Here’s part two of the interview I conducted with Jonathan Bailor, author of The Smarter Science of Slim.

Fat Head: Based on your definitions of SANE and inSANE foods, what are the three worst foods you see people typically consume?

Jonathan:
1. Any beverage with a high concentration of sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (e.g., regular soda)
2. Foods full of processed starch combined with sugar (e.g., cakes, pies, snack cakes, doughnuts, etc.)
3. Foods that are fundamentally sugar or processed starch (e.g., candy, white bread, etc.)

Fat Head: You also state that the quality of food affects our need and ability to burn fat.  I know it’s a complex topic, but as briefly and simply as you can explain it, how does higher-quality food enable us to burn fat more efficiently?

Jonathan: The need to burn fat (distinct from the need to slow down and to burn muscle) means our body has an abundance of nutrition and a shortage of calories. When there’s an abundance of nutrition and a shortage of calories, the body wants to burn fat to fuel itself instead of slowing down and burning muscle.

The ability to burn fat means metabolizing fat for fuel is “easy” given our hormone levels. For example, if we have the hormone insulin circulating in our bloodstream, it is not “easy” for our body to burn fat for fuel. No matter how much we need to burn fat at that point in time, insulin has removed our ability to do so effectively.

High-quality food provides an abundance of nutrition and satisfies us so effectively that we avoid overeating. Additionally, high-quality food creates a hormonal environment that makes it much easier for us to burn fat for fuel. More nutrition plus less overeating and healed hormones enables our body to burn fat rather than slowing down and burning muscle.

Fat Head: The USDA recommends eating nutrient-dense food, but advises against eating red meat.  Isn’t red meat nutrient-dense?

Jonathan: If we divide the nutrition provided in a serving of lean red meat by the calories provided in a serving, we see that lean red meat is nutrient-dense.

Fat Head: Are whole grains nutrient-dense?  Do you ever eat them?

Jonathan: Dividing nutrition per serving by calories per serving, we see that whole grains are less nutrient-dense than non-starchy vegetables, seafood, lean meats, low-fat or fat-free plain Greek yogurt, low-fat or fat-free cottage cheese, citrus fruits, and berries, as well as most nuts and seeds. Therefore, we would be better off eating so much of the aforementioned nutrient-dense foods that we’re too full for less nutrient-dense whole grains. For example, when we’re out to eat, we could easily tell our server, “Please hold the starch and double the vegetables.”

I personally do not eat any whole grains because they do not further my health and fitness goals.

Fat Head: I’ve seen quite a few guidelines on how much protein a person should eat, and they’re all over the place.  According to one expert, I only need about 50 grams of protein per day.  The Protein Power guidelines put me at around 130 grams per day.  According to both you and Tim Ferriss, I should be consuming closer to 200 grams per day.  That’s a lot of protein.  What would be the advantage for me of consuming that much?

Jonathan: Lean sources of protein are very satisfying, positively impact our hormonal balance, are nutrient dense, and are relatively difficult for the body to convert into body fat. Also, we have to eat something, so focusing on protein-rich foods is a great way to satisfy ourselves while ensuring both the need and the ability to burn fat. Put differently, if you didn’t get about a third of your calories from protein, you’d be getting them from foods that are less likely to ensure you have both the need and the ability to burn fat.

Fat Head: You suggest consuming at least 30 grams of protein soon after waking.  I’ve been doing the opposite lately, limiting my meals to lunch and dinner as a form of intermittent fasting, which I presume you’d advise against.  Why should I eat a protein-rich breakfast in the morning if I’m not actually hungry?

Jonathan: Studies show that consuming protein every three to four hours boosts the metabolism (need to burn fat) and creates a hormonal environment more optimized for fat burning (ability to burn fat). I, too, am not hungry when I wake up. As a solution, I’ve found mixing whey protein powder with a big glass of water is a great way to boost the metabolism and help hormones even when hunger isn’t present. I also mix two tablespoons of wheat grass powder into my protein shake to sneak a few servings of non-starchy vegetables in.

Fat Head: How do you feel about intermittent fasting in general?  Do you believe the positive hormonal changes promised by advocates of intermittent fasting do indeed occur?

Jonathan: The research behind The Smarter Science of Slim shows that anytime the body has insufficient nutrition (distinct from insufficient calories), the metabolism slows down (bad), the body burns at least as much muscle as fat (bad), and a hormonal environment is created that will cause fat gain in the long term (bad). However, my research suggests that as long as the body is provided with an abundance of nutrition (including protein and essential fatty acids) insufficient calories could provide a positive result.

Fat Head: The diet you recommend is around one-third protein, one-third carbohydrates from fruits and non-starchy vegetables, and one-third fat.  I haven’t tried to calculate macronutrient percentages lately, but I’m pretty sure my diet is more than 50% fat and probably no more than 15% – 20% carbohydrates.  Is there something wrong with that ratio?   Can you explain why less fat and more carbohydrate would help me lose weight more weight?

Jonathan: As long as you are eating at least ten servings of non-starchy vegetables a day while getting about a third of your daily calories from protein, the rest of your diet could consist of natural fats—ideally, mostly from plants and seafood—without compromising long term health or weight. In other words, studies show that to optimize long-term fat loss and health, we must eat at least ten servings of non-starchy vegetables and approximately a gram of protein per pound of body weight per day (there are exceptions for very heavy individuals). After that, as long as it’s full of water, fiber, and protein, we are good to eat it.

Fat Head: You urge your readers to get their carbohydrates from non-starchy vegetables and low-sugar fruits, and I totally agree with that.  But frankly, I’d find it difficult to consume a third of my calories in the form of, say, green vegetables while simultaneously limiting my fat intake.  For example, I checked the nutrition label on a box of spinach and found that it provides about 90 calories in the form of carbohydrates.  I’ll happily eat that box of spinach, but only if I add at least two tablespoons of butter to the mix, which means I’m already consuming twice as many fat calories as carbohydrate calories, and that’s before I even put any meat on my plate.  So, with that preamble out of the way, here’s the question:  if you’re going to get a third of your calories from non-starchy carbohydrates, how do you make all those piles of vegetables palatable?

Jonathan: Without a doubt, a SANE cookbook is needed, and one is coming this year.

In the meantime, sautéing non-starchy vegetables with a teaspoon of olive oil and various seasonings can make it easy and delicious to consume 3-4 servings of non-starchy vegetables in a sitting. Do this with lunch and dinner, and someone can eat 6-8 servings of non-starchy vegetable with less than a tablespoon of olive oil. Add some non-starchy vegetables to an omelet or scrambled eggs for breakfast and put some sugar snap peas (delicious raw) in a bag to snack on, and it’s relatively easy and tasty to take in more than 12 servings of non-starchy vegetables without consuming over 12 servings of added fat. And that’s what someone would do to achieve excellent health and fitness. If someone’s goals are more moderate, the non-starchy vegetable intake becomes even easier.

Note: The research underlying The Smarter Science of Slim shows that naturally occurring fats found in foods that are rich in water, fiber, and protein are fantastic for fat loss and health. It does, however, recommend we add as little fat to food as possible, as pure fat isn’t rich in water, fiber, or protein.

Fat Head: You cite research in your book to convince readers that despite what we’ve all been told, saturated fat and cholesterol don’t cause heart disease.  But you also recommend consuming egg whites and low-fat or fat-free dairy products.  While producing Fat Head, I was focused mostly on restricting carbohydrates, but I’ve become more of a whole-foods guy in the past couple of years.  Since eggs are a whole food, why should we consume eggs whites instead of whole eggs?  Why consume consume fat-free dairy products instead of full-fat dairy products?

Jonathan: Whole eggs are healthy sources of fats since the majority of eggs’ calories come from fat versus from protein or carbohydrate. I recommend mixing egg whites with whole eggs to even out the ratio of protein and fat. If someone gets sufficient lean protein from other sources and takes in all the non-starchy vegetables necessary to optimize heath and weight, then whole eggs are fine. More simply, if someone eats eggs as a source of fat, whole eggs are fine. If someone eats eggs as a source of protein, he needs to mix egg whites with whole eggs to ensure he is actually eating mostly protein.

The point with the low-fat or fat-free plain Greek yogurt and cottage cheese is similar. If someone eats Greek yogurt and cottage cheese as sources of fat, then the full fat variants are fine. However, if someone uses these foods as sources of protein, she needs to make sure the majority of the associated calories are from protein. Note: Eating reduced fat/low-fat anything is only desirable if the fat is not replaced with sugar. Low-fat food that is chock full of sugar is terrible for health and fat loss.

To be really clear, it’s not about fearing fat. Rather, it’s about maximizing our intake of foods rich in water, fiber, and protein. We should enjoy fat freely, just after focusing first on water, fiber, and protein.

Fat Head: I’ve heard from dozens of readers who lost a lot of weight by cutting sugar and starch, but are now stuck at 20 or 30 pounds heavier than they’d prefer.  What, if anything, can people who reach a plateau do to lower their set-points even more?  What do you tell people who can’t seem to drop that last 20 pounds?

Jonathan: Exercise less—but smarter—as recommended by The Smarter Science of Slim. This type of exercise is specifically designed to work our muscles in a unique manner to trigger a magnitude of “fat-burning hormones” unparalleled via nearly any other exercise technique.

Fat Head: You wrote quite a bit about how hormones drive weight gain in your book.  Once women reach menopause, their bodies undergo hormonal changes that encourage accumulating more body fat.  Is there anything they can do to avoid this hormonally-driven weight gain?

Jonathan: Yes. Eat more and exercise less, but smarter. More specifically, eat so many non-starchy vegetables and so much lean protein that you are too full for starches and sweets. Then exercise your muscles so deeply that it is impossible for you to exercise that way again for about a week.

Fat Head: A couple of other authors who wrote about lowering the body’s set-point claim that we need to engage in aerobic-type exercise for an hour per day.  Do you believe aerobic exercise can lower the body’s set point?  If not, why not?

Jonathan: I did not find any studies that showed aerobic exercise to meaningfully impact the hormones which influence the set-point. Therefore, I do not see how aerobic-type exercise could meaningfully impact the set-point.

Fat Head: You recommend brief, high-intensity exercise instead of jogging or walking on a treadmill.  Why do you believe this kind of exercise is better for weight loss?

Jonathan: What I believe is based on the work of countless brilliant doctors, academicians and researchers all over the world. As I said earlier, biology isn’t a matter of opinion. Consequently, every piece of advice I give is grounded in the research, which has proven that high-force exercise works a specific type of muscle fiber (Type 2b) that triggers a uniquely helpful hormonal response. Think about triggering this hormonal response like trying to move a heavy piece of furniture. You can gently poke at the furniture for one, ten, or even 100 hours, but no quantity of low-force movements will cause you to move the furniture, i.e., the result you want.  Fewer but higher-force movements are how you get the result we want.

Fat Head: There’s a lot of buzz these days about paleo diets and paleo exercise.  I’m sure you’re familiar with the terms, so what do you think of the paleo/primal lifestyle?  Is it healthy?

Jonathan: The eating philosophy I advocate is similar to a paleo type diet, but there are three differences. My understanding of paleo diets is that no/very little legumes or dairy are permitted and fatty meats are encouraged. (My apologies if I am mistaken.) My research shows there are high-quality legumes and a few high-quality dairy products, and that these high-quality foods are both healthy and helpful for fat loss. It also shows that the best sources of fat are plants—nuts and seeds—and seafood. Therefore, if you are looking for the highest quality protein combined with the highest quality fat and given the choice between a fatty cut of meat and a lean cut of meat plus a handful or two of nuts, The Smarter Science of Slim recommends the latter.

Fat Head: How would what you recommend differ from the advice people receive from paleo/primal advocates like Mark Sisson and Robb Wolf?

Jonathan: It’s going to be more similar than it is going to be different. I mentioned the three dietary differences above.

When it comes to exercise, I agree with Mr. Sisson and Mr. Wolf on the “less but higher-quality” angle. However, my research takes this concept one step further and provides a specific type of exercise that can be done at home without any equipment and ensures the highest-quality exercise possible while minimizing impact on joints and ligaments. To my knowledge, the specific type of exercise recommended by The Smarter Science of Slim is not part of the paleo/primal regime…although I suspect Mr. Sisson and Mr. Wolf would not be opposed to it, as they are both scientifically minded individuals.

Fat Head: You don’t have recipes or meal plans in The Smarter Science of Slim, so explain what a typical day’s meals look like for you or someone following your recommendations.

Jonathan: Recipes and meal plans are coming. In the meantime, SANE meals are going to be similar to paleo meals but focus on getting fat from plants and seafood rather than fatty meats and can include high-protein, low-sugar, and low-fat dairy as well as legumes. At the end of the day, it’s about each individual’s tastes and goals because The Smarter Science of Slim is not a set of ridged laws, but a body of knowledge that enables people to most effectively accomplish their particular health and fitness aspirations.

Thank you, Jonathan.

I regularly receive emails and comments asking where to find good low-carb recipes.  I always mention that I like the cookbooks by Dana Carpender and Judy Barnes Baker the best.  We use them all the time.  (Judy’s moussaka recipe is one of my all-time favorites.)

So I was pleased to receive a copy of Judy Barnes Baker’s newest cookbook Nourished: a Cookbook for Health, Weight Loss and Metabolic Balance earlier this week.  For those of you who don’t know, this is the cookbook Judy originally pitched to the American Diabetes Association.  For awhile, they were on board … then backed out.  Can’t say I’m surprised.  They just can’t admit their dietary advice is wrong.

The book includes an opening section that explains the science of why low-carb diets are the best choice (especially for diabetics) with short chapters written by Dr. Mary Vernon, Jacqueline Eberstein (who worked with Dr. Atkins for decades as his nurse) and Dr. Richard Feinman.

But you already know that stuff.  You’ll want this book for the recipes.  Here are just a few examples of the hundreds you’ll find in the book:

• Corned Beef Hash with Poached Eggs
• Peanut and Chicken Soup
• Creole Gumbo
• Strawberry Rhubarb Parfait
• Sautéed Cabbage
• Barbecued Ribs
• Herb Roasted Olives

If you think a low-carb diet is boring, it just means you don’t have enough good recipes on hand.

To celebrate the release of the book, Judy is running a prize-giveaway contest on her Carb Wars blog.  Here’s the link.

Herb Roasted Olives … mmmm…

I’m starting to wonder if the editors of medical journals schedule a yearly Meat Causes Cancer! issue …something like their own equivalent of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue.

Our cover model this year is pancreatic cancer, folks — and as you can see, she’s a hot little topic!  We don’t want to start any rumors, but we have it on good authority she’s often seen in the company of some beefy hunks.

The hot little topic made a splash in the media last week, with headlines and opening paragraphs like these:

Bacon eaters warned of cancer risk

Eating two rashers of bacon or one sausage a day can increase the risk of a deadly form of cancer by almost a fifth, according to a new study.  New research by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm has found that eating 50g of processed meat a day can increase the risk of pancreatic cancer by 19%.

Processed Meat Could Raise Pancreatic Cancer Risk

Some possible bad news for all the bacon lovers out there.

A new review in the British Journal of Cancer suggests a link between processed meats — like bacon and sausages — and an increased pancreatic cancer risk. In particular, eating an extra 50 grams a day of processed meat — or about a sausage — is enough to raise pancreatic cancer risk by 19 percent, BBC News reported, while an extra 100 grams of processed meat a day could raise the cancer risk by 38 percent.

“The authors of this study have suggested that one of the reasons could be that some of the chemicals that are used to preserve processed meat are turned in our bodies into some really harmful chemicals which can affect our DNA and increase the chance of cancer,” Jessica Harris, health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told Sky News.

Holy jumpin’ jiminy!  A 19% increase in risk – that’s almost a fifth!  Better drop that bacon right now, Mister.  You don’t want to mutate your DNA and roll the dice with a 19% increase in the odds you’ll die of pancreatic cancer.

I tracked down the full study, and it was pretty much what I expected:  a meta-analysis of several other studies, all of them based on food-recall surveys.  So let’s put on our Science For Smart People hats (mine is cone-shaped; you can choose your own) and ask some critical-thinking questions:

Q: Was this an observational study or a clinical study?

A:  It was a meta-analysis of 11 observational studies, the kind where the researchers pool the data and crunch the numbers.

Q:  Did the researchers control the variables?

A:  No, because they couldn’t.  They were dealing with data published by other researchers who may or may not have done a good job controlling their variables.  As the authors of the current study noted:

Our study has some limitations. First, as a meta-analysis of observational studies, we cannot rule out that individual studies may have failed to control for potential confounders, which may introduce bias in an unpredictable direction. All studies controlled for age and smoking, but only a few studies adjusted for other potential confounders such as body mass index and history of diabetes. Another limitation is that our findings were likely to be affected by imprecise measurement of red and processed meat consumption and potential confounders.

Let me put that into plain English:  Our findings are meaningless. The studies we analyzed were based on food-recall surveys that are notoriously inaccurate, and most of them didn’t control for body mass index or diabetes, which essentially means they didn’t control for intake of sugars and refined carbohydrates.

Okay, folks, move along; nothing here to see.

…

What, you’re still here?  Then we may as well continue.

Q:  If A is linked to B, is it possible that they’re both caused by C?

A:  Yes, of course it’s possible.  As the researchers noted above, “All studies controlled for age and smoking, but only a few studies adjusted for other potential confounders.”  Since processed meats are often served with a big wallop of refined carbohydrates – pizza, burritos, deli sandwiches, etc. – it’s entirely possible that people who consume more processed meats have higher rates of pancreatic cancer (if that’s even the case) because they also consume more white flour.

Q:  If A is linked to B, do we see that connection consistently, or are there glaring exceptions?

A:  We can answer that question by looking at the charts from the full study.  This one shows the change in the relative risk of developing pancreatic cancer from consuming an additional 120 grams of red meat per day:

A relative risk of 1.0 is neutral – no change in risk.  Below 1.0 means lower relative risk and above 1.0 means higher relative risk.  The horizontal bars represent the range of values that fell within the “confidence interval,” the black squares represent the average relative risk for each study, and the white diamond in the last row represents the overall average obtained by pooling data from all the studies.

The first thing that jumped out at me is that in four of the 13 studies analyzed, the relative risk of developing pancreatic cancer was lower for the people who (supposedly) eat a lot of red meat.  I wouldn’t call that a consistent result.  If some studies show higher risk and some studies show lower risk, I’d conclude that we’re looking at the wrong variables.

But through the magic of statistical analysis, the researchers pooled the results (from studies that often failed to control the variables) and declared that consuming 120 grams of red meat per day raises your risk of developing pancreatic cancer by 13%.

Now here’s the change in relative risk from consuming an additional 50 grams of processed meat per day:

Nine studies, and in three of them the relative risk of developing pancreatic cancer was lower for people who consumed more processed meat.  Once again, that’s hardly a consistent result, but the researchers pooled the data in order to declare that processed meat raises your risk of pancreatic cancer by 19% — which leads to our final question.

Q:  What was the actual difference?

A:  Almost nothing.  That’s the short answer.  Now for the longer answer:

Scientists like to cite relative risk instead of absolute risk because relative risk sounds far more impressive.  Suppose that when I lived in sunny California, my odds of being struck by lightning were 1 in a million.  But now that I live in Tennessee, suppose the odds are 1.5 in a million.  That’s a 50% increase in relative risk … but a meaningless increase in absolute risk.  The actual difference — the change in absolute risk –  is 0.5 in a million.

According to the National Cancer Institute, the age-adjusted annual incidence rate of pancreatic cancer is 13.6 per 100,00 men and 10.3 per 100,00 women.  We’ll split the difference and call it 12.15 per 100,000 people.  Expressed as a percentage, here are the odds that you’ll be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year:

0.0122%

Just barely over one-hundredth of one percent.  Now … let’s set aside the fact that this meta-analysis was 1) based on observational studies that 2) used unreliable food-recall surveys and 3) produced inconsistent results.  Suppose we choose to believe that processed meat really and truly causes pancreatic cancer at the increased rate found by pooling all that data, but we keep on eating our bacon anyway.  Here are the odds, expressed as a percentage, that we bacon-eaters will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year:

0.0145%

And here’s the actual difference between those two numbers:

0.0023%

Well, maybe you’d prefer to deal with lifetime odds instead of annual odds.  Okay, fine.  According the National Cancer Institute, the lifetime odds of developing pancreatic cancer in the U.S. are 1.45%.  If eating 50 grams per day of bacon or other processed meat really and truly (and all by itself) raised the rate by 19%, your lifetime odds would be 1.70%.

Here’s the actual difference between those two numbers:

0.25%

Enjoy your bacon.

The first time we made this spinach dish, the girls snapped up their portions and then were outraged to learn they couldn’t have seconds — it was all gone.  So now we make it with two boxes of spinach.

Ingredients:

• 2 ten-ounce boxes of frozen spinach
• 4 TB (half a stick) of butter
• 1/2 tsp garlic powder
• 1/4 tsp nutmeg
• 1/4 cup parmesan cheese
• 1/4 cup sour cream
• Salt to taste

Steps:

Microwave the spinach for 10 minutes, then press out most of the liquid.

Put drained spinach in a dish and stir in the butter, then stir in the parmesan so it melts.

Stir in the remaining ingredients.

Adjust the spices to taste.  Sometimes I use a little garlic salt in place of some of the garlic powder, but you can always add salt later.  I also like extra nutmeg now and then.

Enjoy.

Dr. Robert Su posted the last of the listener-roundtable discussions that included me.  Joining us for this podcast is Drew Kime, a frequent commenter on this blog and also a blogger himself … his blog How to Cook Like Your Grandmother is dedicated to teaching people to cook real food, and his other blog Willpower Is For Fat People is dedicated to the art and science of low-carb.

You can listen to the episode here.

Here’s part one of my interview with Jonathan Bailor, author of The Smarter Science of Slim.

Fat Head: Let’s start with the obvious question:  what inspired you to write The Smarter Science of Slim?  With all the diet books already out there, what new information did you hope to provide?

Jonathan: I’ve always been interested in science and technical topics, and as little kid, I wanted to emulate my older brother. He was heavy into athletics and working out, and so I naturally did the same. At first, I took a traditional path to health and fitness but also read all I could in popular literature because it interested me. In fact, I got so involved in health and fitness that I became a personal trainer.

Shortly after I started working with clients, I realized how ineffective traditional approaches to health and fitness were. For example, I’d work with a client for a few weeks and she’d drop a few pounds by following a traditional “eat less, exercise more” approach. But a few weeks later, that client would inevitably report how the pounds came right back. I tried all sorts of different techniques to make eating less and exercising more practical, but the results were the same:  clients would lose weight, only to find themselves heavier a few months later. This caused me to re-think what success means in terms of weight loss and health, and I realized success is not defined by short-term weight loss. Instead, it is long-term fat loss and improved health. Also, I didn’t derive much satisfaction from asking clients to feel hungry, tired, deprived, and time-crunched for the rest of their lives.

Something had to change, and I was determined to find out what that change could look like. Building on my interest in science, I started reading all the academic research on health and fitness I could find. I didn’t plan to spend a decade studying this topic; it’s just something that deeply interests me.

Immediately, I was startled by the sharp contrast between what researchers had proven about how to burn fat and boost health in the long term and what I was taught by popular literature and as a personal trainer. At that point, I was determined to get to the bottom of the disconnect between traditional assumptions regarding weight loss, diet and exercise and what scientific research had proven.

The goal of The Smarter Science of Slim is to use scientifically proven facts to show how anyone can lose fat and boost health in the long term. There aren’t many people who are going to read thousands of pages of academic research to achieve this, and I saw a great opportunity to distill what I had learned into an easy-to-read manual anyone can understand and apply.

Fat Head: A lot of so-called experts have tried to dismiss Gary Taubes as “just a journalist.”  Are you worried at all about being dismissed as “just an independent researcher”?

Jonathan: I can see how that could be a concern, but The Smarter Science of Slim has little to do with me because it is a compilation of research conducted by the scientific and academic communities’ most brilliant minds. While I’m sure some people will dismiss me because I don’t have M.D. or PhD after my name, it would seem odd for them to dismiss academically and scientifically robust research conducted by experts at The Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, The Mayo Clinic, and hundreds of other top institutions worldwide. “Biology isn’t a matter of opinion” is one of my favorite phrases. And just as it would be puzzling to try to discredit 1 + 1 = 2, the worldwide scientific community has shown it would be puzzling to try to discredit starch + body = a lot of insulin production or non-starchy vegetables + body = improved health.

Fat Head: How did you conduct your research for the book?

Jonathan: I studied more than 1,100 academic journal articles and had numerous follow-up correspondences (phone and email) with the articles’ M.D. and PhD authors. All told, it took me about 10 years to complete. I probably could have done it in less time, but I have been working full-time at Microsoft for the majority of this period.

Fat Head: You did a nice job of taking some complex science and explaining it clearly and simply, which is always a big plus for me when I’m recommending a book.  Was that difficult, or is that just how you think?  Did you ever find yourself rewriting the same paragraph dozens of times, trying to come up with a simpler explanation?

Jonathan: Oh my gosh, yes! I have a folder on my computer that contains hundreds of megabytes of Smarter Science of Slim drafts, outlines, notes, and graphics. That’s a lot of Word documents.

My editors Hillel Black, John Paine, and Mary Rose Bailor (my English professor mother) helped me strip the jargon from the science and re-explain it as concisely and simply as possible. This was a daunting task, but I’m fortunate in that taking complex information and simplifying it is what I do at Microsoft. Every day of my professional life, I collaborate with the most technical people at Microsoft and then simplify their complex technological concepts so they are useful to a non-technical audience. My experience at Microsoft was extremely influential in developing The Smarter Science of Slim, and I feel fortunate to work at such a fantastic place. The Smarter Science of Slim is really just an extension of what I do every day. The only difference is I’m simplifying biology rather than technology.

Fat Head: How did you become so interested in the topic of weight loss?  Have you ever been a fat guy who needed to lose weight?

Jonathan: I’ve always been interested in how people can improve how they look and feel though food and exercise. Chalk that one up to wanting to emulate my athletic older brother combined with my innate interest in science.

My personal situation was weighing too little rather than too much. I was the scrawny guy getting sand kicked in his face at the end of the comic book. This circumstance was instrumental in inspiring me to conduct the research that lead to The Smarter Science of Slim. I’ve since learned that I—and millions of other fortunate people—can eat and eat and eat and not gain fat because:

1. Burning fat is about more than just the quantity of food we eat and the quantity exercise we get
2. The human body is capable of burning fat, automatically, long-term.

As I progressed in my research, two questions drove me:

1. What are the key factors that affect fat gain and fat loss?
2. Is there a way for everyone to make their metabolisms work more like the metabolisms of naturally thin people?

As it turns out, researchers have answered both of these questions. These answers are described in detail in The Smarter Science of Slim.

Fat Head: One of the main points you make in The Smarter Science of Slim is that it’s highly unlikely we’ll lose weight and keep it off without first changing our set-points.  We know the body fights to maintain some of its fat mass –  much more for some than for others –  but does anyone really know exactly what a set-point is?  That is, do we know why our bodies are so determined to remain fatter than we’d like to be that they’ll burn away muscle instead of burning more body fat?

Jonathan: The simplest answer is that the set-point is an abstraction of our neural wiring and the balance of hormones in our body. The former is genetic, while the latter can be influenced by the quality (not the quantity) of our eating and exercise. The body uses this neural wiring and balance of hormones to:

• regulate how many calories it demands
• regulate how many calories it burns off
• determine how it deals with excess calories
• determine how it fuels itself when no calories are available from food

Researchers D.S. Weigle from the University of Washington, T. Kelesidis from UCLA and Harvard,  P.J. Havel from the University of California, R.E. Keesey from the University of Wisconsin, and many others have done extensive research around the set-point.

While one part of our set-point is determined before we are born, the other part is a function of what we eat and how we exercise. Changing the set-point is about food and exercise quality… it has nothing to do with simply eating less of our existing diet and doing more of traditional exercise. This is why so many hard-working people struggle with weight loss: they’ve been given a quantity-based solution (eat less, exercise more) to a quality-based problem. It’s a bit like trying to cure allergies by breathing less air in and breathing more air out.

Here’s a paraphrased excerpt of the book that may help here:

…Think about trying to remove fat from a hormonally “clogged” body like trying to drain water from a clogged sink. Eating less is like turning down the faucet. Exercising more is like scooping out the overflowing water. Both are temporary ways to deal with the symptoms of the problem. Neither does anything about the root cause. That is why they both fail long term.

The problem is the clog. The solution is clearing the clog. And clearing the clog requires thinking in terms of quality, not quantity.

Fiddling with the quantity of food we eat and the quantity of exercise we get will never clear our hormonal clog. Quality—low-quality food and low-quality exercise—is the cause of the backup. A sink does not get clogged by putting too much water into it. It gets clogged when we put the wrong stuff into it. Our body works the same way…

Fat Head: A lot of dieters who semi-starved themselves found to their great dismay that they lost weight, then gained it all back, then gained more, then had an even more difficult time losing weight.  Do you believe the severe calorie restriction raised their set-points?  If so, why?  What biochemical or hormonal changes occurred?

Jonathan: My research did not specifically cover whether severe caloric restriction raises the set point. However, it did show that depriving our bodies of nutrition (which is distinct from depriving our bodies of calories) does the following:

1. Dramatically slows down the metabolism
2 .Burns at least as much muscle as fat
3. Creates an environment that causes the body to gain more body fat than it burned as soon as possible. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation”

Item three in the list above suggests a change in the set-point. But that’s as far as I’ve found researchers take it.

The simple version of what biochemical or hormonal changes occurred is that the body is designed to prevent us from starving. If we starve ourselves, i.e., provide the body with insufficient nutrition, the body will do all it can to slow down the metabolism and burn calorie-hungry muscle before it burns body fat. Then it will predispose us to storing more fat to protect us from future starvation.

Fat Head: Some people – especially those who’ve never been fat – see obese people eating a lot and assume they’re just being gluttons.  I believe people eat when they’re hungry.  Are obese people hungrier than thin people who eat less, and if so, why?

Jonathan: Most people store excess body fat because they are experiencing what researchers call “metabolic dysregulation.” (I call this “a clog in the metabolism.”) Their hormonal balance has been compromised in such a way that their body is unable to effectively metabolize food, which causes them to over-consume food just to nourish themselves. Researchers call this condition “internal starvation.”  Here’s an excerpt from The Smarter Science of Slim that explains this process:

…Once most of the calories we eat are being stored in fat cells because insulin cannot get them into other cells, internal starvation has set in. We eat plenty of food but starve on the inside because insulin cannot effectively get that energy into any cells other than our fat cells. With excess insulin shuttling most calories into fat tissue and eliminating our ability to burn body fat, the fat metabolism system has no choice but to slow down, burn muscle tissue, and demand more food. It does what it always does when it senses starvation.

Consider Terri. She is internally starving and needs 500 calories of energy. Terri is also a yo-yo dieter and has already slowed down her metabolism and burned as much muscle as she can. Needing some calories, Terri eats 500 calories. Instead of those 500 calories getting into the cells needing it, only 250 make it in while the other 250 are ignored—thanks to insulin resistance—and stored as new body fat. Terri still needs 250 calories. She cannot slow down anymore. She cannot burn any more muscle. And thanks to all the excess insulin floating around, she does not have the ability to burn body fat. What is her only option? Overeat. Specifically, eat 250 extra calories.

So Terri snacks on 250 extra calories to keep her cells from starving. But now only a fraction of the 250 make it to the cells needing it while the rest is stored as body fat. Again, she must overeat even more. This process of overeating to keep a clogged fat metabolism system running repeats itself until Terri eats 1,000 calories to meet her need for 500 calories. Terri’s fat metabolism system is leaking calories into her fat cells and has to compensate by taking in extra calories.

Continue this “overeat to compensate for [her hormonal clog]” cycle day after day and Terri gains body fat. And on the surface it looks like she is gaining body fat because she is eating too many calories. But eating too many calories is not the cause of her new body fat. It is a symptom of a deeper problem: her hormonal clog. Terri’s high consumption of calories is not the cause of her weight gain. It is a symptom of the hormonal clog caused by low-quality calories…

Fat Head: You make the point several times that when we eat quality food, we’re less likely to overeat.  Why is that?  How does the quality of food affect our appetites?

Jonathan: Studies show that the satiety of food—how quickly it satisfies us and how long it keeps us satisfied—is a function of three primary factors:

1. How much do the calories we are eating stretch our digestive organs (our stomach, etc.)?
2. How much do the calories we are eating impact our hormone levels in the short term?
3. How much do the calories we are eating impact our hormone levels in the long term?

Researchers have proven that the more water, fiber, and protein in a food, the more it stretches our digestive organs and triggers a short-term and long-term hormonal response causing us to feel full.

Note: Natural fats also play an important role in triggering this hormonal response. However, my research shows our primary focus should be on eating more foods that contain a lot of water, fiber, and protein. If those foods naturally contain fat, that’s totally fine.

Thank you, Jonathan.  I’ll post part two of our interview next week.