People Just Won't Stop Picking on Saturated Fat!

That's what I call BREAKFAST!

As many of you may be aware, saturated fat has a rather infamous reputation. Ever since Ancel Keys published his study on the effect of high fat diets on heart disease risk decades ago, many have found cause to accuse dietary fat of doing the Devil's work. Of course, others are now calling dietary fat (particularly saturated, omega-3, and monounsaturated varieties) manna from heaven. What gives?!

While I have no intention of walking you through a step-wise history of how people have thought of dietary fat throughout the span of time, I do want to make one fact overbearingly and overwhelmingly clear: people can't agree about anything! (or at least that's how things appear at times) I can't stress enough the fact that the evidence for and against dietary fat (saturated fat included) is inconclusive at best. Some studies support its demonization, while other studies clothe it in garments of white; and both naysayers and yea-sayers alike will cherry-pick from both pools of studies to support their positions. I'll admit right now that even I'm biased (yes even me!). I fall into the "saturated fat is not evil" camp, so naturally, when I come across a study indicting saturated fat (or any fatty acid, save for vegetable oils, omega-6, and trans fat) I get wound up! I don't like hearing contradictory evidence, because I want and need certainty about my beliefs. But life, unfortunately, doesn't always treat me so graciously.

Bearing this whole mini-rant in mind, let's dive into a recently published study which, much to my chagrin, casts a shadow on my beloved saturated fat.

The Study

As Emily Coyle, writing for the Wall Street Cheat Sheet, reports:

"Researchers from the National Cancer Institute in Milan found that women who eat a diet high in saturated fat may be at an increased risk for several types of breast cancer." (1)

And, as Kathleen Doheny from WebMD also indicates regarding this same study:

"In a large European study evaluating more than 337,000 women in 10 countries over 11 years, researchers found that women who ate the most saturated fat were about 30 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than those who ate the least." (2)

So, according to this study, saturated fat is a boogeyman, at least as far as certain types of breast cancer are concerned. This hypothesis is a very narrow one; one that, according to Genevra Pittman, writing for Reuters, remains tenuous at best:

"Past studies have come to differing conclusions on a possible association between dietary fat and breast cancer. Whether the two are even linked at all remains controversial." (3)

Nevertheless, the study at hand suggests that there is a link between breast cancer and dietary fat. More specifically, the researchers believe that the link has to do with the effect of dietary fat on sex hormone production. As Pittman further writes:

"The researchers said it's possible dietary fat increases the level of sex hormones in the body. That could explain why high-fat diets are tied to a greater risk of tumors whose growth is related to estrogen and progesterone, known as hormone-receptor-positive cancers. Those cancers make up the majority of breast cancer diagnoses." (4)

Other research does seem to support this hypothesis, at least in regards to dietary fat's effect on sex hormone production in women (5). However, more research yet suggests that being overweight/obese may also link rather strongly with the production of sex hormones (6); thus leaving us to consider whether fat, in and of itself, is the true cause of "hormone-receptor-positive cancers," or if, rather, a diet high in calories may be to blame. Could it be the case that the women in this study who consumed more saturated fat were also consuming more calories? Moreover, might these women, therefore, have had a higher body mass index? I honestly don't know, but the question begs itself nevertheless.

In a previous post I wrote about a similar issue to the one here at hand, wherein I said the following regarding saturated fat:

"Little evidence exists to suggest that saturated fat is a boogeyman.  As a matter of fact, there's very little evidence to indict or defend saturated fat...The only circumstance under which I would say you should cut back on your saturated fat consumption would be if you were consuming it to the detriment of essential fatty acids such as omega-3 and omega-6, and/or if you were consuming more calories than you ought to be eating, and this excess was coming from saturated fat." (7)

My 5 Cents

While this study does have an impressive sample size from which its authors draw their conclusions, I'm not convinced (I'm biased, remember!). In my opinion, losing excess weight and/or maintaining a healthy weight, regardless of the precise macro-nutrient breakdown of whatever diet you use to lose and/or maintain your weight, still remains the most important factor effecting disease risk. Hunger-gatherer groups, who represent some of the healthiest peoples in existence today, eat a wide variety of diets (in terms of both macro-nutrients, and food choices) all the while living lives free from most Western diseases of affluence (8). A healthy diet is not about what it boils down to, but what it amounts to*.

I'm now incredibly hungry!

*I know this sentence isn't grammatically Kosher, but it flows so well! I will hunt down grammar nazis!

A Bit of Advice

This'll be a rather short post, but I think it'll prove to be an important one. I've been working on a new fitness program as of late (and it's a good one by the way; after I've put it through its trials, I'll make it available to anyone who's curious). As per my creative process, I often fill up the programs I create with a good chunk of philosophical musings.  As a philosophy major, I can't help but see amazingly effective ways to apply philosophical systems to real world problems, such as how to best go about living a healthy and fit life. Below is an excerpt from my notes, pertaining to the most recent program I've created. It's an outgrowth from the Ancient philosophical method for ethics which is comprised of 4 main components: (1) owning your location; (2) reading yourself into a story; (3) improvising/performing the good practices revealed by the story you've read yourself into; (4) identifying an exemplar who embodies the good practices you know you ought to do.

Here's the excerpt:

"The “Paleo” diet narrative is a handy tool; therefore, abide by it as much as possible (80-90% of the time).  Read yourself into the paleo story; own it.  Understand that it is only a story, but it is a helpful one.  Forget about what constitutes universally healthy principles; no such principles exist.  Find your orientation and goals in space-time (in this case, within an Iron Culture concerned with quality of life, quality of performance, etc.), use the paleo-iron narrative to guide your improvisation of food choices and exercise philosophy, put into practice the habits of one who abides within the paleo-iron narrative, and look for an exemplar practitioner of paleo-iron culture so that you can emulate him/her as you go about establishing habits that will better allow you to naturally make good, beneficial, and healthful choices in such a way as to make the performance of what is good seem natural, obvious, easy, joyous, and free.  BEWARE:  Do Not let the pursuit of “perfect truth” detract from your practice of what you know from the paleo-iron narrative to be good—eat nutritious foods, lift progressively heavier weights, do high intensity efforts on a regular basis, stay active, stay lose, and don’t exercise or diet yourself into the ground."

I can't and won't attest to the profundity of the above, but I hope that the message at least proves helpful for you; whoever or wherever you are.

A Craftsman without a Trade

What is the secret to becoming a master of Judo?

--You practice Judo.

What is the secret to becoming a master of Taekwando?

--You practice Taekwando.

 What is the secret to becoming a master fighter?

--You practice that which proves effective, and you ignore the rest.

Goals ought to determine means. If you want master-class status for whatever pursuit tickles your fancy, then you must avoid at all costs the temptation to let irrelevant biases influence the means by which you work to achieve your goals. The only factors which one need consider when determining means are: (1) where you want to go; (2) where you are in relation to where you want to go. If your destination is New York, your starting place in relation to New York matters a great deal. Are you starting from the Midwest? or from Europe? or from Asia? The available means by which you could make your way to New York change dramatically based on your starting location.

From this analogy, yet another factor arises for us to consider: (3) at what cost are you willing to get to where you want to go? I suppose, too, that we must further add to our list of factors: (4) how fast do you need to travel? (5) how much money to you have to spend? Do you have the freedom to take your time as you travel? or must you hurry? Can you afford a cruise? or must you purchase a one-way flight?

...and where they're starting!

Many of these above factors apply to health/physique goals. If your goal is to become healthy, it makes a big difference whether you're starting out as an obese diabetic or as a psychologically scared anorexic. Moreover, the exact position at which you find yourself on the obese to anorexic spectrum effects the cost you will have to pay in order to achieve you goal.

Such concerns reveal why blanket recommendations for how to best live a healthy life come painfully short of optimal. There are no blanket recommendations. There are, however, blanket factors which we must consider:

1. What is your goal?
2. Where are you in relation to your goal?
3. What are you willing to do to achieve your goal?
4. How fast do you need to achieve your goal?
5. What tools do you have at your disposal?

There are likely more factors to consider, but I think the above represent some of the most pertinent. I would also add, as an addendum to 5, that you should also consider what tools would prove most effective in relation to your goal.

Having Trouble?

Are you unsure about where you actually are in relation to your goals? Are you not even certain that you know what your goals should be? I'd like to be of service if I can. My goal is to help people; not to just spew thoughts from my head. Leave questions or comments below, I'd love to hear from ya!

Health is a Verb; Not a Noun--An "Add" for the Book I'm Currently Writing

I love blogging about health and fitness, and I love hashing out and wrestling with new ideas, studies, concepts, and musings regarding what a healthy and fit lifestyle ought to entail. But, to tell the truth, much of what I, and maybe even you, consider "new" is usually nothing more than a recycled bit of yesterday's news. If you take a moment and think about it, little of what I've ever covered or talked about on my site is incredibly earthshaking.

• Whole foods are more satisfying than hyper-rewarding, calorie dense junk.
• Eating more calories than you burn makes you fat.
• If you commit to lifting progressively heavier weights, you'll become stronger and grow muscle.
• Regular walks, and occasional sprints are a more enjoyable and less chronically demanding means for improving our cardiovascular fitness, than is running yourself into the ground training for a marathon.
• And on, and on.....

Now of course, many of the above concepts may have seemed new to you whenever you first heard about them, but most of these ideas were being talked about and utilized long before many of us ever saw the light of day. Many of these ideas were in fact recognized by the ancient Greeks: (1) progressive resistance training; (2) eating too much food makes you fat; (3) food choice effects your health [dating to the 5th cen. BC, a Greek athlete advocated a diet rich in meat--much like my recommendation to consume plenty of protein if your goal is to build muscle]; etc.

Basically, despite what flashy ads and headlines may be telling you, there are no truly "revolutionary" dietary/fitness ideas. Most everything out there, whether it be a new diet book or fitness craze, is nothing but a personalized or reworded variant of the following themes--

• Eat nutritious food.
• Exercise regularly.
• Practice moderation.
• Get plenty of sleep.
• Eliminate sources of chronic stress.

Different people obviously have slightly different takes on what the above should entail, but, despite what advocates of varying health philosophies may espouse, most people are trying to convince you of the merits of essentially the same basic practices.

So why then are so many people still unhealthy? If, as a species, we've known what a healthy lifestyle looks like for thousands of years, why do so many people suffer from poor health [barring diseases which escape our personal efforts to take care of ourselves]?

The reason is this: some people don't do what they know.

This issue of not doing what you know you ought to do was, appropriately enough, a major issue for the ancient Greeks. The philosopher Aristotle made it his project for Ethics, not to discover what the ethical was, but how to put into practice the ethical virtues of which all Greeks already had an awareness. Aristotle didn't have to tell anyone what they ought to do, because they had stories [the Iliad and the Odyssey] which told them what the good and noble life looked like. The biggest question for the ancients had nothing to do with figuring out what was good; rather, it had to do with how to more easily go about enacting what was good.


The biggest contrast between the ancients and the moderns [us today] is that moderns seem to have this insipid preoccupation with figuring out what the good is, often to the extent that we fail to address how we can better go about putting what we know to be good into practice. We spend so much time concerning ourselves with the latest scientific studies [an act which causes us to major in the minors and minor in the majors] that we're dumbfounded when it comes to effectively living out the healthy lifestyle we know we ought to live.

We've become paralyzed by analysis, and worse yet, we've become habituated to living in this paralyzed state.

This is the issue I want to address in my book. So many would-be health "experts" seem convinced that they need to reinvent the wheel, or discover something totally new regarding what's "healthy," that the implementation of healthy is often thrown to the curb. I can think of no better sign of the utter failure of our discovery-driven society than the noticeable lack of progress we've made in combating the "obesity epidemic." If so many authors, scientists, and doctors have discovered a plethora new and radical breakthroughs in health/fitness, than why have so few people benefited?

People don't need to be told what healthy is; they need to be told how they can come to want to do what's healthy.

That's the type of book I want to right.

Is Junk Food Making You an Unmotivated, Lazy Couch Potato?

Food choice matters. Period.

Now, I'm well aware that calories matter a whole heck of lot. A surplus of calories from whole foods could very well make you just as fat as a surplus of calories from junk; however, in the case of the former, you would have to intentionally overeat to put on pounds, while in the case of the latter, you would have little trouble eating to excess. It is for this reason that ad libitum whole food diets (such as paleo and its many, many variants) work amazingly well for hassle-free weight loss. The foods on such diets are simply far more satiating per calorie in comparison to a diet mainly comprised of Micky D's, Hostess, and Doritos.

This is not so say, however, that you cannot lose weight by eating junk. Mark Haub, professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, demonstrated the possibility of doing such a thing via his "Twinkies diet," whereby he lost 27 pounds in two months, all the while comprising up two thirds of his daily calories from junk food.

But, the fact that you can lose weight by eating a lot of junk does not prove that you should. The foods that we eat are more than just calories. Moreover, the foods that we eat are more than just their respective quantities of protein, carbs, and fat. 100 calories from a plain boiled potato will have a significantly different impact on you in terms of satiety, nutrition, and metabolic response, than will 100 calories from a sugary soda.

I'm sure, however, that you're already in the know about such things. So why then am I seemingly ranting on and on to the choir?

Because I'm making a rather feeble segue into discussing a recent study which suggests that food choice may effect your brain's motivational response to rewarding stimuli.

The Study

Researchers from UCLA tested the physiological and behavioral effects of two different diets on rats--one diet was "healthy" and the other was full of junk. 

What did the researchers discover?

No motivation to find a cone?

The rats that were fed the healthy diet--comprised of complex carbs and whole foods--remained relatively healthy. The rats that were fed the junk food diet--comprised of highly processed, sugar laden foods--weren't so lucky. Not only was the junk food group fatter than their whole food counterparts, but they also experienced reduced motivation; thus inferring that the junk food may have altered the psychology of the rats.

The researchers found that the junk food group responded more slowly to, and required more rest to complete familiar cognitive tests, such as pressing a lever to receive water or food. In the researchers' own words, this group of rats seemed to be suffering from "cognitive impairment."

At the six month mark of the experiment, the researchers reversed the diets of the two groups. 10 days after the switch, little change was observed between the two groups; revealing that well-developed habits, as opposed to short term dietary changes or eating sprees (Thanksgiving comes to mind), are what most impact long-term trends in behavior and motivation.

One of the study's researchers also indicated, in regards to the data--

Point Proven!

"We interpret our results as suggesting that the idea commonly portrayed in the media that people become fat because they are lazy is wrong. Our data suggest that diet-induced obesity is a cause, rather than an effect, of laziness. Either the highly processed diet causes fatigue or the diet causes obesity, which causes fatigue."

In other words, if this data regarding rats is at all applicable to humans (which it might), then we need to seriously reconsider some of our first impressions of overweight or obese individuals. It may be that poor food choices lead to a lazy lifestyle; not the other way around. We might represent the progression like this--

Junk Food--> Laziness--> More Junk Food--> Eventual Obesity

I'm admittedly making a rather obvious generalization here, but I think this generalization is much less cruel that the stereotypical model that says laziness is the cause of obesity. However, once one becomes habituated to being lazy and eating junk, I would argue that a feedback loop develops; one that can only be broken by finding the motivation to break this cycle--a cycle that is partly comprised of a lack of  motivation. You can see the difficulty here.

Coming Full Circle

Hence, we now return to my original statement at the beginning of this post: Food choice matters. Period.

Though you certainly can lose weight while eating junk, good luck maintaining the motivation and the will power to do so!

*If you want a comprehensive explanation for why an obesity "epidemic" is afoot, check out this resource from obesity researcher, Stephan Guyenet. It's rather dry, but incredibly informative.

Morning Rays Could Improve Your BMI?--Voodoo Science or the Real Deal?

As I was scouring the "webosphere" (yes, I just made up that word), I came across an interesting bit of research recently published on Plos One. The article, written by Kathryn J. Reid et al., was revealingly titled "Timing and Intensity of Light Correlate with Body Weight in Adults." I could hardly pass up the opportunity to take a look, and the information I gleaned from the study proved interesting to say the least. In case you hadn't gathered from the study's title what the authors' thesis was, here's a short synopsis: The authors, essentially, conclude that exposure to light in the early hours of the day correlates with lower bodyweight in adults.


This is an interesting thesis indeed! So let's take a look....

The All-important Circadian Rhythm

It should come as little surprise that circadian rhythm--the natural rhythm of your body's hormones in response to environmental stimuli, such as light--plays a major associative role in relation to bodyweight, health, and stress. In relation to bodyweight, one's circadian rhythm is highly determinate of one's sleeping and eating patterns. Because of the nature of circadian rhythm's importance, the authors of this study, understandably, felt quite compelled to examine some important factors related to its regulation.

As the authors indicate--

"Light exposure can influence sleep and circadian timing, both of which have been shown to influence weight regulation."

What Happens When Circadian Rhythm Ain't so Rhythmic?

When one endures a rather unnatural circadian cycle--denoted by little sleep and by going to sleep at late hours--odds are, you might very well have a higher BMI (except if you're my roommate who's 6'2", 140 lbs, and who doesn't go to bed until 3-5 AM, and who barely gets 4-5 hours of sleep on a regular basis!) [1, 2, 3, 4, & 5]. Baring the unusual (and perturbing) case of my roommate, for the typical human being, I'd say it's a fairly good idea to get to bed at a decent hour and, moreover, to sleep for whatever duration you require in order to awaken spontaneously in the morning, feeling totally rested [6].

What Reid et al. Discovered

The authors conclude their study thus--

"In conclusion, the findings of this study indicate that the temporal pattern of light exposure during the daytime can influence body weight independent of sleep timing and duration."

There are, however, some important caveats of which to take note.

Noteworthy Thing #1

For instance, the authors state--

"Our results suggest that the relationship between light and BMI is not simply a function of the accumulated minutes of light during the day, but more importantly the temporal pattern of light exposure above a biological threshold."

Therefore, the correlation between light exposure and lower BMI arises in the context of a particular intensity, duration, and timing of light exposure. Levels of about 500 lux earlier in the day were most associated with lower BMI.

Noteworthy Thing #2

The authors also point out--

"It is also possible that the natural changes in the intensity and wavelength composition of light in the morning compared to the afternoon/evening may in part explain our finding for a differential effect of earlier vs. a later daytime light exposure pattern and BMI. For example, there is generally a higher amount of blue light (shorter wavelength) in the morning. (*)Blue light has been shown to have the strongest effect on the circadian system, including the suppression of nocturnal melatonin secretion."

It makes some sense, then, why getting light exposure earlier in the day proves beneficial for BMI, while exposure later in the day, or in the evening or at night, has the opposite effect. Interestingly, though, the authors of this study did not find any correlation between later light exposure and higher BMI (much to the author's surprise). Nevertheless, numerous other studies do demonstrate such a result.

Noteworthy Thing #3

The authors also noted, and rather unexpectedly, that sleep duration had little to do with BMI, at least within their own experiment--

"...unlike previous reports, the timing of sleep was not directly correlated with BMI in this study."

Despite this finding, however, other evidence suggests that sleep duration may indeed be an important factor in predicting/controlling BMI, via sleep duration's effect on leptin and grhelin [7].

Noteworthy Thing #4

In another interesting turn of events, the authors also discovered--

"...that changes in the timing of light exposure were associated with body weight independent of caloric intake."

This finding is interesting, to say the least. It may be, however, that, as the authors suggest--

"...light exposure history during the day can alter nocturnal levels of melatonin and sensitivity of the circadian clock to light. These effects of light may play a role in metabolism and weight regulation."

In particular, consider the inverse relationship between melatonin levels with insulin/insulin sensitivity [8], or the fact that low melatonin levels are associated with type 2 diabetes [9].

Noteworthy Thing #5

There's yet one more little thing for us to consider regarding this study--

"The limitations of this study include lack of random selection from a nationally representative sample and use of self-reported diet and BMI which may have resulted in measurement error."

In other words, the results gleaned from this study could be total BS, if it should turn out that the study's participants were dishonest in their self-reporting, which could be a very real possibility.

So What Have We Learned?

YES PLEASE!

All things considered, I'd say the authors' primary thesis checks out--in any event, even if the authors' thesis is wrong, it wouldn't hurt to get some quality blue light early in the day any way. Some evidence suggests that blue light might actually be as effective as coffee at waking you up in the morning by giving your brain that oft needed kick in the rear to get going [10].

In light of the evidence, here are my suggestions: (1) get quality sleep; (2) go to sleep at "normal" human hours; (3) get some exposure to blue light earlier in the day, and avoid blue light exposure as much as possible prior to going to bed.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Enjoy your Sunshine! (it's pretty gloomy where I am right now)

(*)The effect of blue light exposure on melatonin secretion is one important reason why I down-loaded f.lux software onto my computer. F.lux is a program that automatically shifts the color of your computer screen from blue light dominant to red light dominant whenever the sun goes down, thus preventing the suppression of nocturnal melatonin later in the day.