|
The obesity epidemic and how to beat it
This special mini-series tells you the latest on how metabolic interventions can make genes work to slim you down.
This series was first published in Science and Society 21.
Subscribe
to Science in Society magazine or become a Member of ISIS.
Details here.
- The Obesity Epidemic
- How to Survive 40 Days Starvation
- How carbohydrates make fats
ISIS Press Release 12/02/04
The Obesity Epidemic
Prof. Peter Saunders
punctures some myths about obesity
Sources
for this report are available in the ISIS members site.
Full details here
Over the past two to three decades, there has been an alarming increase
in obesity throughout the developed world. In the UK, the proportion of the
population who have a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 has tripled in
twenty years and now stands at about one in five. Your BMI is your weight in
kilograms divided by the square of your height in metres. If you find it easier
to think in Imperial units, someone who is 510" tall is considered to be
obese if he weighs more than 15 stone, i.e. 210 lbs.
Obesity is also on the increase in other countries, including many in
Asia where it has not previously been common. Most alarming of all, it is
increasing rapidly in children.
People tend to think about weight chiefly in terms of appearance; but
obesity is first and foremost a health issue. Not only is it bad for us to be
less fit and have more weight to carry around, obesity is also associated with
a significantly increased risk of illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes.
In particular, the recent increase in Type 2 diabetes has been so great and so
rapid that health experts are describing it, too, as an epidemic. Type 2
diabetes is often called "late onset" diabetes because it has typically been a
disease of middle age or beyond, but it is now found in teenagers.
What we dont know about obesity
As with any health problem, the obvious question to ask is where it
comes from. Why do people become obese? Up to a point, thats easy enough
to understand. We need energy to keep our bodies going and to allow us to be
active, and we get it from the food we eat. Any energy that we dont use
is stored as fat, which provides a reserve that we draw on when we are using
more energy than we are taking in. If we take in more energy (usually measured
in calories) than we are using, we gain weight, if we take in less than we are
using we lose weight. And if we keep taking in more than we use, then in the
end we become obese.
But its not as simple as that. If it were, our weight would
fluctuate a lot more than it does. The reason it doesnt is that the body
has mechanisms for regulating our weight. It controls the amount of energy we
take in by making us feel hungry or sated. It also controls the amount we use
by such means as changing our metabolic rate (the "idling speed", so to
speak).
On the whole, it does this pretty effectively. According to the US
Department of Agriculture, the average American consumed 300 calories per day
more in 2000 than in 1985. Theres no reason to suppose that Americans are
more active now than they were then, so taking a pound of fat as equivalent to
about 3500 calories, Americans should be constantly putting on weight at a rate
of about a pound every 12 days. Thats thirty pounds a year, or three
hundred pounds a decade. In fact, nobody is gaining weight at anything like
that rate, which shows that the body is somehow keeping the balance between
input and output quite well, though in many of us not quite well enough.
This also means, by the way, that it is nonsense to say you can lose ten
pounds a year just by leaving out your piece of toast and jam in the morning or
by jogging for fifteen minutes a day. Both are good for you, and both will
probably help you lose weight, but you cant work out how much just by
adding up the calories and dividing by 3500. Its a lot more complicated
than that.
There are many factors involved in regulating body weight and they
combine in complicated ways. Heredity matters, but so does our entire life
experience from the moment we were conceived and even before that,
because of the influence of our mothers state of health and what she ate
(see "Diet trumping genes",
SiS 20).
Physiological systems are also remarkably difficult to manipulate from
the outside. Something may work for a short time and then the body somehow
senses what is happening and finds a way of countering it, which is why many
diets work well but only for a week or two. There may be special interventions
that help a few people with specific problems, but were not likely to
find a magic bullet that works for the rest of us.
What we do know
Fortunately, we can be reasonably sure we know what are the important
factors, even if we dont understand how they operate. It comes from a
world-wide scientific experiment that was unintentionally carried out over the
second half of the twentieth century. We have masses of data from several
different populations in which obesity, and the health problems that it brings,
have greatly increased. Unless there has been a significant change in their
genetic makeup in the 50 years since the experiment began, and no one has
brought forward evidence for this, the increase must be due to changes in the
environment and in the way people live.
What changes have there been in these countries? Two obviously stand
out. First, their diets have changed. People are eating more and they are
eating different foods. And second, they are exercising less. More people are
in sedentary occupations; more drive where they used to walk.
Its fairly obvious why eating more and being less active should
lead to obesity, and there is now evidence to suggest why changes in what we
eat can also matter. For example, studies have shown that we are sensitive to
the amount of food we consume much more than to its energy content. If we eat
foods with a relatively high energy content which includes most snack
foods we tend to take in more energy before we feel sated. The pancreas
may also secrete additional insulin to prevent the blood sugar level from
rising, and this can make us feel hungry again sooner than we otherwise
would.
Researchers have recently been studying a gut hormone called
PYY3-36, which seems to be a specific signal to the brain to tell us
that we have eaten enough. Foods that we digest quickly produce less of this
hormone, which again makes us likely to take in more energy than we used to or
than we need.
The Atkins diet, in which you are supposed to avoid carbohydrates
altogether and the South Beach diet, in which you avoid only those
carbohydrates that cause the blood sugar to rise rapidly, are also based on
attempts to take advantage of the way that the body reacts differently to
different sorts of foods and not just because of the number of calories (see
"How carbohydrates make fats", this series).
In both diets, of course, there is the additional factor that people on
almost any diet tend to eat less than they did before. And just eating less
does seem to be important. A typical French meal includes lots of fat and
carbohydrates, yet only about 7% of the French are obese, compared with 22% of
Americans. When some American scientists collaborated with a group from the
CNRS (the major research agency in France) to investigate this apparent
paradox, they eventually concluded that the chief difference between the two
countries is simply that portion sizes are much smaller in France.
What can be done
Theres still a long way to go before we understand how our body
weight is regulated, but fortunately we dont have to know that to start
combating the obesity epidemic. If it was caused by changes in life style, and
the evidence is clear that it was, then the obvious way to tackle it is also by
changes in life style. That doesnt mean trying to go back to where we
were 50 years ago, but it does mean taking action.
When, eventually, governments have concluded that smoking has a serious
adverse effect on health, they have not banned it outright. Instead, they have
made it a general policy to reduce the amount of smoking, and have introduced a
number of different measures aimed at achieving that aim. They have restricted
advertising, insisted on health warnings, sharply increased the tax on tobacco,
and banned smoking in many public places and encouraged other organisations to
do the same.
They should do the same in the fight against obesity. Its not a
matter of closing down McDonalds or making Coca Cola a prohibited substance.
Instead, the government should take steps to encourage people to adopt a
healthier life style, and above all not to make it difficult for those who want
to do that for themselves or their children.
For example, they should ban advertisements for food during the times
when children are most likely to be watching television (see Box). Schools
should provide proper, healthy meals. They should not have vending machines
selling soft drinks or snack foods, or get involved in schemes that promote the
sale of such foods.
|
Box
Why Junk Food Adverts Promote Bad
Health
A lot of advertising is devoted to pushing the foods that
contribute to obesity. In particular, they are heavily advertised on the
television and specifically in connection with programmes that children watch,
except in the relatively few places (such as Sweden and Quebec) where this is
forbidden. This is especially worrying partly because of the great increase in
childhood obesity and partly because the food habits we acquire when young tend
to persist throughout our lives.
Representatives of the food industry naturally disclaim any
responsibility. They argue that its parents that decide what their
children eat. Advertising, we are assured, has no effect. It may sound odd that
they are spending millions of pounds on something that they dont think
helps them make money.
Weve heard this sort of story before, from the tobacco
companies. They insist they should be allowed to keep on advertising
cigarettes, because so they say the ads do not increase the
number of smokers. All they influence is choice among brands. No one is tempted
to take up smoking because of tobacco advertisements, but some who are already
smokers may move from one brand to another.
That sounds a bit far-fetched, but suppose it were true. It still
wouldnt apply to food advertising because there is important difference
between tobacco and food. We dont all smoke but we do all eat.
The tobacco companies explain that the huge amount each of them
spends on advertising is not wasted because it can lead people to prefer their
products over the others on offer. But in the case of foods, thats
precisely what we are worried about. We dont need ads to make us take up
eating. The question is about preferences, and if the advertisements can change
these as the tobacco manufacturers claim and as the food manufacturers
must also believe or they wouldnt spend so much money on advertising
then it is wrong to allow ads aimed at making us, and even more so our
children, choose foods that are bad for our health. |
Thats on the input side. On the output side, we should be
encouraging people to walk and to use public transport. A standard
recommendation is that people should take about 30 minutes of exercise five
times a week. Many of us can do that by walking briskly to and from the bus
stop on our way to work instead of getting into the car and driving there.
Measures to improve public transport can also be measures to improve health,
and thats before we include the benefits in terms of cleaner air and
fewer road accidents. Above all, we should encourage children to walk to school
which also means putting in place measures to make the journey safe.
There have always been obese people, and it may well be that drugs or
other special treatments have something to offer them. But the hard scientific
data, accumulated through 50 years of over-eating and under-exercising by
millions of people, tells us that we can make a major impact on the problem by
eating less, exercising more and avoiding the high energy fast foods and junk
foods that have been spreading from country to country and bringing obesity
with them. Best of all, there are no harmful side effects from eating less and
exercising more.
Thats only common sense, but it is also what good science tells
us. We mustnt confuse science simply with "high tech"; they arent
at all the same thing.
| |
|