Some months ago, I discovered that Stanford University has quite a few class lectures available for free on iTunes.  I enjoy listening to books and lectures during my long walks, while driving, while sitting on airplanes, and sometimes even while working on programming projects if I’m not in the middle of a real head-scratcher.  (Don’t tell my clients.) 

I’ve downloaded and listened to several lectures on subjects that interest me:  history, politics, science, economics and, of course, health and nutrition.  I had planned to transcribe portions of a couple of nutrition lectures so I could comment on them, but since I don’t like typing all that much, I kind of put that project aside.

Turns out one of the lectures I wanted to write about is also on YouTube, as I found out when I visited Mike Eades’ blog this morning.  I enjoyed it on iTunes, but it’s even better when you can see the visuals.  So in case you haven’t already seen it, here it is.  The speaker is Dr. Chris Gardner, a director of Nutrition Studies and an associate professor of medicine at Stanford:

A few things struck me as I listened to the lecture the first time, and again as I watched it today.  One is that all diets are difficult to follow to some extent — just look at the dropout rates for the other studies Gardner mentioned.  There’s no getting around that.  If your weight is going up and your health is going down, you’re on a bad diet.  To turn things around, you have to give up some foods you love.

I miss fettuccine alfredo and sourdough toast, but I’ve found it much easier to stick to a low-carb diet than any of the others I tried.  Low-fat diets, by contrast, made me feel lethargic and depressed.  I’d start cheating, then eventually give up.  (Good thing, in retrospect.)

Along those lines, notice what happened in Gardner’s study with the group assigned to the Ornish diet: on average, they began eating double the amount of fat Ornish recommends almost immediately and eventually moved up to triple what he recommends.  Ornish has complained that this wasn’t a fair test of his diet since most subjects didn’t stay within the 10% fat limit.  I think it’s more likely they couldn’t stay within the 10% limit … their bodies rebelled.

(Here’s how someone once described the Ornish diet:  put food in your mouth. If it tastes good, spit it out.)

To be fair, the Atkins group drifted back towards a higher carbohydrate intake as well.  If you do the math, it appears that by the end of a year, most of the women in the Atkins group were consuming something in the neighborhood of 150 carbohydrates per day.  They ended up on a restricted carbohydrate diet, but not exactly a low- carbohydrate diet.

But that actually makes their weight loss more impressive.  Remember, they weren’t told to count calories, as two other groups were.  And yet the Atkins group lost the most weight, even though they ate more carbohydrates than Atkins recommended.  And as their carbohydrate intake went up over time, so did their weight — again, they weren’t counting calories.  This would seem to confirm what Atkins said all along:  carbohydrates make you hungry.  You have to find the level of carbohydrate intake that keeps your insulin in check and your appetite stable, then stay there.

I also noticed that the Atkins group had the lowest dropout rate.  Once again, I’m not surprised.  Yes, you may miss your sugars and starches on a low-carb diet, but at least fat is satiating.  I never felt satiated on a low-fat diet, unless I ate huge meals.

What really perked up my ears the first time I heard the lecture was the comparison of the health parameters.  The Atkins group showed the most improvement in weight, blood pressure, triglycerides and cholesterol levels.  No other diet out-performed Atkins on any health parameter.  So much for the notion that a low-carb, high-fat diet will kill you.

Gardner even explains, in response to a question, that low-fat, high-carb diets tend to make triglycerides go up, HDL go down, and produce a higher proportion of small, dense LDL.  And remember, we’re hearing this from a guy who’s been a vegetarian for 25 years — not exactly a shill for the meat industry.

I also found it interesting the relative success of one diet versus another seems to depend on the dieter’s level of insulin resistance.  Now and then, I hear from people who swear they lost a lot of weight on a low-fat diet and felt fine doing it.  I believe them.  But I’m guessing those are people who aren’t insulin-resistant.  They can eat plenty of carbohydrates and lose weight by restricting fat and calories because they don’t end up with high insulin levels that command their bodies to continue storing fat.  Good for them. 

The problem is, the rest of us are told that if it works for them, it should work for us, too — assuming we just had the proper discipline. But it doesn’t work for us.  We produce too much insulin in response to sugar and starch.   We have to give up the carbs, or we’re setting ourselves up to fail.  And given the steep rise in metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes, I think most overweight Americans are probably insulin-resistant. 

This lecture — recounting a study conducted by a committed vegetarian — confirms what I already knew:  the usual dietary advice given to overweight people who are developing metabolic syndrome is a load of bologna.  Hats off to Dr. Gardner for reporting his results with no apparent attempt to manipulate them.  We could use a few more researchers like him.

I weighed myself at the gym yesterday, which was the morning of my 14th day on the 6-Week Cure.  I started at 205; yesterday I weighed 201. This morning, I measured my girth at the biggest part, around the love handles and belly button.  That’s gone from 41 inches to 39, which pleases me more than the weight loss.  I’ve also had to start cinching my belt a notch tighter, which means I’ve lost some fat below the belly as well. (Since I’m not over 65 yet, I’m still allowed to wear my belt below my belly button.)

As I’ve said many times, I don’t give a hoot about weight and BMI.  When I’m diligent about working out, I add muscle and get heavier.  My current BMI is 28.  Tim Tebow of the Florida Gators has a BMI of 30.6  — he’s 6’3″ and weighs 245, which makes him technically obese.  Guess which one of us is fatter?

I’d say the most pleasant surprise so far has been the effect of drinking whey protein shakes, which seem to be helping my strength.  I was stuck for awhile on a couple of weight machines — couldn’t squeeze out that one more rep, despite huffing and puffing and blowing the house down — but during the two weeks of drinking the shakes, I went up on every machine except the leg press and leg curl.  I can’t go up on those, because I’ve reached the bottom of the weight stack.

Today I begin week #3 – bring on the meat!

A year ago, the Los Angeles City Council decided it must do something about the high rate of obesity in South Los Angeles, an impoverished neighborhood that was previously called South Central.  (After the area developed a bad reputation for gangs and violence and riots, the city chose the obvious solution:  rename it.)  So the council passed legislation that bans opening or expanding fast-food restaurants in the area.

Of course, they couldn’t use the term fast food.  That’s the kind of clear, simple language that lawyers and politicians can’t grasp.  (Most politicians are lawyers, by the way, so go figure.)  To make the ban sound all high-falutin’ and legalistic and important, they banned restaurants characterized by “excessive signage, little or no landscaping, large expanses of surface parking, drive-through windows, multiple driveways, parking lots fronting the street,” etc., etc., blah-blah-blah.

Genius.  The ban hasn’t done diddly, of course — and won’t — but it did serve one important purpose:  it satisfied the congenital need of politicians to do something! whenever they see a problem.  As the old saying goes, when you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Before getting into the economic and nutritional stupidity of this ban, I’m going to risk receiving some hate mail by actually acknowledging the elephant in the room:  racism.  South Los Angeles is populated almost exclusively by African-Americans and Hispanics.  Telling them they can’t have any more fast-food restaurants in their neighborhoods is paternalistic and insulting.  It’s rooted in the notion that they can’t make smart decisions for themselves, and therefore need a government nanny to hide the cookie jar.

Insult aside, fast food clearly isn’t the problem. As a recent study by the non-profit Rand Corporation pointed out, fast-food restaurants are no more prevalent in South Los Angeles than in other areas of the city.  In fact, there are actually fewer of them:

Researchers found there were about 19 fast-food chain restaurants per 100,000 residents in South Los Angeles, while there were 29 per 100,000 people in affluent West Los Angeles and 30 per 100,000 residents for all of Los Angeles County. There are significantly fewer restaurants of any type per person in South Los Angeles compared to Los Angeles County overall, according to the study.

Wait … you mean restaurants don’t flock to areas where people have little disposable income?  Well, I am shocked.

If you don’t know Los Angeles, the west side is wealthy and mostly white.  It’s where a lot of people making show-biz money live.  Beverly Hills and Century City — an area dense with luxury high-rises and corporate offices — are both on the west side.  Frankly, I’m surprised the concentration of fast-food restaurants is so high there, but apparently it is.

Strangely, the city council doesn’t consider all those fast-food establishments a threat to the health of affluent white people.  They don’t worry that people driving home from posh jobs in Century City will be drawn, zombie-like, to detour through the golden arches and order french fries and milkshakes. 

But when the city council sees a high rate of obesity on the south side, they decide the poor darlings just can’t help themselves and must be delivered from the temptation of fast food.  Take away their Big Macs, and they’ll immediately decide they like grilled salmon with a side of broccoli.

Now, on to the economic stupidity:  One of the stated goals of the ban was to encourage more sit-down restaurants to move into South Los Angeles.  I’m always amazed, and more than a little appalled, when small groups of politicians get together and decide they know more about a particular industry than the people who actually work in that industry do. (But enough about the GM bailout.)

If there were a market for more sit-down restaurants in South Los Angeles, the sit-down restaurants would already be there.  They aren’t sitting on the sidelines, champing at the bit, just waiting for the Los Angeles City council to create an opening for them by forbidding McDonald’s from opening another franchise.  If they aren’t locating in South Los Angeles, it’s because their market research has concluded it’s not a good idea.

Finally, the nutritional stupidity:  You could replace every fast-food joint in Los Angeles with a sit-down restaurant, and it wouldn’t make a dent in the rate of obesity.  As I discovered while researching Fat Head, people actually eat bigger meals in sit-down restaurants than they do at fast-food restaurants.  Can you say “Bloomin’ Onion”?  Order one of those, split it three ways, and you’ve already consumed 800 calories and 80 carbohydrates … then your dinner arrives.  The steakhouse I frequented in Burbank offers a free cookie after dinner that contains more calories and carbohydrates than a Quarter Pounder and a large order of fries.

Okay then, perhaps the city council should forbid restaurants from locating in poor neighborhoods altogether, right?  Wrong.  As the Rand study pointed out, people in South Los Angeles don’t eat in restaurants any more often than their leaner counterparts in more affluent areas.  But they buy a disproportionate share of their food and drinks at small stores … in other words, convenience stores that sell mostly sugar and starch.

Aha!  That’s it, then.  The city council should outlaw min-marts and make those poor people buy all their food in real grocery stores!  Wrong again.  People don’t buy sugar and starch because that’s what they find in mini-marts; they go to mini-marts because that’s where they can easily find sugar and starch.

People who like sugar and starch buy sugar and starch, no matter where they shop.  I’ve lived in a handful of cities, I’ve traveled all over the country, and I’ve seen countless people buying food with food stamps.  Their grocery carts were almost always full of noodles, chips, cereals, bread, potatoes, sodas, and sugar-laden snacks.  Those are the cheapest foods. 

You can eat sugar and starch in your car, in your kitchen, in a restaurant, standing up, sitting down, lying on your side, doing cartwheels, or while reciting the Declaration of Independence, and it isn’t going to make any difference.  They’re fattening foods.  Banning one source of them isn’t going to change anything.

Fast-food restaurants are convenient target, but shooting at the wrong target doesn’t get the job done.  Banning McDonald’s and other fast-food joints from poor neighborhoods won’t make poor people any leaner.  But it will create another tribute to the economic stupidity of legislators … namely, it will deprive a lot of unskilled but work-minded teenagers of their first job opportunities, with at least the possibility of moving into management someday.

Are they better off living on food stamps?  I don’t think so.

(Hat tip to Mike Eades, who tweeted the article about the Rand study.)

Eating sugar will turn you into a criminal, and restricting carbs will make you fat.  Those are the conclusions drawn from a couple of recent studies, at least as they were reported in the media. 

Dangit, now what am I supposed to do … eat sugar and end up robbing a bank, or avoid the stuff and end up becoming an obese but law-abiding citizen?  I suppose I could spend a lot of time lifting weights in the prison yard and get really buffed up …

Naturally, both of these studies are of the observational variety, which means they found correlations … and that’s it.  As I’ve said before, there’s a strong correlation between gray hair and heart attacks, but nobody believes gray hair causes heart attacks.  A statistical link doesn’t prove cause and effect.  Unfortunately, too many reporters (and far too many researchers) can’t seem to grasp that concept.

Observational studies are iffy for a very simple reason:  people are different.  We’re all walking bundles of interrelated traits, many of which are largely genetic:  intelligence, affability, athleticism, laziness, discipline, focus, a sense of humor, likes and dislikes, a predisposition to be fat or thin, etc.  Those traits exert a powerful influence on our choices and behaviors … but people interpreting or reporting on observational studies often get the equation backwards.

In the first study, reported in Time Magazine, British researchers found a strong correlation between eating sugary treats during childhood and becoming a criminal later in life.  Here is the opening paragraph from the Time story:

What parent hasn’t used candy to pacify a cranky child or head off a brewing tantrum? When reasoning, threats and time-outs fail, a sugary treat often does the trick. But while that chocolate-covered balm may be highly effective in the short term, say British scientists, it may be setting youngsters up for problem behavior later. According to a new study, kids who eat too many treats at a young age risk becoming violent in adulthood.

So what exactly prompted the writer to conclude that sugary treats lead to violent behavior years later?  It was this finding:

Moore plumbed the data for information on kids’ diet and their later behavior: at age 10, the children were asked how much candy they consumed, and at age 34, they were questioned about whether they had been convicted of a crime. Moore’s analysis suggests a correlation: 69% of people who had been convicted of a violent act by age 34 reported eating candy almost every day as youngsters; 42% of people who had not been arrested for violent behavior reported the same.

Well, that’s it then … sugar must screw up your brain and make you decide it’s okay to mug people. Or perhaps — and this is the more likely explanation — we’re just witnessing the natural relationship between traits and behaviors.  In other words, the kind of parents who end up raising criminals are also more likely to let their kids eat candy bars for breakfast. 

Maybe we should talk to some teenage criminals and find out how many of their mothers spend a lot of time worrying about nutrition.  I doubt many of them leave the house in the morning hearing “Johnny, if you rob a Walgreen’s this week, would you mind picking up some whey protein powder and a bottle of CoQ10?  Oh, and your father likes magnesium supplements, so pick up some of those in case he ever shows up again.”

The same principle applies to positive behaviors and traits as well.  For years, we were told that parents could raise more intelligent children by reading to them, limiting their TV time, and keeping a lot of books in the house.  Those are, after all, common behaviors among the parents of intelligent kids.  So read to little Johnny, and he’ll do well in school.

But as it turns out, the theory doesn’t hold up to actual research.  Intelligent people who enjoy words and language and learning tend to read a lot of books.  (You should see the size of Mike Eades’ library.)  They’re also likely to produce intelligent kids who enjoy words and language and end up learning more easily in school.  The kids inherited a trait — verbal intelligence — that tends to be exhibited as a related behavior — reading. 

Thankfully, the lead researcher in the British study did seem to understand the concept (not that you’d know from the headline and lead paragraph of the article):

One of those questions is whether sweets themselves contain compounds that promote antisocial and aggressive behavior, or whether the excessive eating of sweets represents a lack of discipline in childhood that translates to poor impulse control in adulthood. Moore is leaning toward the latter… It’s also possible that children who are poorly behaved from the start tend to get more candy.

Bingo.

The second article, warning us that restricting carbs could make us fat, definitely gets the relationship between traits and behaviors backwards.  Here are some choice quotes:

Low-carb eaters could be setting themselves up for obesity, suggests a new study from this month’s issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Researchers analyzed data collected from the Canadian Community Health Survey, which collected health data from a sample of over 35,000 Canadians. They narrowed the sample down to 4,451 people who had submitted information on their diets, including how much and what type of food they’d eaten on the day of the assessment. They found that people with higher intakes of carbohydrates ate fewer calories but more protein, fat, and fiber than low-carb eaters consumed.

Okay, wait a second … I’m writing late at night, after a play rehearsal, so maybe I’m missing something here, but please re-read that last sentence and answer this question for me:  how can the people who eat more carbohydrates also consume more fat, more protein, and more fiber, but still end up consuming fewer calories?  Did Monsanto create a new macronutrient I don’t know about?  Anyway …

In fact, the incidence of overweight and obesity in the lowest-carb-intake group was 65 percent, while it was just 51 percent in the highest-carb group, and the risk for becoming overweight or obese was 40 percent lower in the highest-carb-intake groups.

This makes about as much sense as the observation that fat people are more likely to drink diet sodas, so diet sodas must make you fat.  If you recruit a large group of people and tease out the data on those who restrict their carbs, you’re most likely looking at the dieters in the group.  You’d probably also tease out dieters if you looked at who counts fat grams.

Now … what kind of people go on diets?  Fat people, that’s who — those of us who tend to gain weight easily.  Once again, the trait  — predisposed to gain weight — produces the behavior — dieting.  I restrict my carbohydrates, but I’m fatter than my son, who lives on them.  He doesn’t watch his carbohydrates because he doesn’t have to.  It’s a case of selection bias, not cause and effect.

Selection bias is also the reason that vegetarians tend to be leaner than the population as a whole.  Yes, I’ve known some skinny vegetarians.  And pretty much every one of them has been skinny since birth.  They give up meat, they don’t gain weight, so they stick with it.  They’re a self-selected group.

But I also know plenty of people — myself included — who tried a vegetarian diet and gained weight.  So we became ex-vegetarians and selected ourselves out of the group.  Once again, a trait — gains weight easily — produced a behavior — gave up the vegetarian diet.  In other words, we’re not fat because we avoid sugar and starch; we avoid sugar and starch because we’re fat.

And also, of course, because we don’t want to become criminals.

This is another in a series of recipes by Jason Sandeman, the Well Done Chef. Enjoy.

There is a KFC in my neighborhood that always has a line up to the block. I have even frequented the joint a few times myself. Nothing tastes better than the secret 11 herbs and spices, and let me tell you, that’s the way they like it.

Let’s put that aside for now.  To feed your family, it costs a hefty $35-45$, and you also get all the “extras” that come with your “meal.” You know, the pureed cabbage and onion coleslaw is a real treat too!

The above picture is what I bought with a small trek to a grocery store and a farmer’s kiosk. The total cost was $18.00 CDN. The largest cost came from the chicken, which is free range. (That means it will actually taste like chicken when you eat it.)

All PETA protests aside, you need to ask yourself what is going into your chicken. There are rumors about four-winged chickens at the Colonel’s hut. You have no control over what they serve you, except to opt out. 

There has been a lot of speculation on what goes into that famous recipe. If you ask an employee, they will tell you everything comes in a mix and a powder. I had a friend who worked at the Colonel’s who can vouch for that.

The following recipe will take a bit of time. It is not something you can just whip up when you get home. You might want to save it for a day when you are all relaxed. (If that even happens now.) I find Sunday is great.

In my neighborhood, the wait at KFC can sometimes be an hour. This dish will take slightly longer, and save your hard earned dollars. Who wants to work extra so you can fill the Colonel’s pockets?

You might miss the interaction with the pimply faced teenager who takes your order with a bored look on his face. If that is the case, invite him over for dinner. You might even make a revolution for his taste buds, and that is always a good thing.

Make sure you have your family near the kitchen when this comes out, so you look like a hero. Their mouths will be watering when the chicken comes out of the oven.  They will probably not even want to wait for the chicken to rest. Slap their hands away and make them wait!

So, let’s start on a picture adventure, and the recipe will follow.

Here we combine the juice and zest of 2 lemons, 2 sprigs of rosemary, 2 cloves of garlic minced, and a 1/4 cup of extra-virgin olive oil. This is the base of the juicy goodness for the outside of the chicken.

Stuff the chicken with the leftover lemon halves, and a couple of carrots. Tie the chicken up nicely. We put the lemon and carrots inside for two reasons: 1) The inside of the chicken will baste in their goodness, and 2) the liquid that escapes will flavor the broth. This will be important later on.

Place the chicken in your roasting pan with the breasts facing up. Don’t worry about the empty space around the bird; we will be filling that later.

This is a lovely acorn squash. It is in season right now, and it looks like it will be nice to eat with this chicken. Don’t let this vegetable intimidate you, though. Cut it in half, and scoop out the seeds.

Cut the squash into wedges. I do this so that we keep the nice shape that nature intended for us. Leave the peel on; all the goodness is there.

Here is an action shot! Place your cut new potatoes, acorn squash, chopped onions, carrots and a cup of water into the pan with the chicken. Place it into a 400°F oven in the middle rack. You will have to cook it for an hour to and hour and a half. Make sure you maintain the water level in the roasting pan by adding water as necessary.

People always ask me, “How long to cook the bird?” My answer is always until it is done. You want the bird to reach 180°F before you take it out of the oven. Here we still have a way to go.

Once your masterpiece has reached the right temperature, pull it out of the roasting pan, place it on your cutting board and cover it with foil. You want to leave it about 15 minutes so the chicken can relax, and the juices can redistribute throughout the chicken. That way it won’t taste like your Aunt’s chicken. (You know, where you all have to pretend the chicken is really nice, although it tastes like sawdust.)

Here is the final plate. I cut up the chicken, and served it with the roasted vegetables from the pan. The little cup holds the broth for dipping with the chicken. If you want, you could slightly thicken the broth, but I feel it is better to leave it in its natural state. Sure beats the Colonel’s pasty gravy!

That’s the recipe in pictures; here is the recipe for you left-brained folk:

Lemon Rosemary Chicken
Servings: 4

• 1 chicken, whole (about 1.5 kg, or 3 lbs)
• 2 lemons, zest and juice
• 2 sprigs rosemary
• 60 mL (1/4 cup) extra-virgin olive oil
• 2 cloves garlic, minced
• to taste kosher salt
• to taste black pepper freshly ground
• 1 medium onion, peeled and chopped
• 3 medium carrots, peeled and sliced thickly
• 1 acorn squash, seeded and cut into wedges
• 10 baby new potatoes, scrubbed 

1. Combine lemon zest, juice, rosemary, salt, pepper, and olive oil together in a large bowl.
2. Stuff chicken with lemon halves,  carrots, onions, rosemary sprigs.
   Truss chicken and coat with lemon rosemary mixture.
3. Place chicken in a roasting pan, with the breasts facing upward.
   Toss vegetables in remaining mixture; place around chicken in roasting pan.
4. Add 250 mL (1 cup) water to the roasting pan, place into 375°F oven.
   Roast for at least 1 hour, replacing water as necessary to maintain a constant level of broth.
5. When chicken is done (a thermometer would read 180°F) pull the chicken out of the oven and place on cutting board.
6. Cover with aluminum foil and allow the chicken to rest for 15 minutes. (This will relax the chicken, allowing the juices to redistribute, and make sure the chicken is tender when you serve it.)
7. Carve up the chicken and serve.
8. The broth can be thickened slightly if you like, or it can be served as is.
9. The carcass can be used for chicken stock — recipe here.

I just got back from the gym.  Last Tuesday I weighed 205, 41 inches around the belly-button/love handles area.  Today (Monday) I was at 202, 40.5 inches. 

Those love handles are stubborn.  I once starved myself down to 165 and still had them, but I was losing muscle.  Not a good combination.

I can pretty much guarantee I’m not losing any muscle mass now and may have increased it a bit, because I was able to lift more weight or do more reps on every machine today compared to my workout on Friday.  Maybe there’s a reason body-builders consume whey protein powders.  I might continue having a protein shake on workout days when I’m done with The Cure.

Tomorrow, I’m going to post another recipe by Jason Sandeman, the Well Done Chef.