.
We look at:
Four-point cortisol patterns throughout the day (not just a single measurement)
DHEA levels and the cortisol-to-DHEA ratio
How stress is affecting all the H-I-D-D-E-N systems
The complete picture of metabolic chaos
Progress tracking with tools like the Metabolic Chaos Scorecard
Then we address it systematically through our DRESS protocol:
D – Diet: Personalized nutrition based on lab findings, not generic “healthy eating” advice
R – Rest: Sleep optimization and recovery strategies tailored to your stress phase
E – Exercise: Right-sized movement for your current capacity (over-exercise is just as harmful as under-exercise)
S – Stress Reduction: Targeted techniques for your specific stressors: mental/emotional, physical, environmental, and lifestyle factors
S – Supplementation: Targeted support based on actual lab results, not guesswork
This isn’t about generic protocols. It’s about understanding exactly where someone is on the stress curve and what their body needs to heal.
Key Takeaways for Health Practitioners
Cortisol isn’t the enemy. A lot of people talk about cortisol as if it’s the villain—commercials make it sound like cortisol just makes you “old and fat.” That’s not what cortisol does. Cortisol is a vital hormone for navigating stress. The problem is chronic stress disrupting its natural rhythm.
Understanding the stress curve is diagnostic gold. It explains why clients feel the way they do and gives you a framework for intervention. Different phases require different approaches.
Clinical correlation is everything. You can’t just look at lab numbers in isolation. A cortisol sum of 5 might be “normal” to a doctor, but if your client feels terrible and the distribution is dysregulated, that tells you the real story.
You can’t ignore stress and expect lasting results. No matter how perfect your diet protocol or how targeted your supplements, chronic stress will cap healing potential. There’s a ceiling you’ll never break through if you don’t address the stress component.
The body’s systems are interconnected. You can’t just “fix hormones” without addressing how stress is affecting immunity, digestion, detoxification, and all the other H-I-D-D-E-N systems. This is why comprehensive testing and systematic protocols are crucial.
Metabolic Chaos requires a systematic approach. When multiple systems are compromised simultaneously, you need a framework like DRESS that addresses all aspects of healing, not just isolated symptoms.
Your Next Steps
If you’re ready to master functional lab testing and learn how to identify and address cortisol dysregulation in your practice, FDN provides the training, community, and ongoing support you need.
Because here’s the truth: your clients deserve more than “fine.” They deserve abundant vitality. And you deserve the confidence that comes from knowing exactly how to help them achieve it.
When you understand cortisol (really understand it), you hold the key to unlocking transformation for every client who walks through your door.
Ready to become the practitioner who always knows what to do next?
The answer lies in data-driven functional health. The answer lies in understanding that robust health isn’t just about the absence of symptoms: it’s about the presence of vitality.
And it starts with the hormone you can’t ignore: cortisol.
Want to learn more about becoming a Functional Diagnostic Nutrition Practitioner?
Discover how our comprehensive training program gives you the tools to master cortisol testing, interpretation, and protocols that get results. Because when you know how to test, you never have to guess. View an indepth case study here.
For three cents a day, black cumin may improve our cholesterol and triglyceride levels, blood pressure, and blood sugar control, as well as accelerate the loss of body fat.
Black cumin, also known as Nigella sativa or simply “black seed,” is not related to cumin; it’s a member of the buttercup family rather than the carrot family. Black cumin, with its peppery flavor, is a spice commonly used in Indian and Middle Eastern cuisines, but it’s also been prized for its purported medicinal benefits. Described as “a miracle herb,” with mentions going back to the Old Testament, it was found cached in King Tut’s tomb, and it’s been reported that the “Islamic prophet Muhammad once stated that the black seed can heal every disease except death.” Only in the last 50 years or so has it been put to the test, though, culminating in more than a thousand papers published in the medical literature.
Typical doses used in studies are one or two grams a day, which is only about a quarter teaspoon. This enables researchers to perform randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials by putting the whole-food spice powder into capsules rather than studying a component or extract.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials found that daily black cumin consumption significantly improves cholesterol and triglycerides. Researchers also found that it not only improves blood pressure, but it also improves blood sugar control. Some of the results are quite extraordinary. For example, one study found that postmenopausal women randomized to a gram a day (less than a quarter teaspoon) of black cumin powder reduced their LDL cholesterol by 27 percent within two months, significantly better than placebo. Those are the kinds of results we’d expect from a statin drug, yet it was achieved with just a sprinkle’s worth of a simple spice. Black cumin may also help with menopausal symptoms.
Now, it doesn’t appear to cure anything—a month after stopping the spice, cholesterol levels began to creep back up, for instance, as you can see below and at 2:00 in my video Benefits of Black Cumin Seed (Nigella Sativa) for Weight Loss—but it does appear to be a cheap, safe, effective, and delicious (if you like spice) treatment for some of our deadliest risk factors. And its side effects include loss of appetite and weight loss!
The latest systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled weight-loss trials found that about a quarter teaspoon of black cumin powder a day does appear to cause weight loss within a span of a few months. If it really can benefit so many facets of health, why don’t we hear more about it? Why wasn’t I taught about it in medical school? Maybe because there’s little profit motive. Black cumin is just a common, natural spice. The daily dose used in most of these studies would cost about three cents a day. Stockholders won’t be thrilled to sell something that can’t be patented and costs only three pennies a day. Black cumin has become a staple in my family’s daily diet. I keep a pepper mill filled with it right on the kitchen table and grind it onto foods just as I would black pepper—easy and delicious.
Those on a healthy plant-based diet who have elevated homocysteine levels despite taking sufficient vitamin B12 may want to consider taking a gram a day of contaminant-free creatine.
The average blood levels of homocysteine in men are about 1.5 points higher than in women, which may be one of the reasons men tend to be at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Women don’t need to make as much creatine as men since they tend to have less muscle mass. That may help explain “the ‘gender gap’ in homocysteine levels.” If you remember from my previous video and as seen below and at 0:36 in The Efficacy and Safety of Creatine for High Homocysteine, in the process of making creatine, our body produces homocysteine as a by-product. So, for people with stubbornly high homocysteine levels that don’t respond sufficiently to B vitamins, “creatine supplementation may represent a practical strategy for decreasing plasma homocysteine levels”—that is, lowering the level of homocysteine into the normal range.
It seemed to work in rats. What about humans? Well, it worked in one study, but it didn’t seem to work in another. It didn’t work in yet another either. And, in another study, homocysteine levels were even driven up. So, this suggestion that taking creatine supplements would lower homocysteine was called into question.
However, all those studies were done with non-vegetarians, so they were already effectively supplementing with creatine every day in the form of muscle meat. In that way, researchers were testing higher versus lower supplementation. Those eating strictly plant-based make all their creatine from scratch, so they may be more sensitive to an added creatine source. There weren’t any studies on creatine supplementation in vegans to lower homocysteine until now.
Researchers took vegans who were not supplementing their diets with vitamin B12, so some of their homocysteine levels were through the roof. A few were as high as 50 when the ideal is more like under 10, for example. After taking some creatine for a few weeks, all of their homocysteine levels normalized. You can see the before and after in the graph below and at 2:04 in my video.
Now, they didn’t normalize, as that would have been a level under 10, but that’s presumably because they weren’t taking any B12. Give vegetarians and vegans vitamin B12 supplements, either dosing daily or once a week, and their levels normalize in a matter of months, as you can see below and at 2:20 in my video. However, the fact that you could bring down homocysteine levels with creatine alone, even without any B12, suggests—to me at least—that if your homocysteine is elevated (above 10) on a plant-based diet despite taking B12 supplements and eating greens and beans to get enough folate, it might be worth experimenting with supplementing with a gram of creatine a day for a few weeks to see if your homocysteine comes down.
Why just a single gram? That’s approximately how much non-vegetarians do not have to make themselves; it’s the amount that erased vegetarian discrepancies in blood and muscle, as you can see in the graph below and at 3:01 in my video, and how much has been shown to be safe in the longer term.
How safe is it? We can take a bit of comfort in the fact that it’s “one of the world’s best-selling dietary supplements,” with literally billions of servings taken, and the only consistently reported side effect has been weight gain, presumed to be from water retention. The only serious side effects appear to be among those with pre-existing kidney diseases taking whopping doses closer to 20 grams a day. A concern was raised that creatine could potentially form a carcinogen known as N-nitrososarcosine when it hit the acid bath of the stomach, but, when it actually put to the test, researchers found this does not appear to be a problem.
Bottom line: Doses of supplemental creatine up to 3 grams a day are “unlikely to pose any risk,” provided “high purity creatine” is used. However, as we all know, dietary supplements in the United States “are not regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration and may contain contaminants or variable quantities of the desired supplement” and may not even contain what’s on the label. We’re talking about “contaminants…that may be generated during the industrial production.” When researchers looked at 33 samples of creatine supplements made in the United States and Europe, they found that they all actually contained creatine, which is nice, but about half exceeded the maximum level recommended by food safety authorities for at least one contaminant. The researchers recommend that “consumers give their preference to products obtained by producers that ensure the highest quality control and certify the maximum amount of contaminants present in their products.” Easier said than done.
Because of the potential risks, I don’t think people should take creatine supplements willy-nilly, but the potential benefits may exceed the potential risks if, again, you’re on a healthy plant-based diet and taking B12, and your homocysteine levels are still not under 10. In that case, I would suggest giving a gram a day of creatine a trying to see if it brings it down.
The reason I did this whole video series goes back to “Risks of Ischaemic Heart Disease and Stroke in Meat Eaters, Fish Eaters, and Vegetarians Over 18 Years of Follow-Up: Results from the Prospective EPIC-Oxford Study,” which found that, although the overall cardiovascular risk is lower in vegetarians and vegans combined, they appeared to be at slightly higher stroke risk, as you can see in the graph below and at 5:06 in my video.
I went through a list of potential causes, as you can see at 5:11 and below, and arrived at elevated homocysteine. What’s the solution? A regular, reliable source of vitamin B12. The cheapest, easiest method that I personally use is one 2,500 mcg chewable tablet of cyanocobalamin, the most stable source of B12, once a week. (In fact, you can just use 2,000 mcg once a week.) And, again, a backup plan for those doing that but still having elevated homocysteine is an empirical trial of a single gram a day of creatine supplementation, which was shown to improve at least capillary blood flow in those who started out with high homocysteine levels.
In sum, plant-based diets appear to “markedly reduce risk” for multiple leading killer diseases—heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and many common types of cancer—but “an increased risk for stroke may represent an ‘Achilles heel.’ Nonetheless, vegans have the potential to achieve a truly exceptional ‘healthspan’ if they face this problem forthrightly by restricting salt intake and taking other practical measures that promote cerebrovascular [brain artery] health…Nonetheless, these considerations do not justify nutritional nihilism. On balance, low-fat vegan diets offer such versatile protection for long-term health that they remain highly recommendable. Most likely, the optimal strategy is to adopt such a [plant-based] diet, along with additional measures—appropriate food choices, exercising training, judicious supplementation [of vitamin B12]—that will mitigate the associated stroke risk.” And try not to huff whipped cream charging canister gas. Leave the “whippets” alone.
This concludes my series on stroke risk. If you missed any of the other videos, see the related posts below.
I’m assuming that nearly everyone taking their B12 will have normal homocysteine levels, so these last two videos are just for the rare person who doesn’t. However, those on a healthy plant-based diet with elevated homocysteine levels despite taking sufficient vitamin B12 should consider taking a gram a day of contaminant-free creatine, which should be about a quarter teaspoon.
Where do you get contaminant-free creatine? Since regulations are so lax, you can’t rely on supplement manufacturers no matter what they say, so I would recommend going directly to the chemical suppliers that sell it to laboratories and guarantee a certain purity. Here are some examples (in alphabetical order) of some of the largest companies where you can get unadulterated creatine: Alfa Aesar, Fisher Scientific, Sigma-Aldrich, and TCI America.
It seems there is always trouble about being in bed, sleeping, oversleeping, intimacy issues and food in bed. Another big issue are screens. As the evening winds down, it can be tempting to reach for something as you stream, read, or roam around your place. Iturns out 93% of adults have an after-dinner snack at least once a week. But is a bedtime snack a bad idea?
Although experts do not recommend large meals before bedtime, a light snack can have several benefits. Key word being something small. A snack before bed could help prevent prevent low blood sugar. Certain snacks before bedtime can provide sleep benefits such as falling asleep faster. If you take insulin or other diabetes medications, you may sometimes need to snack before bedtime to treat or prevent low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) during the night.
But, late-night snacks can add extra calories, which can lead to weight gain.
Photo by Jakob Owens via Unsplash.
A key factor in determining weight gain is regular habits. While in theory, eating before bed shouldn’t cause weight gain, it’s a habit encouraging other bad habits. These snacks usually don’t count as a meal, meaning that they’re extra calories. They’re also occurring at the time of the day when people are the hungriest, meaning snacking can quickly transform into eating enough calories to throw off your daily caloric intake. The most popular night snacks among survey respondents were chips, crackers, and pretzels, with 53.1% choosing those foods as a go-to. They were No. 1 among men and women. Sugary snacks are also favored, with 43.4% choosing ice cream, 42.8% having cake or cookies, and 37.7% grabbing candy. Healthier options include sugar-free frozen pop, one light cheese stick, a tablespoon of peanut butter (15 grams) with celery, a hard-boiled egg, rice baby carrots or 3/4 cup light popcorn.
A key point is a snack and not a big feast. Experts generally recommend waiting at least a half hour after drinking fluids and at least 2–3 hours after having a full meal before lying down to go to sleep. This will help avoid indigestion to weight gain and even possible circadian rhythm disruptions.
Some research says for people who get very hungry at night, one snack after dinner could help them control urges for eating more. With the majority of people doing it at least once a week, it isn’t should you but what do you have? This help determine your sleep and you waist line the following days.
Implausible explanations for the obesity epidemic serve the needs of food manufacturers and marketers more than public health and an interest in truth.
When it comes to uncovering the root causes of the obesity epidemic, there appears to be manufactured confusion, “with major studies reasserting that the causes of obesity are ‘extremely complex’ and ‘fiendishly hard to untangle,’” but having just reviewed the literature, it doesn’t seem like much of a mystery to me.
It’s the food.
Attempts at obfuscation—rolling out hosts of “implausible explanations,” like sedentary lifestyles or lack of self-discipline—cater to food manufacturers and marketers more than the public’s health and our interest in the truth. “When asked about the role of restaurants in contributing to the obesity problem, Steven Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association stated, “Just because we have electricity doesn’t mean you have to electrocute yourself.” Yes, but Big Food is effectively attaching electrodes to shock and awe the reward centers in our brains to undermine our self-control.
It is hard to eat healthfully against the headwind of such strong evolutionary forces. No matter what our level of nutrition knowledge, in the face of pepperoni pizza, “our genes scream, ‘Eat it now!’” Anyone who doubts the power of basic biological drives should see how long they can go without blinking or breathing. Any conscious decision to hold your breath is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe. In medicine, shortness of breath is sometimes even referred to as “air hunger.” The battle of the bulge is a battle against biology, so obesity is not some moral failing. It’s not gluttony or sloth. It is a natural, “normal response, by normal people, to an abnormal situation”—the unnatural ubiquity of calorie-dense, sugary, and fatty foods.
The sea of excess calories we are now floating in (and some of us are drowning in) has been referred to as a “toxic food environment.” This helps direct focus away from the individual and towards the societal forces at work, such as the fact that the average child is blasted with 10,000 commercials for food a year. Or maybe I should say ads for pseudo food, as 95 percent are for “candy, fast food, soft drinks [aka liquid candy], and sugared cereals [aka breakfast candy].”
Wait a second, though. If weight gain is just a natural reaction to the easy availability of mountains of cheap, yummy calories, then why isn’t everyone fat? As you can see below and at 2:41 in my video The Role of the Toxic Food Environment in the Obesity Epidemic, in a certain sense, most everyone is. It’s been estimated that more than 90 percent of American adults are “overfat,” defined as having “excess body fat sufficient to impair health.” This can occur even “in those who are normal-weight and non-obese, often due to excess abdominal fat.
However, even if you look just at the numbers on the scale, being overweight is the norm. If you look at the bell curve and input the latest data, more than 70 percent of us are overweight. A little less than one-third of us is normal weight, on one side of the curve, and more than a third is on the other side, so overweight that we’re obese. You can see in the graph below and at 3:20 in my video.
If the food is to blame, though, why doesn’t everyone get fat? That’s like asking if cigarettes are really to blame, why don’t all smokers get lung cancer? This is where genetic predispositions and other exposures can weigh in to tip the scales. Different people are born with a different susceptibility to cancer, but that doesn’t mean smoking doesn’t play a critical role in exploding whatever inherent risk you have. It’s the same with obesity and our toxic food environment. It’s like the firearm analogy: Genes may load the gun, but diet pulls the trigger. We can try to switch the safety back on with smoking cessation and a healthier diet.
What happened when two dozen study participants were given the same number of excess calories? They all gained weight, but some gained more than others. Overfeeding the same 1,000 calories a day, 6 days a week for 100 days, caused weight gains ranging from about 9 pounds up to 29 pounds. The same 84,000 extra calories caused different amounts of weight gain. Some people are just more genetically susceptible. The reason we suspect genetics is that the 24 people in the study were 12 sets of identical twins, and the variation in weight gain between each of them was about a third less. As you can see in the graph below and at 4:41 in my video, a similar study with weight loss from exercise found a similar result. So, yes, genetics play a role, but that just means some people have to work harder than others. Ideally, inheriting a predisposition for extra weight gain shouldn’t give a reason for resignation, but rather motivation to put in the extra effort to unseal your fate.
Advances in processing and packaging, combined with government policies and food subsidy handouts that fostered cheap inputs for the “food industrial complex,” led to a glut of ready-to-eat, ready-to-heat, ready-to-drink hyperpalatable, hyperprofitable products. To help assuage impatient investors, marketing became even more pervasive and persuasive. All these factors conspired to create unfettered access to copious, convenient, low-cost, high-calorie foods often willfully engineered with chemical additives to make them hyperstimulatingly sweet or savory, yet only weakly satiating.
As we all sink deeper into a quicksand of calories, more and more mental energy is required to swim upstream against the constant “bombardment of advertising” and 24/7 panopticons of tempting treats. There’s so much food flooding the market now that much of it ends up in the trash. Food waste has progressively increased by about 50 percent since the 1970s. Perhaps better in the landfills, though, than filling up our stomachs. Too many of these cheap, fattening foods prioritize shelf life over human life.
But dead people don’t eat. Don’t food companies have a vested interest in keeping their consumers healthy? Such naiveté reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. A public company’s primary responsibility is to reap returns for its investors. “How else could we have tobacco companies, who are consummate marketers, continuing to produce products that kill one in two of their most loyal customers?” It’s not about customer satisfaction, but shareholder satisfaction. The customer always comes second.
Just as weight gain may be a perfectly natural reaction to an obesogenic food environment, governments and businesses are simply responding normally to the political and economic realities of our system. Can you think of a single major industry that would benefit from people eating more healthfully? “Certainly not the agriculture, food product, grocery, restaurant, diet, or drug industries,” wrote emeritus professor Marion Nestle in a Science editorial when she was chair of nutrition at New York University. “All flourish when people eat more, and all employ armies of lobbyists to discourage governments from doing anything to inhibit overeating.”
If part of the problem is cheap tasty convenience, is hard-to-find food that’s gross and expensive the solution? Or might there be a way to get the best of all worlds—easy, healthy, delicious, satisfying meals that help you lose weight? That’s the central question of my book How Not to Diet. Check it out for free at your local library.
This is it—the final video in this 11-part series. If you missed any of the others, see the related posts below.
Like the tobacco industry adding extra nicotine to cigarettes, the food industry employs taste engineers to accomplish a similar goal of maximizing the irresistibility of its products.
The plague of tobacco deaths wasn’t due just to the mass manufacturing and marketing of cheap cigarettes. Tobacco companies actively sought to make their products even more crave-able by spraying sheets of tobacco with nicotine and additives like ammonia to provide “a bigger nicotine ‘kick.’” Similarly, taste engineers are hired by the food industry to maximize product irresistibility.
Taste is the leading factor in food choice. “Sugar, fat, and salt have been called the three points of the compass” to produce “superstimulating” and “hyper palatability” to tempt people into impulsive buys and compulsive consumption. Foods are intentionally designed to hook into our evolutionary triggers and breach whatever biological barriers help “keep consumption within reasonable limits.”
Big Food is big business. The processed food industry alone brings in more than $2 trillion a year. That affords them the economic might to manipulate not only taste profiles, but public policy and scientific inquiry, too. The food, alcohol, and tobacco industries have all used similar unsavory tactics: blocking health regulations, co-opting professional organizations, creating front groups, and distorting the science. The common “corporate playbook” shouldn’t be surprising, given the common corporate threads. At one time, for example, tobacco giant Philip Morris owned both Kraft and Miller Brewing.
As you can see below and at 1:45 in my video The Role of Corporate Influence in the Obesity Epidemic, in a single year, the food industry spent more than $50 million to hire hundreds of lobbyists to influence legislation. Most of these lobbyists were “revolvers,” former federal employees in the revolving door between industry and its regulators, who could push corporate interests from the inside, only to be rewarded with cushy lobbying jobs after their “public service.” In the following year, the industry acquired a new weapon—a stick to go along with all those carrots. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court’s five-to-four Citizen’s United ruling permitted corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaign ads to trash anyone who dared stand against them. No wonder our elected officials have so thoroughly shrunk from the fight, leaving us largely with a government of Big Food, by Big Food, and for Big Food.
Globally, a similar dynamic exists. Weak tea calls from the public health community for voluntary standards are met not only with vicious fights against meaningful change but also massive transnational trade and foreign investment deals that “cement the protection of their [food industry] profits” into the laws of the lands.
The corrupting commercial influence extends to medical associations. Reminiscent of the “just what the doctor ordered” cigarette ads of yesteryear, as you can see below and at 3:05 in my video, the American Academy of Family Physicians accepted millions from The Coca-Cola Company to “develop consumer education content on beverages and sweeteners.”
On the front line, fake grassroots “Astroturf” groups are used to mask the corporate message. RJ Reynolds created Get Government Off Our Back (memorably acronymed GGOOB), “a front group created by the tobacco industry to fight regulation,” for instance. Americans Against Food Taxes may as just as well be called “Food Industry Against Food Taxes.” The power of front group formation is enough to bind bitter corporate rivals; the Sugar Association and the Corn Refiners Association linked arms with the National Confectioners Association to partner with Americans for Food and Beverage Choice.
Using another tried-and-true tobacco tactic, research front groups can be used to subvert the scientific process by shaping or suppressing the science that deviates from the corporate agenda. Take the trans fat story. Food manufacturers have not only “long denied that trans fats were associated with disease,” but actively “worked to limit research on trans fats” and “discredit potentially damaging findings.”
At what cost? The global death toll from foods high in trans fat, saturated fat, salt, and sugar is at 14 million lost lives every year. The inability of countries around the world to turn the tide on obesity “is not a failure of individual will-power. This is a failure of political will to take on big business,” said the Director-General of the World Health Organization. “It is a failure of political will to take on the powerful food and soda industries.” She ended her keynote address before the National Academy of Medicine entitled “Obesity and Diabetes: The Slow-Motion Disaster” with these words: “The interests of the public must be prioritized over those of corporations.”
The power of the “eat more” food environment can overcome our conscious controls.
Food and beverage companies frame body weight as “a matter of personal choice.” Even when we aren’t distracted, the power of the “eat more” food environment may sometimes overcome our conscious controls of overeating. One look around the room at a dietician convention can tell you that even nutrition professionals are vulnerable to the aggressively marketed ubiquity of tasty, cheap, convenient calories. This suggests there are aspects of our eating behaviors “that defy personal insight or are below individual awareness,” flying below the radar of conscious awareness. Appetite physiologists call the result of these subconscious actions “passive overconsumption.”
Remember that brain scan study where the thought of a milkshake lit up the same reward pathways in the brain as substance abuse? That was triggered just by a picture of a milkshake. Dopamine gets released, cravings get activated, and we’re motivated to eat. Intellectually, we know it’s just an image, but our lizard brain sees survival. It’s just a reflexive response over which we have little control, which is why marketers ensure there are pictures of milkshakes and their equivalents everywhere.
As I discuss in my video The Role of Personal Responsibility in the Obesity Epidemic, maintaining a balance between calories in and calories out feels like a series of voluntary acts under conscious control, but it may be more akin to bodily functions, such as blinking, breathing, coughing, swallowing, or sleeping. You can try to will yourself power over any of these, but by and large, they just happen automatically, driven by ancient scripts.
Not only are food ads ubiquitous, but so is the food. The types of establishments selling food products expanded dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s. Now, you can find candy and snacks at the checkout counters of “gasoline stations, building material outlets, auto parts stores, drug stores, and home furnishing stores” and more. The largest food retailer in the United States is Wal-Mart. You can get that jolt of “dopamine and the associated artificially induced feelings of hunger in modern society” around every turn. Every day, we run the gauntlet.
It’s also become “socially acceptable to eat food at any time of day and anywhere—in cars, in your hand, on the street—places where eating had never been acceptable.” We’ve become a snacking society. Vending machines are everywhere. Daily eating episodes seem to have gone up by about a quarter since the late 1970s, increasing from about four to five occasions a day, potentially accounting for twice the calorie increase attributed to increasing portion sizes. Snacks and beverages alone could account for the bulk of the calorie surplus implicated in the obesity epidemic.
And think of the children. Here we are trying to do the best for our kids, role-modeling healthy habits and feeding them healthy foods, but then they venture out into a veritable tornado of junky food and manipulative messages. A commentary in The New England Journal of Medicine asked: “But why should Mr. and Ms. G.’s efforts to protect their children from life-threatening illness be undermined by massive marketing campaigns from the manufacturers of junk food?” Pediatricians are now encouraged to have the “French Fry Discussion” with parents at the 12-month well-child visit instead of waiting until their kids are two—though even that may be too late. As you can see below and at 3:35 in my video, two-thirds of infants are being fed junk food by their first birthday.
Dr. David Katz may have said it best in the Harvard Health Policy Review: “Those who contend that parental or personal responsibility should carry the day despite these environmental temptations might consider the implications of generalizing the principle. Perhaps children should be encouraged, but not required, to attend school and tempted each morning by alternatives, such as buses to the circus, zoo, or beach.”
It may be helpful to take a step back and think of what’s at stake here. We aren’t just talking about being manipulated into buying a different brand of toothpaste. The obesity pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and untold suffering. If you aren’t mad yet, brace yourself for my next video: The Role of Corporate Influence in the Obesity Epidemic.
This is the ninth video in my 11-part series. If you missed any of the previous ones, see the related posts below.
We all like to think we make important life decisions, like what to eat, consciously and rationally, but if that were the case, we wouldn’t be in the midst of an obesity epidemic.
The opening words of the Institute of Medicine’s report on the potential threat posed by food ads were: “Marketing works.” Certainly, there is a “large number of well-conducted randomized experiments” I could go through with you that “have shown that exposure to marketing—especially, but not only, advertising—changes people’s eating behavior. Marketing causes people to choose to eat more.” But, what do you need to know beyond the fact that the industry spends tens of billions of dollars a year on it? To get people to drink its brown sugar water, do you think Coca-Cola would spend a penny more than it thought it had to? It’s like when my medical colleagues accept “drug lunches” from pharmaceutical representatives and take offense that I would suggest it might affect their prescribing practices. Do they really think drug companies are in the business of giving away free money for nothing? They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work.
To give you a sense of marketing’s insidious nature, let me share an interesting piece of research published in the world’s leading scientific journal: “In-Store Music Affects Product Choice” documented an experiment in which French accordion music or German Bierkeller music was played on alternate days in the wine section of a grocery store. As you can see below and at 1:27 in my video The Role of Food Advertisements in the Obesity Epidemic, on the days the French music played in the background, people were three times more likely to buy French wine, and on German music days, shoppers were about three times more likely to buy German wine. And it wasn’t a difference of just a few percent; it was a complete three-fold reversal. Despite the dramatic effect, when shoppers were approached afterward, the vast majority of them denied the music had influence on their choice.
Most of our day-to-day behavior does not appear to be dictated by careful, considered deliberations, even if we’d like to think that were the case. Rather, we tend to make more automatic, impulsive decisions triggered by unconscious cues or habitual patterns, especially when we are “under stress, tired, or preoccupied. This unconscious part of our brain is estimated to function and guide our behaviors at least 95% of the time.” This is the arena where marketing manipulations do most of their dirty work.
The part of our brain that governs conscious awareness may only be able to process about 50 bits of information per second, which is roughly equivalent to a short tweet. Our entire cognitive capacity, on the other hand, is estimated to process more than 10 million bits per second. Because we’re only able to purposefully process a limited amount of information at a time, if we’re distracted or otherwise unable to concentrate, our decisions can become even more impulsive. An elegant illustration of this “cognitive overload” effect was provided from an experiment involving fruit salad and chocolate cake.
Before calls could be made at the touch of a button or the sound of our voice, the seven-digit span of phone numbers in the United States was based in part on the longest sequence most people can recall on the fly. We only seem to be able to hold about seven chunks of information (plus or minus two) in our immediate short-term memory. The study’s setup: Randomize people to memorize either a seven-digit number or a two-digit number to be recalled in another room down the hall. On the way, offer them the choice of a fruit salad or a piece of chocolate cake. Memorizing a two-digit number is easy and presumably takes few cognitive resources. As you can see in the graph below and at 3:52 in my video, under the two-digit condition, most study participants chose fruit salad. Faced with the same decision, most of those trying to keep seven digits in their heads just went for the cake.
This can play out in the real world by potentiating the effect of advertising. Have people watch a TV show with commercials for unhealthy snacks, and, no surprise, they eat more unhealthy snacks compared to those exposed to non-food ads. Or maybe that is a surprise. We all like to think we’re in control and not so easily manipulated. The kicker, though, is that we may be even more susceptible the less we pay attention. Randomize people to the same two-digit or seven-digit memorization task during the TV show, and the snack-attack effect was magnified among those who were more preoccupied. How many of us have the TV on in the background or multi-task during commercial breaks? Research suggests that may make us even more impressionable to the subversion of our better judgment.
There’s an irony in all of this. Calls for restrictions on marketing are often resisted by invoking the banner of freedom. What does that even mean in this context, when research shows how easily our free choices can be influenced without our conscious control? A senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation even went as far as to suggest that, given the dire health consequences of our unhealthy eating habits, “the marketing techniques of which we are unaware should be considered in the same light as the invisible carcinogens and toxins in the air and water that can poison us without our awareness.”
Given the role marketing can play even when we least suspect it, what is the role of personal responsibility in the obesity epidemic? That’s the subject of my next video.
We are winding down this series on obesity, with three videos remaining:
If you missed any of the previous videos, see the related posts below.
The unprecedented rise in the power, scope, and sophistication of food marketing starting around 1980 aligns well with the blastoff slope of the obesity epidemic.
In the 1970s, the U.S. government went from just subsidizing some of the worst foods to paying companies to make more of them: “Congress passed laws reversing long-standing farm policies aimed at protecting prices by limiting production” and started giving payouts in proportion to output. Extra calories started pouring into the food supply.
Then Jack Welch gave a speech. In 1981, the CEO of General Electric effectively launched the “shareholder value movement,” reorienting the primary goal of corporations towards maximizing short-term returns for investors. This placed extraordinary pressure from Wall Street on food companies to post increasing profit growth every quarter to boost their share price. There was already a glut of calories on the market and now they had to sell even more.
This placed food and beverage CEOs in an impossible bind. It’s not like they’re rubbing their sticky hands together at the thought of luring more Hansels and Gretels to their doom in their houses of candy. Food giants couldn’t do the right thing even if they wanted. They are beholden to investors. If they stopped marketing to kids or tried to sell healthier food or did anything else that could jeopardize their quarterly profit growth, Wall Street would demand a change in management. Healthy eating is bad for business. It’s not some grand conspiracy; it’s not even anyone’s fault. It’s just how the system works.
As I discuss in my video The Role of Marketing in the Obesity Epidemic, given the constant demands for corporate growth and rapid returns in an already oversaturated marketplace, the food industry needed to get people to eat more. Like the tobacco industry before them, it turned to the ad makers. The food industry spends about $10 billion a year on advertising and around another $20 billion on other forms of marketing, such as trade shows, consumer promotions, incentives, and supermarket “slotting fees.” Food and beverage companies purchase shelf space from supermarkets to prominently display their most profitable products. They pay supermarkets. The practice is also known as “cliffing,” because companies “force suppliers to bid against each other for shelf space with the loser pushed ‘over the cliff.’” With slotting fees costing up to $20,000 per item, per retailer, and per city, you can imagine what types of foods get the special treatment. Hint: It ain’t broccoli.
To get a sense of what kind of products merit prime shelf real estate, look no further than the checkout aisle. “Merchandising the power categories on every lane is critical,” reads a trade publication on the “best practices for superior checkout merchandising.” It was referring to candy bars and beverages. Just a 1 percent power category boost in sales could earn a store an extra $15,000 a year. It’s not that publicly traded companies don’t care about their customers’ health. They might, but like most of the leading grocery store chains, their “primary fiduciary responsibility is to increase profits” above other considerations.
For instance, tens of millions of dollars are spent annually advertising a single brand of candy bar. McDonald’s alone may spend billions a year. Now, “the food industry is the biggest spender on advertising of any major sector of the economy.”
“Reagan-era deregulatory policies removed limits on television marketing of food products to children.” Now, the average child may see more than 10,000 TV food ads a year, and that’s on top of “the marketing content online, in print, at school, at the movies, in video games, or at school,” or even on their phones. “Nearly all food marketing to children worldwide promotes products that can adversely affect their health.”
Besides the massive early exposure and ubiquity, food marketing has become “highly sophisticated. With the help of child psychologists, companies began to understand the factors that unconsciously influenced sales. They found out, for example, how to influence children and get them to manipulate their parents.” Packaging was designed to best attract a child’s attention, and then those products are placed at their eye level in the store. You know those mirrored bubbles in the ceilings of supermarkets? They aren’t just for shoplifters. Closed-circuit cameras and GPS-like devices on shopping carts are used to strategize how best to guide shoppers toward the market’s most profitable products. Behavioral psychology is widely applied to increase impulse buying, and eye movement tracking technologies are utilized.
The “unprecedented expansion in the scope, power, and ubiquity of food marketing…coincided with an unprecedented expansion in food consumption in predictable ways.” Some techniques have “skyrocket[ed] from essentially zero to multi-billion-dollar industries” since the 1980s, including “product placement, in-school advertising, event sponsorships.” This led one noted economist to conclude that “the most compelling single interpretation of the admittedly incomplete data we have is that the large increase in obesity is due to marketing.” Yes, innovations in manufacturing and political maneuvering led to a food supply bursting at the seams with close to 4,000 calories a day for us all, but it’s the advances in marketing manipulations that try to peddle that surplus into our mouths.
I think the natural reaction to the suggestion of the power of marketing is: I’m too smart to fall for that. Marketing works on other people, but I can see through it. But that’s what everyone thinks! For a splash of cold water to shake us all out of this delusion, I next bring you some data: The Role of Food Advertisements in the Obesity Epidemic.
Why are U.S. taxpayers giving billions of dollars to support the likes of the sugar and meat industries?
The rise in calorie surplus sufficient to explain the obesity epidemic was less a change in food quantity than in food quality. Access to cheap, high-calorie, low-quality convenience foods exploded, and the federal government very much played a role in making this happen. U.S. taxpayers give billions of dollars in subsidies to prop up the likes of the sugar industry, the corn industry and its high-fructose syrup, and the production of soybeans, about half of which is processed into vegetable oil and the other half is used as cheap feed to help make dollar-menu meat. You can see a table of subsidy recipients below and at 0:49 in my video The Role of Taxpayer Subsidies in the Obesity Epidemic. Why do taxpayers give nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year to the sorghum industry? When was the last time you sat down to some sorghum? It’s almost all fed to cattle and other livestock. “We have created a food price structure that favors relatively animal source foods, sweets, and fats”—animal products, sugars, and oils.
The Farm Bill started out as an emergency measure during the Great Depression of the 1930s to protect small farmers but was weaponized by Big Ag into a cash cow with pork barrel politics—including said producers of beef and pork. From 1970 to 1994, global beef prices dropped by more than 60 percent. And, if it weren’t for taxpayers “sweetening the pot” with billions of dollars a year, high-fructose corn syrup would cost the soda industry about 12 percent more. Then we hand Big Soda billions more through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamps Program, to give sugary drinks to low-income individuals.Why is chicken so cheap? After one Farm Bill, corn and soy were subsidized below the cost of production for cheap animal fodder. We effectively handed the poultry and pork industries about $10 billion each. That’s not chicken feed—or rather, it is!
As you can see below and at 2:03 in my video, thanks in part to subsidies, dairy, meats, sweets, eggs, oils, and soda were all getting relatively cheaper compared to the overall consumer food price index as the obesity epidemic took off, whereas the relative cost of fresh fruits and vegetables doubled. This may help explain why, during about the same period, the percentage of Americans getting five servings of fruits and vegetables a day dropped from 42 percent to 26 percent. Why not just subsidize produce instead? Because that’s not where the money is.
“To understand what is shaping our foodscape today, it is important to understand the significance of differential profit.” Whole foods or minimally processed foods, such as canned beans or tomato paste, are what the food business refers to as “commodities.” They have such slim profit margins that “some are typically sold at or below cost, as ‘loss leaders,’ to attract customers to the store” in the hopes that they’ll also buy the “value-added” products. Some of the most profitable products for producers and vendors alike are the ultra-processed, fatty, sugary, and salty concoctions of artificially flavored, artificially colored, and artificially cheap ingredients—thanks to taxpayer subsidies.
Different foods reap different returns. Measured in “profit per square foot of selling space” in the supermarket, confectionaries like candy bars consistently rank among the most lucrative. The markups are the only healthy thing about them. Fried snacks like potato chips and corn chips are also highly profitable. PepsiCo’s subsidiary Frito-Lay brags that while its products represented only about 1 percent of total supermarket sales, they may account for more than 10 percent of operating profits for supermarkets and 40 percent of profit growth.
It’s no surprise, then, that the entire system is geared towards garbage. The rise in the calorie supply wasn’t just more food but a different kind of food. There’s a dumb dichotomy about the drivers of the obesity epidemic: Is it the sugar or the fat? They’re both highly subsidized, and they both took off. As you can see below and at 4:29 and 4:35 in my video, along with a significant rise in refined grain products that is difficult to quantify, the rise in obesity was accompanied by about a 20 percent increase in per capita pounds of added sugars and a 38 percent increase in added fats.
More than half of all calories consumed by most adults in the United States were found to originate from these subsidized foods, and they appear to be worse off for it. Those eating the most had significantly higher levels of chronic disease risk factors, including elevated cholesterol, inflammation, and body weight.
If it really were a government of, by, and for the people, we’d be subsidizing healthy foods, if anything, to make fruits and vegetables cheap or even free. Instead, our tax dollars are shoveled to the likes of the sugar industry or to livestock feed to make cheap, fast-food meat.
Speaking of sorghum, I had never had it before and it’s delicious! In fact, I wish I had discovered it before How Not to Diet was published. I now add sorghum and finger millet to my BROL bowl which used to just include purple barley groats, rye groats, oat groats, and black lentils, so the acronym has become an unpronounceable BROLMS. Anyway, sorghum is a great rice substitute for those who saw my rice and arsenic video series and were as convinced as I am that we need to diversify our grains.
We now turn to marketing. After all of the taxpayer-subsidized glut of calories in the market, the food industry had to find a way to get it into people’s mouths. So, next: The Role of Marketing in the Obesity Epidemic.
We’re about halfway through this series on the obesity epidemic. If you missed any so far, check out the related videos below.
The rise in the U.S. calorie supply responsible for the obesity epidemic wasn’t just about more food, but a different kind of food.
The rise in the number of calories provided by the food supply since the 1970s “is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity.” Similar spikes in calorie surplus were noted in developed countries around the world in parallel with and presumed to be primarily responsible for, the expanding waistlines of their populations. After taking exports into account, by the year 2000, the United States was producing 3,900 calories for every man, woman, and child—nearly twice as much as many people need.
It wasn’t always this way. The number of calories in the food supply actually declined over the first half of the twentieth century and only started its upward climb to unprecedented heights in the 1970s. The drop in the first half of the century was attributed to the reduction in hard manual labor. The population had decreased energy needs, so they ate decreased energy diets. They didn’t need all the extra calories. But then the “energy balance flipping point” occurred, when the “move less, stay lean phase” that existed throughout most of the century turned into the “eat more, gain weight phase” that plagues us to this day. So, what changed?
As I discuss in my video The Role of Processed Foods in the Obesity Epidemic, what happened in the 1970s was a revolution in the food industry. In the 1960s, most food was prepared and cooked in the home. The typical “married female, not working” spent hours a day cooking and cleaning up after meals. (The “married male, non-working spouse” averaged nine minutes, as you can see below and at 1:34 in my video.) But then a mixed-blessing transformation took place. Technological advances in food preservation and packaging enabled manufacturers to mass prepare and distribute food for ready consumption. The metamorphosis has been compared to what happened a century before with the mass production and supply of manufactured goods during the Industrial Revolution. But this time, they were just mass-producing food. Using new preservatives, artificial flavors, and techniques, such as deep freezing and vacuum packaging, food corporations could take advantage of economies of scale to mass produce “very durable, palatable, and ready-to-consume” edibles that offer “an enormous commercial advantage over fresh and perishable whole or minimally processed foods.”
Think ye of the Twinkie. With enough time and effort, “ambitious cooks” could create a cream-filled cake, but now they are available around every corner for less than a dollar. If every time someone wanted a Twinkie, they had to bake it themselves, they’d probably eat a lot fewer Twinkies. The packaged food sector is now a multitrillion-dollar industry.
Consider the humble potato. We’ve long been a nation of potato eaters, but we usually baked or boiled them. Anyone who’s made fries from scratch knows what a pain it is, with all the peeling, cutting, and splattering of oil. But with sophisticated machinations of mechanization, production became centralized and fries could be shipped at -40°F to any fast-food deep-fat fryer or frozen food section in the country to become “America’s favorite vegetable.” Nearly all the increase in potato consumption in recent decades has been in the form of french fries and potato chips.
Cigarette production offers a compelling parallel. Up until automated rolling machines were invented, cigarettes had to be rolled by hand. It took 50 workers to produce the same number of cigarettes a machine could make in a minute. The price plunged and production leapt into the billions. Cigarette smoking went from being “relatively uncommon” to being almost everywhere. In the 20th century, the average per capita cigarette consumption rose from 54 cigarettes a year to 4,345 cigarettes “just before the first landmark Surgeon General’s Report” in 1964. The average American went from smoking about one cigarette a week to half a pack a day.
Tobacco itself was just as addictive before and after mass marketing. What changed was cheap, easy access. French fries have always been tasty, but they went from being rare, even in restaurants, to being accessible around each and every corner (likely next to the gas station where you can get your Twinkies and cigarettes).
The first Twinkie dates back to 1930, though, and Ore-Ida started selling frozen french fries in the 1950s. There has to be more to the story than just technological innovation, and we’ll explore that next.
We have an uncanny ability to pick out the subtle distinctions in calorie density of foods, but only within the natural range.
The traditional medical view on obesity, as summed up nearly a century ago: “All obese persons are, alike in one fundamental respect,—they literally overeat.” While this may be true in a technical sense, it is in reference to overeating calories, not food. Our primitive urge to overindulge is selective. People don’t tend to lust for lettuce. We have a natural inborn preference for sweet, starchy, or fatty foods because that’s where the calories are concentrated.
Think about hunting and gathering efficiency. We used to have to work hard for our food. Prehistorically, it didn’t make sense to spend all day collecting types of food that on average don’t provide at least a day’s worth of calories. You would have been better off staying back at the cave. So, we evolved to crave foods with the biggest caloric bang for their buck.
If you were able to steadily forage a pound of food an hour and it had 250 calories per pound, it might take you ten hours just to break even on your calories for the day. But if you were gathering something with 500 calories a pound, you could be done in five hours and spend the next five working on your cave paintings. So, the greater the energy density—that is, the more calories per pound—the more efficient the foraging. We developed an acute ability to discriminate foods based on calorie density and to instinctively desire the densest.
If you study the fruit and vegetable preferences of four-year-old children, what they like correlates with calorie density. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:52 in my video Friday Favorites: Cut the Calorie-Rich-And-Processed Foods, they prefer bananas over berries and carrots over cucumbers. Isn’t that just a preference for sweetness? No, they also prefer potatoes over peaches and green beans over melon, just like monkeys prefer avocados over bananas. We appear to have an inborn drive to maximize calories per mouthful.
All the foods the researchers tested in the study with four-year-old kids naturally had less than 500 calories per pound. (Bananas topped the chart at about 400.) Something funny happens when you start going above that: We lose our ability to differentiate. Over the natural range of calorie densities, we have an uncanny aptitude to pick out the subtle distinctions. However, once you start heading towards bacon, cheese, and chocolate territory, which can reach thousands of calories per pound, our perceptions become relatively numb to the differences. It’s no wonder since these foods were unknown to our prehistoric brains. It’s like the dodo bird failing to evolve a fear response because they had no natural predators—and we all know how that turned out—or sea turtle hatchlings crawling in the wrong direction towards artificial light rather than the moon. It is aberrant behavior explained by an “evolutionary mismatch.”
The food industry exploits our innate biological vulnerabilities by stripping crops down into almost pure calories—straight sugar, oil (which is pretty much pure fat), and white flour (which is mostly refined starch). It also removes the fiber, because that effectively has zero calories. Run brown rice through a mill to make white rice, and you lose about two-thirds of the fiber. Turn whole-wheat flour into white flour, and lose 75 percent. Or you can run crops through animals (to make meat, dairy, and eggs) and remove 100 percent of the fiber. What you’re left with is CRAP—an acronym used by one of my favorite dieticians, Jeff Novick, for Calorie-Rich And Processed food.
Calories are condensed in the same way plants are turned into addictive drugs like opiates and cocaine: “distillation, crystallization, concentration, and extraction.” They even appear to activate the same reward pathways in the brain. Put people with “food addiction” in an MRI scanner and show them a picture of a chocolate milkshake, and the areas that light up in their brains (as you can see below and at 4:15 in my video) are the same as when cocaine addicts are shown a video of crack smoking. (See those images below and at 4:18 in my video.)
“Food addiction” is a misnomer. People don’t suffer out-of-control eating behaviors to food in general. We don’t tend to compulsively crave carrots. Milkshakes are packed with sugar and fat, two of the signals to our brain of calorie density. When people are asked to rate different foods in terms of cravings and loss of control, most incriminated was a load of CRAP—highly processed foods like donuts, along with cheese and meat. Those least related to problematic eating behaviors? Fruits and vegetables. Calorie density may be the reason people don’t get up in the middle of the night and binge on broccoli.
Animals don’t tend to get fat when they are eating the foods they were designed to eat. There is a confirmed report of free-living primates becoming obese, but that was a troop of baboons who stumbled across the garbage dump at a tourist lodge. The garbage-feeding animals weighed 50 percent more than their wild-feeding counterparts. Sadly, we can suffer the same mismatched fate and become obese by eating garbage, too. For millions of years, before we learned how to hunt, our biology evolved largely on “leaves, roots, fruits, and nuts.” Maybe it would help if we went back to our roots and cut out the CRAP.
A key insight I want to emphasize here is the concept of animal products as the ultimate processed food. Basically, all nutrition grows from the ground: seeds, sunlight, and soil. That’s where all our vitamins come from, all our minerals, all the protein, all the essential amino acids. The only reason there are essential amino acids in a steak is because the cow ate them all from plants. Those amino acids are essential—no animals can make them, including us. We have to eat plants to get them. But we can cut out the middlemoo and get nutrition directly from the Earth, and, in doing so, get all the phytonutrients and fiber that are lost when plants are processed through animals. Even ultraprocessed junk foods may have a tiny bit of fiber remaining, but all is lost when plants are ultra-ultraprocessed through animals.
If you’re familiar with my work, you know that I recommend eating a variety of whole plant foods, as close as possible to the way nature intended. I capture this in my Daily Dozen, which you can download for free here or get the free app (iTunes and Android). On the app, you’ll see that there’s also an option for those looking to lose weight: my 21 Tweaks. But before you go checking them off, be sure to read about the science behind the checklist in my book How Not to Diet. Get it for free at your local public library. If you choose to buy a copy, note that all proceeds from all of my books go to charity.
Rather than being some kind of disorder or a failure of willpower, weight gain is largely a normal response by normal people to an abnormal situation.
It’s been said that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” The known genetic contribution to obesity may be small, but, in a certain sense, you could argue that it’s all in our genes. The excess consumption of available calories may be hardwired into our DNA. We were born to eat.
Throughout human history and beyond, we existed in survival mode—in unpredictable scarcity. We’ve been programmed with a powerful drive to eat as much as we can while we can and just store the rest for later. Food availability could never be taken for granted, so those who ate more at the moment and were best able to store more fat for the future might better survive subsequent shortages to pass along their genes. So, generation after generation, millennia after millennia, those with lesser appetites may have died out, while those who gorged may have selectively lived long enough to pass along their genetic predisposition to eat and store more calories. That may be how we evolved into such voracious calorie-conserving machines. Now that we’re no longer living in such lean times, though, we’re no longer so lean ourselves.
What I just described is the “thrifty gene” concept proposed in 1962. As I discuss in my videoThe Thrifty Gene Theory: Survival of the Fattest, it suggests that obesity is the result of a “‘mismatch’ between the environment in which humans evolved and our modern environment”—like being a polar bear in a jungle. All that fur and fat may have given polar bears an edge in the Arctic but would be decidedly disadvantageous in the Congo. Similarly, a propensity to pack on the pounds may have been a plus in prehistoric times but can turn into a liability when our scarcity-sculpted biology is plopped down into the land of plenty. So, it’s not gluttony or sloth. Obesity may simply be “a normal response to an abnormal environment.”
Much of our physiology is finely tuned to stay within a narrow range of upper and lower limits. If we get too hot, we sweat; if we get too cold, we shiver. Our body has mechanisms to keep us in balance. In contrast, our bodies have had little reason to develop an upper limit to the accumulation of body fat. In the beginning, there may have been evolutionary pressures to keep lithe and nimble in the face of predation, but thanks to things like weapons and fire, we haven’t had to outrun as many saber-toothed tigers for about two million years or so. This may have left our genes with the one-sided selection pressures to binge on every morsel in sight and stockpile as many calories as possible in our bodies.
What was once adaptive is now a problem—or at least so says the thrifty gene hypothesis that originated more than half a century ago. It “provides a simple and elegant explanation for the modern obesity epidemic and was quickly embraced by scientists and lay people alike.” Although the researcher, James Neel, later distanced himself from the original proposal, the basic premise, despite remaining mostly theoretical, is still “largely accepted” by the scientific community, and the implications are profound.
In 2013, the American Medical Association voted to classify obesity as a disease (going against the advice of its own Council on Science and Public Health). Not that it necessarily matters what we call it, but disease implies dysfunction. Bariatric drugs and surgery are not correcting an anomaly in human physiology. Our bodies are just doing what they were designed to do in the face of excess calories. Rather than being some sort of disorder, weight gain is largely “a normal response by normal people to an abnormal environment.” As you can see below and at 4:12 in my video, more than 70 percent of Americans are now overweight. It’s normal.
“A body gaining weight when excess calories are available for consumption is behaving normally. Efforts to curtail such weight gain with drugs [or surgery] are not efforts to correct an anomaly in human physiology, but rather to deconstruct and reconstruct its normal operations at the core.”
If weight gain is largely a normal response by normal people to an abnormal situation, what exactly is that abnormal situation? Calorie-Rich-And-Processed Foods. (I’ll let you work out the acronym.) That’s the topic we’ll turn to next.
We appear to 
Might the brains of persons with obesity somehow 
It would be interesting to see if they regained the ability to respond to changing calorie intake once they reached their ideal weight. Regardless, what can we apply from these remarkable studies to facilitate weight loss out in the real world? We’ll explore just that question next.
