« Evolutionary Fitness for 25 years | Main | Food or exercise? »
Carbs drive insulin drives fat
October 25, 2007 10:25 AM
This article in New York Magazine by Gary Traub, the author of Good Calories, Bad Calories, is part good, part not so good. He fails to note that exercise increases insulin sensitivity and, therefore, reduces the amount of insulin circulating in the body, which, in turn, directs nutrients to muscle and organs rather than fat.
And, it turns out that well-prescribed exercise, in conjunction with diet, does reduce fat and increase lean muscle mass. The Washington University group has established that point convincingly. A further point is that at low energy expenditure the appetite mechanism has no resolution, as an evolutionary argument makes clear (see my Why We Get Fat under the research link). We fatten cattle by confining them and still they eat beyond their energy expenditure. At higher energy expenditure, appetite and energy expenditure are well-matched. We must "learn" the disconnect since, as children and infants, we are able closely to match intake and expenditure.
Still, the article might have been written by yours truly when it comes to the thermodynamics. I wonder if Taub reads my blog.
Comments
An honest question for Robb or anyone else:
If insulin is the real key for bodyfat, then how are there people in various studies who are insulin sensitive (fasting insulin) yet who are obese?
Posted by: ratzobus
at October 28, 2007 8:08 PM
Robb, let me first off say that I agree with your opinion overall and it parallels my experience. However, life and the human animal are often more complex which is something that keeps me intrigued.
I offer this (admittedly extreme) example on the Raramuri (Tarahumara) tribe as an illustration of the interconnectedness of diet and lifestyle activity:
"The statement that, "The Tarahumara may be the finest natural distance runners in the world", made by University of Arizona archeologist Michael Jenkinson, offers some insight into just how good the indians are at running (Lutz 21). The Tarahumara routinely run distances only covered by only the most advanced ultramarathon runners today. To these indians, running is more than sport, running is literally life. The Tarahumara live in very rugged land and travel by wagon or horses is usually impractical. Because of this, foot travel is more often than not the best option for getting from one place to another and it is usually the quickest. While on foot, the Tarahumara do not stroll from one place to their destination, running is used to perform everyday tasks. It is not uncommon for a Tarahumara to travel between fifty and eighty miles everyday at a "race" like pace.
Tarahumara running is based on endurance not speed. This fact is exemplified by their hunting practices. In order to catch such wild animals as deer, wild turkeys, and rabbits, the Tarahumara simply chase after the animal until the animal drops from exhaustion. Their hunting practices are widely known in Mexico and ranchers have been known to hire the indians to chase down wild horses . Their endurance and conditioning has become known worldwide. Says Dale Groom, M.D., "Probably not since the days of the ancient Spartans has a people achieved such a high state of physical conditioning." (Lutz 21) This phenomenon has led to the inevitable question of, "Are the Tarahumara genetically special when it comes to running?" After many scientific tests, doctors have come to the conclusion that the Tarahumara's endurance is based more on conditioning than on heredity.
Diet also seems to play an important role in their running. The Tarahumara diet is practically meatless and consists mostly of complex carbohydrates. They eat approximately 10 percent proteins, 10 percent fat, and 80 percent complex carbohydrate.(Lutz 30) They consume livestock for meat but mostly use it as a source of fertilizer. The mainstay of the Tarahumara is corn but they also eat squash, beans and chili. They also utilize all plants of the Barranca del Cobre and have even been known to domesticate some wild plants as to make them more accessible for consumption. Pinole, a fine powder of toasted corn is the most common food. Meat is rarely eaten but on special occasions they eat goat, mice and fish."
Posted by: Yuneek
at October 28, 2007 10:29 AM
Yuneek-
This is that circular argument that sets in...an activity pattern that mimics that of our ancestors...yet we need foods that also mimic those we are wired to eat. Which is more important? Which actually leads weight loss? Taubes thesis, and I wholeheartedly support it, is that food is the larger factor here. I'd wager the only factor. The literature seems to support this and it is absolutely the truth in our training practice.
We can start nit-picking whether or not my clients are training in an evolutionarily smart manner but the fact is I can stratify our clients into a few categories:
1-only activity is with us.
2-some activity outside our training.
3-loads of activity outside our training.
Among ALL these folks, if they have a body fat issue it WILL NOT resolve unless they remove dense carb sources from the diet. It's an insulin issue. Like I said in my blog post, I wish this was not the case for the simple bodycomp shifts but in my experience this is absolutely the case.
This is NOT to be mistaken with general health improvements with exercise. There is no doubt about that, but that is not the question at hand. Much evidence exists that overweight people who exercise are healthier than those who do not. Smokers who exercise are healthier than those who do not. No arguments there. The question posed is: Does exercise contribute significantly to fat loss? I'd have to say no. Food is the larger factor.
If we look at the effects of exercise on things like hormone status it is a middling thing compared to insulin levels. Insulin potentially affects reproductive hormones, leptin hunger...the essence of life. It's not surprising food plays such a potent role.
Posted by: Robb Wolf
at October 27, 2007 11:00 AM
Paul: I second your request. I did find the following link which seems to give the principles fairly well:
Posted by: dclaryjr
at October 27, 2007 7:50 AM
My two cents worth in concurrence with the previous comments:
The word "exercise", in the context of the article, is too broad a term. It often is associated with aerobic activity performed in the "fat burning zone". This type of exercise has the worst track record for weight loss. It is, however, more positively correlated with keeping weight off once it has been lost. On the other hand, high intensity anaerobic exercise effectively reduces glycogen stores in the muscles and therefore promotes insulin sensitivity and the transference of blood sugar back into the muscles as opposed to being converted to fat for storage. It is more effective for weight loss. High intensity exercise also raises metabolism for an extended period of time - a natural extended "fat burning zone".
Have you ever seen a weight problem among indigenous people? Weston A Price demonstrated some time ago that healthy indigenous populations did not share a common diet - except for the fact that they ate natural unadulterated foods. The other thing they have in common is a higher all around activity level. We can simulate the periods of more intense activity in our modern world fairly easily with stylized high intensity exercise in the gym. What's missing in a modern lifestyle is moving more consistently throughout the day - that lower level of activity that keeps weight off. I believe this is a major contributor, along with the low level of natural unadulterated foods in the typical diet, in the undoing of efforts to maintain a healthy weight and body composition.
Posted by: Yuneek
at October 26, 2007 5:23 PM
I would agree with Robb. While activity is necessary for health, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference in body composition (unless the person was somewhat close to fit to begin with). Whether the activity is plain old cardio, a stretch and visit trip to the gym, or a massively intense 45 minutes series of weights, unless the processed foods/high carbs are eliminated, the body seems to maintain its fat levels. Once the diet is "under control," the body seems to reconfigure itself (especially with activity, and even more with "correct" activity).
Posted by: Jim
at October 26, 2007 10:42 AM
Art-
The question I have is in feed lot animals, if we feed them an evolutionarily sound diet, do the critters still fatten? Grain is the feed of choice and we are back to the insulin issue again.I'm not sure that grass would do the same...I'll check with some grassfed beef farmers about this.
I can say from my experience in the trenches this past 4-5 years working with clients who desire to loose weight, no matter how smart the exercise program (CrossFit, EF) we see no favorable body composition changes until we see an ancestral diet consumed. We see improvements in performance and many parameters of health but the combination of sound exercise and paleo eating works amazingly well.
I think Taubes is right on with his thesis.
Posted by: Robb Wolf
at October 25, 2007 5:27 PM
It would be great for those of us trying to live this way to have you summarize a good exercise program, especially what is a good weight program. I know there is information scattered all through this blog but it is really hard to assemble all the pointers and details into something coherent.
Paul
Posted by: paul
at October 25, 2007 4:43 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)