by Zoë Harcombe
Please use any of this as ammunition the next time you see a claim made about olive oil. It’s a useful food – good for salad dressing; butter and lard are better for cooking (saturated fats are chemically more stable) – but that’s it. Unless we can run power stations on olive oil, it’s not going to save the planet!
p.s. Please note – We’ve now got a club forum for all questions – please post at The Harcombe Diet Club – it will appear instantly after you sign up – no moderator necessary!
Many thanks – Zoe x
The calorie myth & eating 36,000 calories a day
April 29, 2010
Here’s the link to a great programme on super morbid obesity
Great programme spot from one of our super fans – Melissa. This is worth the 47 mins to watch. I just wanted to draw your attention to yet another example of the calorie myth being completely absurdly applied…
The programme features 4 morbidly obese people:
Paul is 45 years old and he weighs 48 stone and consumes an estimated 36,902 calories a day.
Larry is 38 years old and he weighs 50 stone and consumes an estimated 14,349 calories a day.
Lisa is 39 years old and she weighs 45 stone and consumes an estimated 9,277 calories a day.
Jacqui is 40 years old and she weighs 26 stone and consumes an estimated 15,880 calories a day.
Quick couple of observations:
1) Where on earth do they get the 2 calories at the end of Paul’s estimate?! The calories in 1 gram of fat/carb/protein are not even accurate – how do they think that they can estimate a day’s consumption to that level of accuracy.
2) Why is Paul not massively heavier than Larry? He’s eating 2.5 times the number of calories and can’t move around (as Larry proved he could when food was put in the other room!)
Ian Campbell (former head of National Obesity Forum) is the main expert speaker on the programme.
With reference to Paul – Ian says it is physically and physiologically impossible for Paul to burn off the calories he consumes. I agree – this is a factual statement using hours in the day and maximum activity rates possible – notwithstanding the fact that Paul is bedridden. However – I would like to see what would happen if Paul’s intake were changed from predominantly processed carbs to real fat/protein. He would be unable to store fat in the absence of carbs and insulin and he would be unable to consume anywhere near that intake of real food.
With reference to Larry (I made a note of the time for this one – so see how they do this for Larry at c. 12 minutes) – the narrator (Samantha Bond) quotes the usual statement that the average man needs 2,500 calories a day. Ian Campbell estimates that Larry needs about 4-4,500 calories a day “and so that extra 10,000 calories a day would equate to 3lbs of weight gain on a daily basis.” Did you spot that use of the unproven calorie formula – applied directly as if fact – without even being quoted? Ian has divided 10,000 by 3500 to get 3lbs and has assumed that every excess of 3500 will gain 1lb (in fat alone – we are forgetting water and lean tissue for now), just as Ian assumes that every deficit of 3500 will lose 1lb. Neither surplus or deficit works with this formula – I have yet to find even one study to prove this formula and would be astonished if I ever did.
Let’s apply some common sense here – Ian is saying that Larry will be gaining weight at the rate of 3lbs a day – that’s 1095lbs EACH & EVERY year. That is 78 stone and 3lbs EACH & EVERY year. Let’s forget water and lean tissue and assume he is the first person in the world only to gain fat. So – if the programme checks in on Larry next year – he should be 128 stone.
With reference to Lisa (they do this for Lisa at c. 44 minutes) – the narrator again says that the Recommended Daily Intake for an average woman is just 2000 calories. They obviously allow 3000 calories a day, for Lisa being larger and then the narrator says “If she continues to eat this daily excess of over 6000 calories, Lisa will gain almost 2lbs every day.”
Ditto on the common sense – Lisa is supposed to gain 52 stone, 2lbs each & every year she continues to eat in this way.
With reference to Jacqui – Ian says that Jacqui is having “perhaps seven times the number of calories she needs just to keep her body healthy.” The narrator then says “To burn off what Jacqui eats in a day she’d have to walk briskly non-stop for almost two days.”
The last point is interesting because so many government officials and dietary advisors continue to think that our ‘sedentary behaviour’ is to blame for the obesity epidemic. Ian Campbell makes the point that Olympic rowers could not need this number of calories (my comment – and they would eat their intake in a hugely healthier way). Surely it is vastly more important to NOT put something in one’s mouth in the first place than it is to think we can burn off that fuel in some way. Aside from the fact that we can only ‘burn fat’ when there is no glucose or glycogen more readily available for the body. These four are eating carbs continuously every waking minute (Lisa in the middle of the night also) and therefore are continually storing fat and are never in a physiological environment in which they can burn fat.
Check also – around 40 mins into the programme – the serious issue about fat cell number and size, which has become more widely accepted in recent years. It is estimated that Lisa’s fat cells will have multiplied from a ‘normal’ number of 40 billion to 100 billion. If she loses weight, these fat cells do not disappear – she will still have 100 billion – they just shrink in size.
p.s. daftest thought of all – if Ian Campbell estimates that Larry needs 4-4,500 calories a day, let’s assume that Paul needs the same. Paul is therefore eating 32,000 calories a day more than he needs. I bet Ian Campbell did the maths – that’s a gain of 9lbs EVERY DAY; 2 stone every 3 days; so Paul should gain 238 stone over the coming year – and then thought “no, that’s mad!” Then he would have thought – let’s stick to using the 3,500 calorie theory for Larry and Lisa – it seems daft for Paul. It’s daft for all of them Ian! (And everyone else who uses this formula on a daily basis – NHS, Dept of Health, NICE, dieticians, nutritionists …..)
p.s. Jan 2011 update – please note that I am sadly simply unable to keep up with comments on blogs/youtube/facebook and all the wonders of the web. Please feel free to leave a comment to have your say & for others to read. If you have any questions our forum is the best place to have them answered. Your question may well have been answered already so you can read the thousands of questions already there if you don’t want to join. Many thanks for your understanding. Very best wishes – Zoe
Weight Watchers works – according to a study
funded by Weight Watchers
July 12, 2010
“One pound of fat contains 3,500 calories. To lose 1lb a week you would need to cut out 3,500 calories from your overall weekly nutritional requirements, this equates to needing a deficit of 500 calories a day.”[i] (Zoe Hellman, Weight Watchers dietician)
This is the formula believed by Weight Watchers, NICE, the NHS, the Department of Health, the National Obesity Forum, British Dietetic Association, the Association for the Study of Obesity (the organisation of which Susan Jebb is the chair) and 99% of public and private health diet advisors.
I have two points to make:
1) None of these organisations even know from whence this formula came and none can prove that it is true[ii];
2) This study has beautifully proven the formula wrong – as has every study of calorie restriction since 1917.
Weight Watchers sets out to create a deficit of approximately 1,000 calories a day (a typical female needs 2,000 calories, but is ‘allowed’ 18-20 points. One point is roughly 50 calories, so this is an approximate 900-1,000 calories a day diet). Weight loss, with a 1,000 calorie deficit, over one year, should be 104 pounds in fat alone (more in lean tissue and water)[iii].
The Medical Research Council (MRC) presentation for the results of the study[iv], contain a graph for weight loss over the 12 months for the GP vs. WW groups (slide 8). (Please not
e the regain starting at 9 months with WW). Jebb says that the GP group lost an average of 2.8kg and the WW group lost an average of 5.2kg. Slide 10 confirms the difference between the two weight loss approaches as 2.4kg at 12 months.
This means, however, that the Weight Watchers group lost an average of 11 pounds in one year – less than one pound a month. According to Weight Watchers own dietician (Zoe Hellman) and the ASO’s believed formula (Susan Jebb), they should all have lost 104 pounds (in fat alone) and there should have been no difference between people, with the same deficit – a formula is a formula.
In my experience of working purely in the field of obesity – two pounds a week is the minimum that people want and expect to lose. One woman said to me “With nearly half my current weight to lose, I can’t cope with two pounds a week”. Why was I the first person to be honest and tell this 60 year old woman that, if she lost two pounds a week, week in week out until she reached target weight, she would be the first person in the world ever to do so.
Weight Watchers have just admitted – you will be considered a success, worthy of the headline “Weight Watchers works”, if you lose one tenth of what you have been led to believe you will lose.
The headline should have been:
“Weight Watchers works better than just going to the GP, says study funded by weight watchers; but you will be lucky to lose one tenth of your lowest expectation.”
Maybe not as catchy, but far more honest.
Zoë Harcombe
p.s. Susan Jebb points out that she has not been paid for her involvement. a) Her involvement has likely been small (slide 7 suggests that she has not even been the key advisor to the study group). b) The MRC employs over 4000 people[v]. They need work to do and it would be interesting to know how much Weight Watchers have paid towards their employment costs for this endorsement. c) Susan Jebb is presenting at the Weight Watchers Symposium in Stockholm tonight[vi], expenses paid?
* * *
References
[i] http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/your-life/diet-advice-10-big-diet-myths/v1 (under point 6)
[ii] Full FOI available upon request – or on a scribd post on www.zoeharcombe.com/thecaloriemyth/
[iii] 1000 calories deficit multiplied by 365 days and divided by 3500 = 104 pounds
[iv] http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/BSUsite/CHTMR/AM_forweb.pdf
[v] http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Factsfigures/index.htm
[vi] http://www.ico2010.org/documents/WeightWatchersprogrammeec23.06.10.pdf (or view it here)
(the original reference to (vi) expired)
Statins with your burger?
Better add a pregnancy test too
August 13, 2010
This story came out on 12 August 2010. I follow BBC Health news on Twitter and they announced:
“Fast food outlets should consider handing out cholesterol-lowering drugs to combat the effects of fatty food, link here
The article opens with: “Fast food outlets should consider handing out cholesterol-lowering drugs to combat the effects of fatty food, say UK researchers. Taking a statin pill every day would offset the harm caused by a daily cheeseburger and milkshake, the Imperial College London team said. It would only cost 5p a customer – similar to a sachet of ketchup.”
Dr Darrel Francis, one of the team of researchers, was quoted as saying: “Importantly, even partial adherence to statin therapy conveys a mortality benefit, suggesting that statins do not need to be taken daily to have some protective effect”.
I checked the source of these incredulous comments (we’ll cover why below). The researchers were Emily A. Ferenczi, Perviz Asaria, Alun D. Hughes, Nishi Chaturvedi MDa and Darrel P. Francis. Their article “Can a Statin Neutralize the Cardiovascular Risk of Unhealthy Dietary Choices?” was published in the American Journal of Cardiology August 2010. You can read the summary here.
Invariably, I go back to the original medical journal article and find that the media have sensationalised a serious piece of research, taken one statement out of context and blown it out of proportion. Not in this case. The researchers managed to do that in their original summary – here’s an extract:
“The risk reduction associated with the daily consumption of most statins, with the exception of pravastatin, is more powerful than the risk increase caused by the daily extra fat intake associated with a 7-oz hamburger (Quarter Pounder®) with cheese and a small milkshake. In conclusion, statin therapy can neutralize the cardiovascular risk caused by harmful diet choices… Routine accessibility of statins in establishments providing unhealthy food might be a rational modern means to offset the cardiovascular risk. Fast food outlets already offer free condiments to supplement meals. A free statin-containing accompaniment would offer cardiovascular benefits, opposite to the effects of equally available salt, sugar, and high-fat condiments. Although no substitute for systematic lifestyle improvements, including healthy diet, regular exercise, weight loss, and smoking cessation, complimentary statin packets would add, at little cost, 1 positive choice to a panoply of negative ones.”
The only declaration of interest for the article was “Dr. Francis is supported by grant British Heart Foundation, London, United Kingdom.” (Those are the exact words – there may be an ‘a’ and a ‘from the’ missing). Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation is also quoted in the article. It would be fair to say that Weissberg is quite a fan of statins – Dr Michael Eades does a great blog here showing how Weissberg was defending statins back in February 2007. Eades says “The British Heart Foundation is also funded by, among others, companies that make statins.” I did a quick check on the BHF site this morning and found nothing clearly declared. A separate search on Pfizer (makers of Lipitor) and the BHF reveals a funding relationship – small to Pfizer but useful to the BHF.
There are almost too many levels to go into as to why this article is both horrific and irresponsible. I am struggling to recall a more disgraceful recommendation to come from people supposedly interested in our health. I’ll stick to four:
1) Cholesterol is one of the most vital substances in the human body. We literally die without it. The sensible (and non-conflicted) people working in the field of cholesterol understand how statins actually work. The body makes cholesterol (it is too vital a substance for the body to rely on you to have to consume or get from another source in any way). Statins stop the body making cholesterol. You may think that this is how they impact on heart disease (the evidence for impact is also conflicted and not compelling despite this). The more sensible view is that statin drugs work as an anti-inflammatory agent in some way and the cholesterol lowering is a very unfortunate side effect. The key reason for it being so unfortunate is that statins stop the body’s own working ‘up-stream’ of the production of CoQ10, which has been called the energy spark plug for the body, and this explains side effects from tiredness, being less able to be active and as extreme as irreversible muscle wasting. Given that the brain has one of the highest requirements for cholesterol within the body, forgetfulness and generally being less cognitive are also well known and serious mental side effects.
2) I have no idea where Francis gets his idea of mortality benefit. The evidence is the converse. Lowering cholesterol has been shown to increase mortality – the lower your cholesterol, the more risk of dying kind of relationship. This makes sense given the life vital role of cholesterol.
The Honolulu Study was a 20 year study of cholesterol levels and mortality in 3,572 Japanese American men. The study concluded that “Only the group with low cholesterol concentration at both examinations had a significant association with mortality”. The authors went on “We have been unable to explain our results”. (I.e. we were expecting lower cholesterol to equal lower mortality, not the other way round). All credit to the team for their honest reporting of these unexpected results and their final statement in the abstract: “These data cast doubt on the scientific justification for lowering cholesterol to very low concentrations (<4
·65 mmol/L) in elderly people.” (Schatz, Masaki, Yano, Chen, Rodriguez and Curb, “Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu heart programme”, The Lancet, (August 2001).)
Framingham similarly concluded that “There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels).” (Anderson, Castelli and Levy, “Cholesterol and Mortality: 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham Study”, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), (1987).)
Dr Malcolm Kendrick in the brilliant “The Great Cholesterol Con”, does a clever calculation on this quotation and translates this into – a reduction in cholesterol from 5 to 4 mmol/L would increase your risk of dying by 400%.
3) This study makes the usual mistake of not starting from a clear control basis. Remember the item chosen? A 7-oz hamburger (Quarter Pounder®) with cheese and a small milkshake. So we have all three macro nutrients – fat, protein and carbohydrate. We have primarily, if not exclusively processed food. We have sugar, white buns, processed meat and cheese. What were these guys trying to measure? Fat always takes the attack in the media, but this is processed food being analysed. I would mind less if the headings were “eat processed food – pay the price” but it is in the interests of the food industry to attack fat when the precise culprit is their processed food.
4) I almost can’t find the words to describe the irresponsibility of the proposal that Statins should be given out like Smarties as an antidote to eating processed food. Two very bad wrongs don’t make a right. I detest processed food and yet I would rather eat a burger every day than take statins. Read The Great Cholesterol Con and learn from a non-conflicted doctor what these drugs really do and how they are implicated in cancer, muscle damage, liver damage, mortaility we have seen above and, perhaps the ultimate irony, there are those who think that statins are responsible for the heart failure they are supposed to alleviate. Again – if you know the role of CoQ10 in heart muscle, you can see that this is highly plausible.