The energy balance theory of weight gain is popular because it is simple and seems plausible. Basically, the theory states that if you consume it and don’t burn it, you’ll store it. In more technical language, the amount of fat someone stores in their body is directly influenced by how many calories they eat and how much exercise they do. Logically then in order to gain weight, the amount of energy eaten must be greater than the amount that is oxidised as fuel, and in order to lose weight the energy consumed must be less than is oxidised. However, this oversimplification of the storage and metabolism of energy in mammals has resulted in a meaningless theory that does not and cannot explain the current obesity epidemic. Because the energy balance theory of weight gain is based on a half truth it becomes the the most dangerous sort of lie. Superficially therefore the theory stands up to scrutiny which satisfies the curiosity of the layman and the neophyte. However, when one delves deeper the absurdity of the theory becomes apparent.
The problem with the energy balance equation theory of weight gain is that is does not present all the facts for consideration. In this way it is a half-truth, the most dangerous sort of lie. Firstly, it ignores the fact that the hypothalamus can regulate the oxidation of fuel in many ways. Exercise and resting metabolic rate, the two inputs used in the equation are only two of many energy regulatory mechanisms. And as they say, garbage in, garbage out. The thermic effect of activity (TEA) and the thermic effect of food (TEF) can also utilise considerable amounts of energy. Cutting calories and increasing physical activity in the hope that the lack of energy will cause weight loss, simply results in the hypothalamus finding efficiency savings elsewhere and this results in no net calorie deficit. In addition, the hypothalamus has complex regulatory mechanisms to ensure that appetite is enhanced in the face of an energy deficient. Short-term the desire to eat can be ignored by the individual, but eventually even the strongest will capitulate.
The second reason that the energy balance equation of weight gain is disingenuous is because it makes the assumption that the individual in question is in good health. However, the current literature suggests that obesity and abdominal weight gain are a result of a metabolic dysfunction, caused by overconsumption of metabolic poisons such as fructose and trans fats. The metabolic dysfunction disrupts normal energy metabolism and causes aberrations in the appetite regulatory mechanisms. In particular the skeletal muscle and liver become insensitive to the action of insulin and the hypothalamus insensitive to the action of leptin. This results in a state of perceived starvation, and the result is that the hypothalamus alters energy metabolism as it would if a real starvation state existed. Under such conditions trying to further curtail energy input or increase physical activity is met with stiff opposition by the regulatory centres in the hypothalamus. Obesity is a disease and unless the individual accepts they are ill, no weight will be lost in the long term.
Unfortunately the energy balance theory is imbedded in all mainstream institutions, and as a result the majority of recommendations for weight loss are based on this old paradigm. The nutritional literature is replete with examples of researchers who do not understand the concept that a high quality diet can reverse the slide into metabolic dysfunction and weight gain without the need for forcibly restricting energy intake. For example in a recent study researchers investigated the effects of a reduction in serving size of soft drinks that was proposed in New York City1. However, rather than discuss the issue from the perspective of the metabolic poisoning effects of the fructose containing drinks, the authors simplified their argument to one of energy balance and concluded that reducing the serving size of soft drinks would result in a modest 60 kcal reduction in energy intake. The disingenuous nature of the main premise of the paper and its speculative nature does a disservice to a reasonably reputable journal.
The key then to causing weight loss lies not with restricting energy intake. Weight gain is caused not by eating too much food, but it is caused by eating the wrong types of food. Reversing the metabolic dysfunction that causes insulin and leptin resistance is therefore pivotal in any fat loss regimen. Increasingly, fructose and refined carbohydrate overconsumption is being implicated as a cause of insulin resistance, with leptin resistance developing secondary to insulin resistance. Fructose is a metabolic poison and has similar effects on the liver to alcohol. Over consumption causes increased flux through the de novo lipogenesis pathway and the resulting fatty acids interfere with the insulin signal cascade and drive insulin resistance and weight gain. Weight loss comes through reversal of this metabolic function, not through restriction of energy. Limiting soft drink consumption is laudable, but it must be understood that this is beneficial not because of the energy savings, but because it limits fructose intake and prevents insulin resistance.
Dr Robert Barrington’s Nutritional Recommendation: Fructose is a metabolic poison and the likely driver of weight gain and obesity. Limiting all refined crystalline fructose and only consuming fructose along with its natural fibre in fruit is the way to reverse its metabolic damage and cause weight loss.
RdB
