Life Without Bread

Great title, huh?  This is the English-language, updated version of the 1967 book “Leben ohne Brot.”  Published in 2000, it reviews the evidence from 40+ years of Dr. Wolfgang Lutz’s clinical practice in Germany treating patients using low carbohydrate diets.

While the specific information and extensive long-term data from Dr. Lutz’s practice is truly valuable, to me the most valuable part is the book’s calm tone.  I infer that Dr. Lutz was not subjected to the ridicule and ostracism that U.S. doctors working with low carbohydrate diets experienced in the same period (and continue to experience today).  There is none of the hysteria you encounter in the US about using low-carbohydrate diets to treat obesity in general, and obesity in children in particular.

“In Dr. Lutz’s practice, a low-carbohdyrate diet was always successful in children’s weight loss.  Weight loss in adults was more variable–that is, many were successful, but not all.  In treating more than 100 extremely overweight adolescents, not one case ended in failure.*    In patients who appeared not to respond, it was always discovered that the diet had either not been strictly followed or had been given up too soon.  Apart from very extreme cases, a normal, slender figure was achieved within a year.”

*Lutz, W.  ”Das endocrine Syndrom des adipoesen jugendlichen” Wien. Med. Wschr. (1964): 451.  (The Endocrine Syndrome of Adipose Youth).

Christian B. Allan, Ph.D and Wolfgang Lutz, M.D.; Life Without Bread, p. 140.

Before World War II, the bulk of the research work on obesity and its causes was done in Germany and Austria, and the leading hypothesis at the time was that obesity was caused not by overeating but by “lypophilia,” a defect in fat metabolism.  The underlying hormones weren’t yet isolated or understood, and much of the literature was based on clinical observations.  I am guessing that as the science became better understood, Dr. Lutz, if he even knew about the US research, was insulated from the distorted interpretations of the research that occurred in the US and that Gary Taubes documents in Chapters 21 and 22 of Good Calories, Bad Calories.  In the US, any information or research that didn’t conform to the conviction that overeating causes obesity–calories in/calories out–was discarded or ridiculed.

Therefore Dr. Lutz in 1967, and his colleague in 2000, didn’t feel the need to publish a polemic disguised as a diet book, as Dr. Robert Atkins did in 1972 with Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution.  Even as recently as 2011, Dr.s Phinney and Volek, who also co-wrote The New Atkins for a New You, wrote a one-sided review of low-carb eating plans to counteract the flood of low-fat eating plan dogma:

“Critics will correctly state that our arguments in favor of carbohydrate restriction seem one-sided and smack of advocacy. But we ask you: what is the proper response when three decades of debate about carbohydrate restriction have been largely one-sided and driven more by cultural bias than science? Someone needs to stand up and represent the alternate view and the science that supports it.”

Phinney, Stephen; Volek, Jeff (2011-07-08). The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable . Beyond Obesity LLC. Kindle Edition.

The state of war that exists in the United States between low-fat and low-carb makes parental decisions about eating plans for our children fraught with anxiety.  There are many personal stories in the low carb community of people giving up the low carb lifestyle because of pressure to do so from the low-fat, “balanced diet” eating side of the fence, even though the individuals felt unambiguously better eating low carb.  Life Without Bread reassures me, because it tells me things are likely more harmonious in Germany, and it matter-of-factly recommends a low carb eating plan for overweight children.

What does insulin resistance have to do with overweight and weight loss?

We observe all the time that some people seem to be able to eat anything and not gain weight, and others eat very little and are heavy.  The calories in/calories out dogma denies that this phenomenon exists, but we all know it does.  At the Packard pediatric weight control program, one of the most difficult things for the children there to handle was the fact that it seemed their peers could eat anything they wanted, including chips, candy, and soda, and be slim.  And they were right.

How is this possible?  How an individual will respond to the typical American diet is dictated by how insulin sensitive or insulin resistant they are.  The typical American diet is high in carbohydrates.  Carbohydrates cause the body to produce insulin to keep blood sugar in a normal range.  (An equal amount of energy consumed as fat causes virtually no change to insulin levels).  Some individuals are sensitive to insulin–they can process a given amount of carbohydrate with relatively little insulin release.  But some are insulin resistant–they require a lot of insulin to process that same amount of carbohydrate.

Insulin is also known in any biology textbook as “the fat storage hormone.”  Can you guess which individual is going to gain weight from the typical American diet?

Relative insulin sensitivity or resistance also explains how an individual is going to respond to different sorts of eating plans designed for weight loss.  The insulin sensitive individual can lose weight on a low fat, low calorie plan or on a low carb plan.  But the insulin resistant individual will find it very hard to lose weight on a low fat, low calorie plan:

“Insulin Resistance and Diet Success

In 2007, Gardner et al published a randomized, controlled trial called the A-to-Z Study involving 4 diets lasting a year given to groups of obese women[43]. At one end of this diet spectrum was the ‘Ornish diet’ which is very high in complex carbs and very low in fat. At the other end was the ‘Atkins diet’ (i.e., low carbohydrate). After 6 months, the women on Atkins had lost significantly more weight, but after 12 months they were still lower but not significantly so. Interestingly, blood pressure and HDL cholesterol were significantly better on low carbohydrate than any of the other diets, and this beneficial effect remained significant out to 12 months. After publishing this initial paper in JAMA, Dr. Gardner went back and examined his data based upon the subjects’ insulin levels before they started dieting. When the women on each diet were divided into three subgroups (tertiles) based on baseline insulin resistance, the results were striking. In the low carbohydrate diet group, weight loss was similar in the most insulin sensitive (11.7 lbs) and insulin resistant (11.9 lbs) women. However weight loss with the high carbohydrate (Ornish) diet was much greater in the insulin sensitive (9.0 lbs) than the insulin resistant (3.3 lbs) women. Thus the most insulin sensitive sub-groups of women experienced a similar weight loss when assigned diets either high (9.0 lbs) or low (11.7 lbs) in carbohydrate In contrast, the sub-groups that were insulin resistant fared very poorly when assigned a diet high in carbohydrate (3.3 lbs lost) compared to a low carbohydrate diet (11.9 lbs). Specifically, those women with insulin resistance lost almost 4-times as much weight when dietary carbohydrates were restricted[44].”

Phinney, Stephen; Volek, Jeff (2011-07-08). The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living: An Expert Guide to Making the Life-Saving Benefits of Carbohydrate Restriction Sustainable and Enjoyable (pp. 85-86). Beyond Obesity LLC. Kindle Edition.

They may lose some, like Juliana did, because a low fat, low calorie plan is almost certainly also a lower carb plan.  But the insulin resistant people are going to be hungrier than the insulin sensitive people on an Ornish-type plan.  Why?  The more insulin, the more the cells get the message to store available energy as fat.  The more that is stored as fat, the less is available to use, and the sooner that person will be hungry again.

I have already taken Dr Dean Ornish to task for publishing a misleading opinion piece in The New York Times blasting low carb eating plans.  He would also do well to pay attention to his patients who cannot comply with his eating plan because of hunger, or don’t lose much weight even if they do comply.   He might learn something.

 

 

Really, you don’t need carbohydrates

I keep running across comments like this one, from “Ending the Food Fight,” by David Ludwig, MD, PhD: “[Low carb diets] do produce more weight loss than low-fat diets, but only temporarily.  After one year, people following both diets gain back nearly all of the weight they lose.  These approaches ultimately fail because our bodies and our minds rebel against severe restriction of any major nutrient, whether fat or carbohydrate.  (How long do you want to keep eating that bacon double cheeseburger, hold the bun, thank you?)”

First off, I assume Dr. Ludwig is referring to people who stop eating low carb and then gain back their weight, which of course, they will.   Continuing to eat low carb at the level of carbohydrates your body can handle, which might be 20, 50, or 100 grams a day, is one of the most successful ways to maintain weight loss.

Second, why does Dr. Ludwig assume that all macronutrients (fat, protein, carbohydrate) are equal, or equally required?  They’re not.  Carbohydrates in the form of agricultural grains did not even exist in the human diet until several thousand years ago.  People who eat a “Paleo/Primal” or “Caveman” diet eschew all grains, legumes, and dairy.  They eat mostly vegetables and meats, and a small amount of fruit.  (Modern fruit is larger, sweeter, and available for more of the year than ancient fruit).

It’s maybe not surprising then, given that they are so new, that carbohydrate is the only macronutrient your body does NOT require.  It can get along just fine on zero carbohydrate, unlike fat or protein.  ”…animal foods contain all of the essential amino acids (the basic structural building blocks of proteins), and they do so in the ratios that maximize their utility to humans.* 94 They also contain twelve of the thirteen essential vitamins in large quantities…The thirteenth vitamin, vitamin C, ascorbic acid, has long been the point of contention. It is contained in animal foods in such small quantities that nutritionists have considered it insufficient and the question is whether this quantity is indeed sufficient for good health.”

Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Locations 6551-6557). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

 It turns out that the tiny quantity of vitamin C in animal foods is sufficient, provided you aren’t eating a diet high in carbohydrate.  In other words, you only need to supplement the vitamin C available from animal foods if you eat a lot of non-animal foods.

Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Location 6630). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Another argument you sometimes hear is that dietary carbohydrates are required to provide glucose for the brain.  But this is not so.  The liver manufactures the fuel it needs from other nutrients if dietary carbohydrate falls below a certain level.

Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Locations 6492-6498). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

And what about Dr. Ludwig’s opinion that people can’t live forever without the hamburger bun?  A great effect of a low carb eating plan is that the desire for carbohydrates greatly diminishes, or disappears altogether.  And in sensitive individuals, eating the bun after getting used to the low carb style will probably make you feel sick and tired.  Go ahead and try it once, like Juliana did with a scoop of ice cream, and you won’t be so tempted the next time.

Dr. Ludwig instead advocates a low-glycemic diet, which I bet works better than a low fat diet for many people.  But in sensitive individuals like Juliana it would not work because it includes more fruit and grains (even if they are whole grains!) than her system can handle.

We check in with the Packard Program

Juliana and I visited with the staff from the Packard Program yesterday.  They are doing great good in the world trying to help obese kids achieve a healthy weight, and they have good success.  Nonetheless, I believe that the calories in/calories out model that underlies the program is wrong.  So why does it work as well it as it does?

The Packard Program teaches kids to substitute lower-calorie yellow or green foods for higher-calorie red foods.  In many cases, those substitutions are from super-high-carb foods to less-high-carb foods.

From a glass of apple juice, for example, to an apple.  8 ounces of apple juice has about 29 grams of carbs; one medium apple has about 16 grams of carbs and it also has 4 grams of fiber, for only 12 grams of “net carbs.”  (When counting carbs, you subtract the fiber grams from the total carbohydrate grams, because fiber does not provoke the same insulin response).

Or from a high-sugar cereal to a low-sugar cereal.   Changing from raisin bran (36 grams of net carbs per cup) to cheerios (19 grams of net carbs per cup) cuts the carb load almost in half.

Both those substitutions are lower calorie changes, but they are also lower-carb changes.  So is it the carbs, or the calories?   I think it’s the carbs.  See chapters 19 and 20 of Gary Taubes‘ “Good Calories, Bad Calories” for a full discussion of this point.

The real power of the realization that carbohydrate restriction is the most important part of the eating plan is that your child will not be constantly hungry on a low carb plan, as they will be on a low calorie “balanced” plan.  At Packard yesterday I really emphasized this point:  Juliana complied perfectly with the program and did lose 6 pounds in 10 weeks.  But she was hungry all the time and I didn’t see how she could possibly keep it up.

A low carb eating plan doesn’t require superhuman restraint to follow.  That makes it a lot easier to coach your child on a low carb eating plan than a low calorie eating plan.

After losing a lot of weight in the beginning, Juliana’s weight loss rate has slowed on the low carb eating plan.  But even if she only loses an average of a 1/2 pound a week, as she did on the Packard Program, she will eventually get to her goal weight WITHOUT suffering constant hunger.  And in the meanwhile, her energy level is high, she has a completely new level of physical stamina, and her mood is consistently good.

NOW I see why she’s always tired and hungry

Everything Taubes wrote made sense when I thought about Juliana’s history.  Juliana’s ability, at the age of four, to eat enormous quantities of pasta and be hungry two hours later was explained.  Her obvious preference for simple carbohydrate foods–bread, pasta, baked goods of all kinds–and her difficulty controlling her intake of such foods was not a lack of willpower but a normal response to the hormonal signals her body was sending.  Her frequent lethargy, from a young age.  Her constant hunger on the Packard program made sense.