Food Unwrapped

I've not been following the 'Food Unwrapped' series, but I did catch this episode (series 4, episode3), featuring black pudding.

• One of Jimmy's old favourites is black pudding. He learns about the amazing properties of blood and discovers how it's becoming trendy in gastronomy. Could desserts like pavlova be made from no-egg blood meringues?

I am a big fan of black pudding but what I found rather inspiring is the news that blood can be used as a substitute for egg!  The possibilities are endless (and distinctly 'faleo', but damn, if you are going to eat junk, what a way to do it).

Make My Body Younger

We are going through a TV revolution here in the UK. Hot on the heels of a decade of gardening, DIY and property-centric programming we are now in the age of Diet/Exercise Docu-drama (DEaD) programming. These televisual feasts are fueling the airways in the UK and like a carb-oholic faced with a plate of hot chips, fresh toast, pasta and a side order of pastries, the viewing public seem to be lapping it up.

With an increasing number of fat and fattening members of the general public in the UK, it makes sense to target this demographic. It is both a growing population, and a GROWING population (you read it right first time).

First things first; as with just about every other DEaD program, do not expect anything that will work long term. In fact, we could reduce all these programs down to four words;

Eat more, do less.

Tonight's offering on BBC3 was called "Make My Body Younger". Now before I go on to criticise much of the advice given on this program, I want to give you the brief of how the suits at the Beeb must have decided to pull this show together.

The Pitch

Gustav: "Charles, we need a new show to fill the airtime on BBC3! We cant tamper with BBC1, BBC2 is stuck together by anything involving Jeremy Clarkson - so we can't dilute it with re-runs, and besides we have sold all the repeat rights for "Top Gear" to 'Dave', and BBC4 is turning in to a general crock of shite. Your budget is zero. Hit me."

Charles: (Clearly crapping himself because decent public service broadcasting involves making BRAVE programs that challenge conventional wisdom); "Erm we could do a diet program....erm, but not any old diet program, this one is erm.......erm ..it has young doctors - men and women that you'd want to shag, and erm, patients that are young - and who you'd want to shag.....erm and the doctors are dressed like the cast of The OC or Lost (during their flashbacks)..one of the doctors has an Audi A3."

Gustav: "My God Charles, you're a genius. We appeal to youth, with youth, attack Mad-dog McKeith's audience and draw in the fat-bastard demographic, whilst simultaneously appearing to be tackling a serious issue, following real people - all for the cost of a £20k car, some good haircuts and a wardrobe from Top Shop. Let's do it!"

So there you have it. Another DEaD program which, in case I didn't say it before, boils down to;

Eat more, do less.

Tonight's Episode

So let us not beat around the bush. I am a heterosexual married man with two kids. However, within minutes of seeing this program I wanted to shag all the doctors - male or female - it doesn't matter - and in any order, nick their clothes (those of the men only - I mean what are you thinking, that I am some kind of pervert or something?) and run off with the keys to the Audi A3. Erm, well actually I would only run as far as the Audi A3, then I would get in it and drive. In fact, if they didn't mind that I had just shagged them and nicked their clothes, the doctors could actually come with me in the car and we could all be friends - I mean THAT IS HOW COOL THEY ALL WERE!

As for the subject of this program, the delightful Amy, we find that her life was turned around '360 degrees' (Dr James said so). And just in case we didn't catch it, at the end of the program Amy reiterated the fact that her life had been turned around '360 degrees'. Now thank God Dr James is a doctor and not a mathematician - although if he was ever faced with an operation to resolve inverted sternum the result might be interesting (that would make a bloody good program in itself - the final scene of which could involve a close up of the parents face as they realise little Timmy's sternum had been inverted back to its original position).

We get to see Amy meeting up with Dr James and she is wearing a low-cut pink top - a scene from which, if you only saw a still, you'd swear was from some kind of romantic fly-on-the-wall dating show. The suave Dr James smiled seductively (and damn is hair/clothes/teeth looked good), whilst Amy leaned forwards forcing her boobs in to his face. Jeez, I am no psychologist but I could tell that he was fighting the urge to look down - I'd say they had to re-shoot and edit that section several times - the out-takes from that bit alone should be worth their own show!

I digress.

So what did Amy get out of it?

Well, she ate more fruit and veg, she cut back on the sugar and fat and took up wholemeal this that and the other. She also found exercise - long, arduous, boring and repetitive exercise like treadmill work and spinning. That certainly sounds like a life turned 360 degrees - changing one piss-poor lifestyle based on poor nutrition and no exercise for another piss-poor lifestyle based on poor nutrition and piss poor exercise. YOUR FACING THE SAME WAY AMY!

Note to all: If you want to turn your life around, turn it around 180 degress, and no more!

So what didn't Amy get out of it?

She didn't get out of this program and way of eating that would tame her HUNGER. She didn't get our of this program a way of exercising that embraces novelty and sustains interest.

So what won't Amy get out of it?

Amy has rules. The rules are based upon limitation and denial. The model is premised on hunger. She is encouraged to eat food with a poor satiating quality. She is encouraged to eat food which will compel her to eat MORE (refined carbohydrate). She is encouraged to eat less. On top of all that, Amy is encouraged to perform activities that will make her hungry.

If we follow the Paleo model, we get a concept from which we can generalise. The generalisations give us reasonable rules by which to live and conduct ourselves. So unlike a rule that says "drink five glasses of water a day" - something that sets up a condition of failure, a Paleo approach reaches deeper, and advises us to simply "respond to your thirst". Thus you understand that thirst is simply feedback - there is no failure.

Similarly, if you feel you are suffering from bloating or eating too much fruit (yes it CAN be done), follow the paleo model. In this case, you just need to eat seasonal fruits. You see how easy that is? You answer a technical question such as 'am I eating too much fruit' not from having dietary knowledge or gardening wisdom, nor from rules based on hte consupmtion of 'x number of fruits a day', but from a simple philosophy based upon a model from which you can generalise and get a ball park answer to your problem.

Feeling your bicep curls aren't working as an exercise? Bored with your gym routine? Well climb a tree - hoist your body up in to the branches, climb up 20ft and then climb down. Repeat a few times - and imagine a tiger is after you. Think like a paleo guy and act like a paleo guy.

Hell, I am not sure what paleo-guy REALLY did think, eat or do, but I know he didn't eat 14 bananas and work on two sessions of 5x5 dead curls a week.

Follow Up

For all these DEaD programs, I'd like to see a follow-up program one, two, three and five years down the line. That would be a real TV-treat. It is a win/win for the production companies as well.

Invariably, even after 5 years, at best most of the subjects of these shows will have maintained their weight. They'll still be fucking fat. Most will be fatter. The doctors (undoubtedly fatter themselves), could then mock their subjects and criticise them for their lack of self control. We could then go through the whole cycle again.

As an approach to nutritional health, the premise of 'eat more, do less', as most of us know, is dead. Don't believe me? Then ask the next fat person you see a) have they ever been on a diet? and b) have they tried to exercise to lose weight? The answers to both will be "yes"!

Let us just step back and think about that for a minute. The fat person you have asked will have tried to 'diet' (and I use 'diet' in its conventional sense), and exercise to lose weight.

Stoopid DEaD TV

What annoys me about this program is that I am sooooo willing to bet that these TV doctors were selected due to their media-friendly appearance rather than for their knowledge or belief in the advice they give. I would go so far as to say that the 'doctor' status is a 'badge' - I mean I am sure they ARE doctors but that they do not drive the program's agenda.

The credits showed some additional medical advisers/consultants involved with the program and I suspect that these are the real architects of the show and who the Beeb would claim 'have little desire to appear in front of the camera', but who I reckon are simply too frickin' ugly to appeal to the wider demographic (hey, their target audience are fat, NOT blind). In fact, I'll bet that these advisers are actually overweight themselves!

TV should be accessible and there are important messages to get across. It is great that we no longer have doctors in white coats stirring test tubes of foaming liquid, or wearing a stethoscope, castigating us for our unhealthy way of life in some plummy English accent, but sexing up TV based upon such dire advice as 'eat more, do less' is no way to tackle a real health time-bomb.

Missing the Point

I was going to leave the issue of appetite alone for a while. Readers of this blog will know that appetite is a recurring theme. I have hit it from several angles over the past few months and by now you should be convinced (or at least have considered), that no amount of calorie restriction is going to get you thin - or keep you thin - if it leaves your appetite unfulfilled. 'Traditional' calorie restriction i.e. the type that does not satisfy your appetite, will eventually result in a lack of energy, fatigue and general unhappiness. It will also affect body composition for the worse.

Hunger, like thirst, is a highly evolved mechanism to signal a requisite action. There is little performance hit when these signals first manifest, but a failure to address either will eventually lead to physical and mental impairment.

There is too little focus on either the precision of these mechanism or how they can go awry. Both scientific research and politicians focus on issues 'downstream' of appetite, which, whilst having obvious value, will do little to resolve the problem of obesity.

Leadership

It is the scientific community and politicians who have the power to resolve the problem of obesity in the community - but don't hold your breath. Today I read with real dismay a speech by Alan Johnson (Labour MP for West Hull and Hessle) addressed to the Fabian Society. In it he came out with the classic line "Obesity is the product of a simple imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure".

On the face of it this sounds reasonable. Sadly it is rubbish! Of course, broadly speaking, if we eat more energy than we burn off, then the body will accumulate fat. But what this line of thinking does not address is 'how is it that we can repeatedly eat more calories than we need to sustain ourselves?'.

I mean, if we eat 'more than we need' at breakfast, why doesn't our appetite adjust so that we eat less at lunchtime? It sounds a reasonable proposition doesn't it?

The problem with Johnson's thinking (and it isn't just him, it is endemic throughout the political system, scientific population and general public), is that if you take this logic to its natural conclusion, it makes little sense. So, for example, if we eat 'more than we need' at breakfast, then according to Johnson's logic, even though we have a surplus of energy from breakfast, we may then go on to eat 'more than we need' at lunch, and then we may then go on to eat 'more than we need' at teatime, day in and day out.

When you read it like that - successive over eating sounds frankly odd, and the mere thought gives me stomach ache. It just makes NO sense that we could persist on such a cycle.

Now let us revisit this scenario as I see it. If we eat 'more than we need' at breakfast, our bodies will adjust such that hunger will manifest at a later period than normal - so, we have a late lunch. Or, if we chose to eat at the same time, our appetite is reduced and we eat a smaller lunch. That sounds much more plausible doesn't it?

The Johnson model allows us to eat ourselves in to poor health and a state of immobility. The Asclepius model dovetails in to other evolutionary mechanism - two million years in the making and refining - such as thirst.

Johnson's understanding of overeating makes no more sense than over-drinking (exceptionally rare). What's more, his idea ignores concepts of hunger and appetite.

Heating

You could draw any number of further analogies. If you fill a car with petrol, well filling the tank up to the top means you can drive further before the petrol light (hunger) illuminates. Less petrol means the petrol-warning light comes on earlier. If you get to the next petrol station without the petrol light going on, you will have to put less petrol in. It is an idea so simple it maddens me that it is missed.

Alternatively, think of your body's heating system. If you get too cold, your body starts to shiver. If you get too hot you sweat. Your body tries to adjust to maintain homeostasis within a particular range.

Sweating occurs for a given internal temperature that is affected by external heat (climate/weather, clothing, a fire) and internal heat (physical activity). But without changing these factors, you cannot simply chose to 'push' more sweat out.

If you do expose yourself to more heat (such as putting on more clothing), you would not expect your body to shiver. Or, if cold, you would not try to get your body to sweat. Basically , you would not fight these natural mechanisms. You trust that your body will sweat/shiver appropriately as required to sustain your internal temperature within a range.

You have no direct control over these mechanism and would certainly not really want to battle them. So why give advice to battle hunger and appetite?

Politics

Politicians are elected to make key decisions about how our society is run. There are a few ticking time bombs out there for them to tackle - the aging population, an increasingly obese population and more importantly the mixture of the two, which will have serious socio-economic implications within the next decade or so.

Politicians need to drive at the root of the problem, but instead seem content to offer weak platitudes (eat less, do more), and throw money at treating sickness rather than preventing its cause. That money comes from tax - but you can only tax a population so far - beyond that, the whole economic model breaks. We are reaching breaking point.

Sadly few seem able to look with fresh eyes at the problem of chronic (Western) disease, obesity and the consequence of trapping people in an infirm state.

People have a right to a dignified old age. Pepole should have health for most of their lives. Sickness should be occasional, NOT chronic. Terminal illness should bring a swift death, but a terminal illness should come after a long life.

Diet is stripping people of the chance of a long and healthy life, and medicine ensures they live long enough to suffer.

Another Appetite Rant

I was thinking about that old piece of nutritional advice:

Calories In = Calories Out.

This is the standard advice that is fed (pun intended) to us to explain obesity. The idea is that if you are obese then it MUST be because you 'stuff your fat face'. Such an argument can be addressed in a single word. Appetite.

Why Can't We Trust Our Appetite?

This is a theme I keep coming back to. Time and again in clinical trials, epidemiological trials and the like effort is expended on how much we eat and what we eat. To me this misses the point. We have evolved as a highly developed and successful species over the past two million years. We can eat a range of food, and inhabit a range of habitats. We are dynamic.
Our energy expenditure varies with respect to the habitat we are in and in the effort required to obtain new energy (food).

Habitat

Now think about our habitat - and lets look at one variable such as temperature. We use energy to keep warm in cold environments. Cold can come from long term environmental factors lasting decades, habitation variation (living at extreme latitudes such as near the poles), seasonal variance (which in itself can more noticeable at, say, altitude), or simply the transition from day to night. Jumping in to cold water on a warm day elicits a similar effect. Clearly we have to develop a dynamic response to temperature changes. These changes can be long term (climatic) or very short term (a jump in to a mountain stream). When cold, we shiver. this is the body trying to make us move as movement generates heat.

This movement takes energy. Given variety of sources from which we can experience 'cold' our bodies need to adapt to short term and long term changes in energy requirements.

Food Sources

When considering food sources, from an evolutionary point of view you have to realise you are 'a meal looking for a meal'! Just as you would love to trap a bear and end the day snuggling down with a new bear-fur loin cloth and matching bear fur duvet, there were (and in some countries still are), myriad other predators who view you as a potential 'low-carb' snack.

In a savannah type environment you would need speed. In fact, did you ever wonder why you freeze when in front of an audience? Well, imagine you are on the savannah and there were lots of eyes on you....not a problem unless they were the eyes of a pride of lions. If you keep still then you have a chance that they will not spot you (although they might still smell you), but if they get too close or start to circle you then a burst of speed, jinking from side to side and then climbing a tree, might well offer the greatest chance of escape.

Now if it is you and your tribe doing the hunting, you will use your creativity and ingenuity to kill game. You may come up with an elaborate trap involving a trip wire or snare (classic problem solving). You may chose to use the brute strength of the exhaustion hunt (which, far from involving marathon style steady state exercise, often involved a variety of speeds, dictated by the difficulty of the obstacles in the terrain around you). If you are tracking animals you will draw upon a wealth of knowledge and experience. Memory function will be tested as will visualisation. You have to remember the route back to camp and, as the game is dictating the route, you'd do well to have remembered water holes and wild food available en-route.
Big game would require greater strength to bring down, but being generally more fatty than that of smaller animals, would overcome any problems associated with the consumption of excess protein.

Energy Requirements Vary

So there you have it! I have tried to paint a picture of how our energy demands can vary rapidly in both how we expend our energy and how we obtain it.

You may wonder where I am going with this! There is a minimum amount of energy you require to simply function as YOU. This is your basal metabolic rate (BMR). This is the amount of energy you will expend simply moving around, beating your heart and working hour lungs. If you throw in a run or the lifting of some weight, then this is energy expenditure over and above your BMR.

What is obvious is that looking at the variables that can affect us, our energy demands can vary wildly. The environmental factor of cold might kick in more at night, or simply for a few minutes (swimming across a river), or it might last months (such as surviving over winter). The 'meal factor' is also incredibly variable; if a rhino is chasing you and you climb a tree, the chances are you are safe. If a big cat is after you, your escape may be more drawn out - the lion may follow you up the tree so you might have to spend some time wielding your spear or other such weapon).

So given all these variables on energy expenditure, what should regulate our energy requirements. APPETITE!

Appetite

There is no evolutionary advantage to allowing ourselves to eat ourselves in to a state of immobility. There is no evolutionary advantage to us being unable to function due to a lack of energy.

How did we overcome this problem? Well one look on your local high street will tell you all you need to know. We developed the ability to store fat. Fat storage is a survival mechanism to keep us going between meals. Fat is a dynamic energy source. You should NEVER be weak with hunger, ONLY with starvation. Fasting for one or two days DOES NOT AND SHOULD NOT constitute a state of starvation. If you are hungry, your body should be recycling fat stores and bringing the energy 'online'. If you run down your fat reserves, then your body will look to rebuild them. That is the 'deal' that means you will always have the energy to get yourself out of trouble and over a lean period. Simple really.

In relation to this mobile energy store, the other part the of the deal is that the body should not allow you to pack on so much weight in fat that your athletic ability is compromised. This much should be obvious.

So to ensure we 'eat enough' to replenish our fat stores, 'but not too much' such that we impair mobility, we need a tightly controlled mechanism. Such a precision mechanism must have evolved over millennia. The exacting requirements over which it has control mean that it must be highly tuned and an optimal piece of biological, evolutionary engineering. And indeed it is.
It is called our appetite.

Now somebody tell me why such a refined tool as our appetite seems to fail so many on a Western diet? While you are at it, tell me why so little research is dedicated to appetite. Simply focusing on calorific intake and calorific expenditure seems to me to be, in effect, shutting the stable door after the proverbial horse has bolted. Our appetite is being misled by a change only visible in non-hunter gatherers. Hmmmmm I wonder what THAT could be?