Newtonian Nutrition
David L. Katz, MD, MPH
CMO, Tangelo. Founder: Diet ID; True Health Initiative. Founding Director, Yale-Griffin PRC (1998-2019). Health Journalist. COVID Curmudgeon
Among the more popular and redundant provocations of pop culture, New-Age nutrition is to question the basic merit of “the calorie.” There is something of a cottage industry in this particular brand of iconoclasticism, and for some of us, the challenge of keeping pace with it to dispense rebuttals. I am one of those.
The rebuttals routinely invoke Sir Isaac Newton, and it is in just such context that Newton is most apt to join conversations about, if not at, dinner. Newton’s First Law of Thermodynamics asserts, essentially, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed in any closed system- it has to go from somewhere, to somewhere else. Energy and matter can be interconverted- as is the case when the energy represented by calories is converted to the smaller (glycogen) or the larger (fat) of the body’s energy reserve depots.
Arguments against the fundamental utility of the calorie to human energy balance, and weight control, really do devolve to arguments against Newton and this basic law. Of course, food varies in quality as well as quantity, as does all fuel. Natural gas, for instance, burns cleaner than coal in general; and wood burns differently still. Those differences matter, but equal quantities of stored energy in gas, coal, oil, or wood could be used to generate comparable amounts of heat- along with smoke of varying composition.
Similarly, the fuels on which our bodies run vary- and all of those variations matter. The quality of the fuel for the human machine is one of the most critical influences on human health across a lifetime. Nutritional variation is in turn responsible for variation in hormonal responses, notably insulin; the ease of conversion of calories to either muscle or fat; and the amount of eating required to achieve fullness, or satiety. These effects all matter-just as it matters whether the gasoline in your car does or does not contain lead.
But the amount of gas in your tank matters, too- and so does the number of calories that go down the hatch each day. Studies show quite clearly that independent of the quality of calories, the quantity influences weight. We humans vary even more markedly than such attributes as the fuel efficiency of vehicles, but we are all still subject to laws bigger than us. The laws of thermodynamics are among those.
So I have long thought that to be Sir Isaac’s niche in modern nutrition. It turns out, though, I was wrong.
The rather vapid answers engendered by fatuous questions about calories prove a minor concern compared to the larger trends in modern nutrition. Those trends involve moving continuously from one scapegoat or silver bullet to another. When we allegedly cut dietary fat (we never really did) and failed to get uniformly thin and healthy, we never considered that we might have cut fat “badly.” We never considered that the advice had really been about eating more spinach, not Snackwell cookies. Instead, we renounced cutting fat as a boondoggle, and moved on to the next.
In other words, we were overcome by another of Newton’s laws- the Third Law of Motion. This is the one that states: for every action, an equal and opposite reaction.
Now let’s be clear, the law does NOT say anything about a thoughtful reaction. It makes no reference whatsoever to reflection, reasoning, or interpretation. The reaction in question is not temperate, moderate, or well-informed. It is not judicious, cautious, or wise. It is equal, and opposite.
That explains almost everything we need to know about modern nutrition. We cut fat, or didn’t, and if we did- we did it badly. That didn’t go too well, so we had an equal and opposite reaction: we cut carbs. Look around to see how well that turned out.
Back in the day, we fell in love with adding essence of oat bran to every food imaginable. Now, we are in love with repudiating gluten. Equal and opposite. We vilified saturated fat and ignored our increasing intake of sugar; now we vilify sugar and feel obligated to canonize saturated fat. Equal, and opposite. Arguments for plant-based eating attract legions of devout adherents, precipitating the recruitment of equal and opposingly carnivorous legions.
Newton asserted that this is how unthinking objects moving through space would behave. He never said anything about them getting anywhere.
One would like to think, or at least wish, that we Homo sapiens might outperform the inertia of unthinking lumps traversing the ether. But the evidence of modern nutritional epidemiology is very much to the contrary. We, too, are going nowhere.
Given the stakes, this is unacceptable. Application of even those limited articles of nutrition on which we could all agree, invoking robust evidence, would suffice to eliminate fully 80% of the massive burden of chronic disease and premature death in modern society.
Apparently all that stands between us and that luminous prize is the capacity to learn from the follies of history, a willingness to accept fundamental laws of physics, and the aptitude to outperform a block of flotsam floating through space. In other words: the situation is hopeless.*
-fin
*Or not. If you have had enough of this nonsense, here is what I think we truly do know about the basic care and feeding of Homo sapiens, both for losing weight, and finding health. And on the chance that leaves you unconvinced, here is a review in the Lancet by my friend and colleague, Dr. Frank Hu (and others), reaching much the same conclusion. Here is a batch of free programming to help you get there from here, and here is more information about the world’s first nutrient profiling system- now in over 2,000 supermarkets throughout the US- to correlate with both total chronic disease risk and all-cause mortality. And into the bargain, my latest book, Disease Proof, is potentially quite helpful, too. Unless you prefer pixie dust and moronic morsels du jour, in which case it won’t help you at all. It’s a moronic morsel-free zone, which, of course, will reliably keep it off the best-seller list. Not to worry- I have a day job.
Dr. David L. Katz has authored three editions of a leading nutrition textbook. He is editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed journal, Childhood Obesity, and President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. He is the author of Disease Proof, and most recently, of the epic novel, reVision. Other than that, he spends his time floating through space, hoping not to bump into something.
www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org
https://www.loreofthecorners.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-David-L-Katz/114690721876253
https://twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
https://www.dhirubhai.net/pub/david-l-katz-md-mph/7/866/479/
Photo: Jill Chen / shutterstock
Remix: LinkedIn
International Director British Society of Lifestyle Medicine
10 年I should be obliged if in a sentence (or two) you could help me reach some sort of understanding of whether or not EFA, minerals, vitamins and probiotics are justified supplements for seemingly healthy people as part of a preventive NCD strategy? The argument in favour appears to be a) our food is deficient in them due to poor soil conditions or poor quality animal feed and b) they do no harm hence ethically acceptable. Hitherto I have not been in favour (supplement industry becoming the new 'big pharma', expensive urine into the water courses, money better spent on attaining 'proper' diet). BUT with the inexorable rise in NCDs (and now acute infections again) and the human propensity for swallowing pills and potions maybe my 'nutritional atheism' is misplaced?
Computer Engineer, Consultant, Developer/ Analist / Designer | Game Developer, IpTV, ... Many Techs
10 年If you are Newton ( this is good ) . If you are other ( you must reserch for your body at moment what you need to normalize your needs day by day ).
Not required at Harto-- Co
10 年Are all Americans nuts at the table. There is another way: Why do Parisian people not get fat? What a pleasure read-----
Senior Materials and Corrosion Engineer
10 年"A block of flotsam floating through space" may be unthinking, however they still obey the physical laws of nature. The majority of us remain blissfully unaware of the fact that "we are all still subject to laws bigger than us", never mind getting acquainted with those laws. We know more about everything else relative to the knowledge we possess with regards to our own bodies. As far as the majority of us are concerned, disease is that debilitating mystery which necessitates a trip to the pharmacy or the hospital for a quick-fix. We need to study and understand the physiology of our own bodies in relation, especially, to nutrition. Okay David, I agree, the situation is hopeless. Eating is doomed to remain the equivalent of throwing rubbish down a blackhole.
Health for all at no cost
10 年Calorie concept is not suitable for our body chemistry. It is only suitable for automobile industry. Here, fuel produces energy as calorie and is exhausted as if running a motor. But in our case, the minimum calorie should be stored for our body function. The same calorie is needed to function our bowel and brain, heart etc.Our body cells are doing this job. When we eat more or the food which is difficult to digest, we need more calories. We feel get tired because of the brain or bowel or heart sucks the energy from whole body.Our body temperature and pulse are the best indicators of the calorie we use. If we want to be free from disease, we must eat only after digestion of previously what we ate. With regards