Organic food for weight loss?

A new US study observed people given cookies that were either regular or organic with exactly the same energy content (670 kJ/160 Cals), as listed on the label. Consumers were then asked which they felt was better for their weight. Yep, you guessed it, the organic version was assumed to be lower in kJ/cals and better for their waistline, even when they were prompted to check the label. The more “pro-environment” they were, the more likely they were to judge the organic cookie as lower in energy. A recent UK consumer study found that 15% of people also thought that organic foods were preferable for weight loss.

The “believing more than is declared” phenomena is not new. In the 1980s and 1990s people assumed that “cholesterol-free” meant low in fat and great for blood cholesterol. Even today, very few people understand that the cholesterol level of a food has nothing to do with the fat content or the type of fat. The law has changed (at least in Australia) to stop the indiscriminate used of the term “cholesterol-free”.

The avocado folk stopped putting “cholesterol-free” stickers on their produce because people would prefer “cholesterol-free” avocadoes and avoid those fruit without a sticker. I bet if apples had “No Added Salt” and “Dolphin Safe” stickers they would fly off the shelves.

Reference: Judgment & Decision Making. 2010; 5 (3): 144-150

Calorie restriction

You probably have never heard of Clive McCay and this brief article is not about dieting. As we have discussed before, it is easy to over-eat due, in part, to an abundance of food and encouraging genetics. Calorie restriction is what every (yes, every) weight loss diet promotes, but what of calorie restriction in the lean?

Fewer calories, longer lifespan

It was 1935 when Clive McCay wrote the first paper detailing an increased life span when food was restricted, as opposed to animals that had ad libitum feeding. Subsequent research suggested that restricting energy (calories/kilojoules) alone was the cause of an extended life, providing that all the essential nutrients were provided. Energy restricted laboratory animals were living about 20% longer than animals eating whenever they liked.

Fewer calories, less cancer

Even as early as 1942 it was noticed that energy restricted animals also had less spontaneous tumours leading one researcher to say: “__It follows that the avoidance of overweight through restriction of food intake may aid in the prevention of human cancer or at least delay its onset.__” That idea was a whole lot more likely in 1942 compared to around-the-clock eating in 2010. The idea still has merit as overweight people are more prone to cancer than lean folk.

More fasting, fewer calories

A 1946 paper acknowledged that natural energy restriction would be difficult in humans as they have a strong in-built desire to eat. They found that rats that were occasionally energy restricted by being fasted 2-3 days a week also had an extended lifespan and less tumours.

With humans long fascination with looking and feeling young, there have more recently been human studies on energy restriction. Like other animals, it seems that less food means better health and a longer life, although the effectiveness in humans is not yet definite due to our relatively long lifespan (lab rats live for 3 years; many humans clock up 85 years so you would have to track humans for 100 years before you might have the definitive answer).

What does it all mean?

If you are happy to under-eat once you reach adulthood, then there is a reasonable chance that you will live longer than normal. It will mean no chocolate, cabernet sauvignon, brie, premium ice cream and many other flavoursome foods. I would struggle there. It will also mean being active all your life. Happy with that angle.

The reality is that two-thirds of the population in a western country over-eat and hope that pills, crack-pot diets and surgery will conquer the excess. Energy restriction in western countries doesn’t appear to be achievable. Energy restriction, like human rights, world peace and the French football team, looks good on paper.

Reference: Journal of Nutrition. 2010 (July); 140: 1205-1210

What was the first artificial sweetener

I once answered this question in a newspaper article last century. The sub-editor thought I had made a mistake so added 100 years to the answer. We have been using sugars and honey as a sweetener for millennia. The next sweet agent to get attention was saccharin in 1880 (not 1980, sub-editor).

Saccharin is from the Latin word for sweet. It was first isolated by Ira Remsen and Constantine Fahlberg at Johns Hopkins University in the US. Fahlberg was smart enough to patent the production method and became wealthy through its commercial manufacture in Germany. Remsen and Johns Hopkins never made a cent from saccharin.

Saccharin is cheap to make so it became a sugar substitute during both world wars. My parents remember its taste through the 1940s before sugar became more available.

Saccharin has attracted plenty of attention over the years through mainly negative commentary, in the 1980s especially. It is now widely considered as safe for human consumption after scientific scrutiny, being approved for use in over 100 countries.

Source: That’s the Way the Cookie Crumbles by J Schwarcz (ECW Press, Toronto 2002)

What is in control of your appetite 2

In an earlier blog I mentioned that there is an internal drive to eat, grow and reproduce and this seems to over-ride the decision to eat well for a long life. We tend to over-eat to contend with famines although most of us haven’t experienced a food shortage since television.

Protein is life

We know how much protein is needed for growth and maintenance yet nearly all of us eat more than we need and actively seek high protein foods. In the US 97%, and in Australia over 90%, of the population eat more protein than needed (around 0.8g/kg day). As countries “develop” they tend towards an increase in protein intake. We love big steaks, seafood platters and, of course, triple bacon, double cheese, egg, thin slice of tomato for colour, megaproteinburgers.

A theory is that a high protein diet brings forward the onset of puberty and so extending the period of fertility. In affluent western societies the onset of women’s menarche is 11 years, while in rural China it is 17 years.

Protein is death

The bad news is that the desire to track down protein is linked to a shorter life. A moderate protein, calorie-restricted diet increases the lifespan of laboratory animals by around 20% compared to high protein diets. On the other hand (and I’m so glad we have two hands because there are so many on-the-other-hand situations in life) high protein foods are more satisfying than high carbohydrate foods so people are more likely to stop eating before they get too podgy. In theory.

Health campaigns ignore genes

We love food. Nature designed us that way. We love calorie-dense foods with plenty of protein and fat (hamburgers), and protein, fat and sugar (chocolate). The authors of this paper argue that our in-built tendencies are usually ignored in health campaigns and scientific study. For example, a campaign urging us to eat low calorie fruit and vegetables doesn’t make sense to our genetic desire for calorie-dense foods.

What does it all mean?

We were never designed for a long life, just a life long enough to get our children to reproductive age, so four decades is about all that is expected. And millions eat like they are happy with four decades before they clutch their chest and hit the floor. Dietary advice today runs counter to our natural instincts to eat foods that give us both pleasure and calories/kilojoules to reach a reproductive age.

Living to the age of 80 years is a relatively new experience for humans. Before the industrial revolution, 40-50 years was about all you could expect unless you were gentry. Go back 1000 years and you were looking at 30-35 years to be labeled “old”. For those us who are aiming to clock up eight or ten decades then eat like you want to live to 100, and live like you might die tomorrow. Just know, it won’t be easy.

Reference: Appetite. 2010; 54: 442-449

Banana vending machine

I read with interest that Japan launched its very first banana vending machine on June 23^rd in Tokyo’s Shibuya station. Fruit in a vending machine is a novel idea and should be applauded. I just hope that after you pay your $US1.50 for a single banana ($US4.50 for a bunch) that it gets treated gently by the machine and doesn’t drop the equivalent of six banana stories from the top of the machine.

Dole, the biggest fresh produce company in the world, has provided the machine. When I squint hard enough, I’m pretty certain that Captain Banana, if that’s his name, has a banana mo.

What is in control of your appetite?

With democracy and affluence comes overweight, poor food choices and laziness. OK, not laziness, just the decision to remain on one’s bottom for hours and hours. Why don’t people in well-off countries eat more healthy and get out and boogie? Find a solution to that and you can write your own ticket.

Genes meet environment

A bunch of European scientists believe that part of the problem is that some nutrition decisions are genetically determined and very difficult to change. It seems that the environment doesn’t change your genes, but it does determine which genes are turned on and off.

Having abundant food around increases the individual limit for food to be satisfying. One paper showed that changing to a healthier diet for a few weeks modulated the response to over 500 genes. In other words, gene expression returned to normal. Sadly, the environment tends to over-ride this for many as we are surrounded with eat-me, buy-me cues, returning gene expression to over-eating.

Time of the season

Animals that experience seasonal or daily variation in food availability (think of hibernating or hunting animals) tend to eat more than is necessary when they find food. They store the excess food as body fat, which is then used during times of food shortage. When these animals experience long-term abundance they over-eat. Humans are one of these animals. In affluent democracies not only are half of the humans overweight, half of the cats and dogs are too.

It’s not just humans that prefer processed and cooked food, the great apes are a big fan as well. Many other wild animals prefer cooked food to raw. Choosing foods that are rich in kilojoules means that an animal will grow faster, reach reproductive age quicker, protecting the survival of the species. The authors argue that this hard-wiring to eat, grow and reproduce is one reason we choose cooked and processed high kilojoule/calorie foods over minimally processed foods.

Gene defect

There are the unfortunate who have a specific genetic defect that drives them to eat too much, such as Prader-Willi syndrome. I used to look after kids with this syndrome when I worked at the Children’s Hospital in Sydney deep in the last century. By default, I became the Australian expert on PWS and spoke at conferences. It’s tough for parents when you have to lock all food cupboards and the fridge because your child’s appetite has no off switch. Ever.

What does it all mean?

Now, I can’t say I fully understood this paper, but the jist seems to be that we are similar to other animals in that we are genetically geared towards over-eating as that makes us more likely to survive famines, live to maturity and reproduce. Go to the paper if “epigenetic mechanism of methyl–cystine bonding” in gene expression sparkles your mind.

It also means, and this bit is worrying me, that if you have children and have now brought them up to a reproductive age, then you are no longer required by nature. Watch your back.

Reference: Appetite. 2010; 54: 442-449

What does the M in M&Ms stand for?

I answered this question for the local paper recently. Even most people at Mars don't know the answer to this. They, and others, mistakenly presume that both Ms stands for Mars, yet they are called M and Ms for a reason.

M&Ms were first produced in 1941 from an idea by Forrest Mars when he saw soldiers in the Spanish Civil War eating sugar-coated chocolate. The sugar coating protected the chocolate from melting and this inspired M&Ms, a chocolate that "melts in your mouth, not in your hand". The first M in M&Ms is for Forrest Mars, the inventor of M&Ms.

William Murrie was president of the Hershey Chocolate Company. His son, R. Bruce Murrie, became a partner with Forrest Mars in his project and he helped Forrest acquire and modify Hershey plant machinery to be able to produce M&Ms. The two of them initially set up the company M&M Ltd.

The second M in M&Ms stands for R. Bruce Murrie. Some sources say the second M stands for his father, William Murrie, as he had given his blessing to the partnership.

Forrest Mars eventually bumped R. Bruce Murrie out of the partnership, hence people at Mars say the Ms stand for Mars and Mars, while historians at Hershey say the Ms stand for Murrie, a well-known Hershey family ... and Mars.

Source: The Emperors of Chocolate by JG Brenner (Broadway Books, New York 1999)