Artificial sweeteners are quite safe and helpful in weight loss: masterpost.

Another master post / link dump for you all, this time all about artificial sweeteners and aspartame in particular. It's ironic that many of the people who fear monger over natural sugars also insist that artificial sweeteners must also be avoided.

It's almost as if they just have a puritanical view on food and don't want you enjoying anything sweet at all, isn't it?

Newest Updates: 2018

• Scepticism is strong but research finds artificial sweeteners help ‘cut calories and control cravings’.
• These data do not support the view that aspartame is problematic for the management of glycemia, appetite, or body weight.
  

Pertinent Update: July 2017

• A new review of research finds a modest but inconsistent benefit from consuming artificial sweeteners over sugar. Their conclusion of a possible backfire effect, however, does not seem to be supported by the studies they review.
• Article Saying Diet Drinks Cause Stroke, Dementia Is Full Of Holes.
• Fast Take: What You Need to Know about a New Study Linking Beverages to Stroke or Dementia.

Let's start continue, with a video:

A couple of posts from some good friends of this blog:

• From Gabrielle Maston: Are Artificial Sweeteners Safe?
• And from Ground Up Strength: The Aspartame Myth-Information Campaign.

SuppVersity have a hell of a lot of articles on artificial sweeteners, here are some helpful ones:

• Artificially Sweetened Foods Promote, Not Hinder, Fat Loss
• Study Confirms Fake Sweetness Promotes Weight & Waist Loss, Decreases Hunger

More Information On The Safety Of Aspartame:

• Aspartame 'safe' at current levels, says European food regulator.
• Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies.
• Aspartame: review of safety.
• European Food Safety Authority: Report of the meeting on Aspartame with National Experts.
• EFSA Topic: Aspartame.
• Aspartame – what it is and why it’s used in our food.
• Artificial Sweeteners and Diabetes.
• Snopes: Aspartame - Sweet Poison?
• Science Based Medicine: Aspartame Truth vs Fiction.
• Aspartame is safe according to the scientific consensus
• Harvard hospital retracts statement about data on aspartame and cancer.
• Gut reaction: Zero-calorie sweeteners produce same response as water.
• Cancer Council: Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer.
• The Persistent Mythology Of Sweeteners.
• Examine.com: Is Diet Soda Bad For You?
• Effects of carbohydrate sugars and artificial sweeteners on appetite and the secretion of gastrointestinal satiety peptides.  
• Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of aspartame (E 951) as a food additive.
• Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven.
• The safety and regulatory process for low calorie sweeteners in the United States. 
• Consumption of aspartame-containing beverages and incidence of hematopoietic and brain malignancies. 
• Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies. 
• The effects of water and non-nutritive sweetened beverages on weight loss and weight maintenance: A randomized clinical trial. 

Latest Updates:

Great infographic and supporting article from Scott Baptie. I'm more of a Pepsi Max man myself, just for the record.

In the interests of balance:

To be fair there are some studies that do suggest a correlation between regular use of artificially sweetened beverages and obesity and/or health concerns.  This should not be confused as to suggest that it because of those beverages that the person's diet is inappropriate and unhealthy.

At best (or, at worst) we could interpret this data as evidence that "simply switching to artificially sweetened beverages from those that contain sugar may not be enough to ensure that your diet is appropriate over all, depending on what other choices of meals and snacks you make".

Read More

More of the sorts of things people get mad at me for telling you.

If I'd known I was going to write something
today, I probably would have shaved.

First of all, here are some things that we know:

• Athletes require a certain amount of energy (aka "total calories") on an individual basis subject to various factors, and a certain amount of protein, usually determined in "grams per kg of lean body mass" but there are varying opinions on exactly how many grams is required / optimal.
• Too far above that amount means a stall in fat loss despite level of activity. More excessive still means fat gain. Also known as "calorific surplus".
• People will lose weight when total energy intake is less than would be required to sustain current weight including fat mass at current activity level, aka "while in calorific deficit". However, the body will adapt to being too far into deficit for too long, especially while highly active, precluding further weight loss despite still being in deficit.
• As sustaining that level of energy deficit is unlikely, weight regain is likely to occur and may be disproportionate to the increase in energy intake. aka "weight gain at an energy intake that should not be excessive under normal circumstances".

Some of that we've known for ages, and some of it is stuff that I've observed and based my approach on, but has only recently been confirmed. Keeping all of that in mind, when active people stall or reach a plateau in terms of improving condition and body composition, what are they invariably told?

• Cut calories (or just cut carbs).
• Burn more calories (for example add more cardio).
• Eat clean. 
• Eliminate grains / sugars / whatever. Some variation on that theme.

We already discussed why "cut calories" or "burn more calories" is counter productive advice. "Eat clean" infers that something other than energy balance is the concern and that despite being active and in deficit, something "unclean" from a puritanical, moralistic standpoint is to blame for not seeing more pleasing results.

Too much sugar? Don't be ridiculous.

So scrutinising eating habits to omit anything with a question mark over "cleanliness" only exacerbates the problem by creating a greater and more destructive level of energy deficit, while also associating the ability to abstain from certain foods with being a good or a bad person who does or does not deserve success & happiness.

Since such a level of deficit is unlikely to be sustainable, the client WILL end up eating those "unclean" foods and likely in more massive quantities than she would other wise. This is another thing that we know; when foods are "banned" we tend to crave them all the more. Here we are starting to get into "restrict / binge" (and possibly purge) territory. The client is likely to be told her lack of progress is due to that one lapse in adherence when she ate "unclean", and that she needs to have more discipline and will power in the future. This goes back to what we described in the paragraph above, and perpetuates this destructive cycle.

Let's go back and look at my first paragraph in the "things that we know" section we began with:

Athletes require a certain amount of energy (aka "total calories") on an individual basis subject to various factors, and a certain amount of protein within that total amount.

If you are in the habit of consuming a daily intake that is within a suitable range of that appropriate amount, you'll see great results from any effective and productive approach to training, and if you're not... you won't. Focusing on the appropriate total energy provision coming from a suitable balance of protein to fats to carbohydrates, you have an approach referred to as IIFYM. Concepts like "clean", "unclean" or "cheat meals" have no relevance, your individual food choices either fit into a total daily amount that is appropriate aka "fits your macros", or they do not.

Unfortunately, the acronym IIFYM has become associated with a version of this approach that is kind of taking the piss a bit with a proclivity for nutrient sparse convenience foods and a lack of nutritious fruits and vegetables. Hopefully this style of IIFYM is a minority of cases, although it has been brought to my attention in the past that some so called "macro coaches" do charge people good money for diet plans fitting this description, which is entirely unacceptable.

To distance themselves from this and to acknowledge that there is more to a healthy diet than just "hitting your macros", many of the more responsible proponents moved to the term Flexible Dieting which is an easier way of saying "hit your macros, get enough fruit and veg, make up the balance with more nutritious choices where possible but also include some for enjoyment and indulgence as you see fit".

For me, the word "dieting" being in there has that connotation of still being focused on calorie deficits, so I named my approach "Flexible Fueling" as we are far more interested in working towards optimal fueling targets for best performance and athletic physical condition, rather than slashing further and further into calorific deficit in a destructive and misguided effort to starve and burn weight off.

Bottom line?

• Results, in terms of an athletic body condition from training come from:
• Turning up regularly and giving it your best with a productive and strategic approach.
• Consistently providing at least an adequate and preferably closer to optimal total energy provision, and sufficient protein.
• I don't want anyone out there who is active but frustrated or unhappy due to not seeing results thinking that:
• They need to eat less, when they're already not eating enough.
• Any individual choice whether just once or more regularly is to blame for a lack of results, when they are not eating enough.
• There is some correlation between not eating "the right foods", not seeing results, and not being "a good person".
• Arbitrary and unfounded instructions like "cut carbs", "burn more calories" or "eat clean": 
• Only take people further away from a level of fueling that will facilitate the results they desire.
• Only take people further into a destructive level of calorific deficit.
• Foster and reinforce disordered behaviours and ideas related to eating.

Yep. This is the sort of thing that people get mad at you for trying to help people with and protect people from. I guess they don't like having their god given right to judge people and tell them what to do infringed upon.

Read More

The Most Epic Week In Review, Ever?

Selfie of the week is a little awkward but
at least my arms look huge.

I don't always do a week in review every week, because some weeks there's not all that much to talk about. This week though? Holy crap. This week was a legit game changer as far as I'm concerned. So much happened.

First of all though; Busted Scammer Of The Week is always a regular feature. And today we got some good news regarding perhaps one of the most disgusting and despicable scammers of all time.

• Conwoman Belle Gibson faces $1m fines over cancer scam fundraising fraud.

What a piece of trash.

This following story is good news too, and if I'm not mistaken I believe the Blocked By Pete Evans page (which I was a founding admin of, but am no longer involved with) are owed credit for first exposing this dangerous and outrageous nonsense.

• Victorian Health Minister Jill Hennessy orders crack-down on 'rogue' chiropractors. 
• An excellent report on this issue at Science Based Medicine; The Crack Heard Round The World.

We're just getting started though. Now the big stuff.

The Biggest Loser Study was big news this week.

This one basically confirmed what I've been saying for years now. Too far into calorie deficit for too long at high activity levels (aka over worked and underfueled) is a myopic approach to weight loss and people WILL stop seeing further fat loss at a certain point, and slashing further into deficit or increasing activity even further will not fix it. This approach will backfire over the long term resulting in weight regain even if you do stick to the regime of restricting and burning of calories.

• The study: Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition.
• An earlier study also based on The Biggest Loser contestants: Metabolic adaptation following massive weight loss is related to the degree of energy imbalance and changes in circulating leptin.
• Does this mean there is no hope for obese people who'd like to lose weight? My take, on my facebook page. 
• Ironically I published this just a couple of days earlier, right here: Ending The Unhealthy Obsession With Calorie Deficit.
• Leigh Peele examines some of the limitations & implications of this study and offers practical advice for best results in long term successful weight loss and weight management, here.

Low carb & keto dieting as beneficial for weight loss, finally and thoroughly debunked.

I have saved the best for last and this really was epic. For years, advocates of low carb and ketogenic dieting have insisted that it is the only way to avoid weight gain, and the only way to lose weight. Obviously, that's not correct. All you have to do is ask around, "hey, you seem quite lean and not over weight. Are you doing low carb or keto?". You'll find there are no shortage of people who consume a moderate to high amount of carbohydrates within a total energy intake that is appropriate to them, who are quite normal sized, quite healthy, and even in quite athletic shape.

Real world observation and clinical evidence have shown for some time that it is total energy provision relative to total energy requirement that drives weight gain, and not the mere presence of carbs in the diet as per the alternative "carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat storage" hypothesis.

Here's where it gets funny.

Proponents of this  alternate hypothesis such as Gary "Good Calories Bad Calories" Taubes who have rejected all of this evidence on the basis of "we don't know who funded it and if they might have had reason to fudge the numbers to protect big potato" (or something like that) decided they would fund and design their own study, contract respected, qualified, objective and impartial researchers to carry it out and find the conclusive evidence that carbs are to blame and LCHF &/or ketogenic dieting is what we should have been told to do all along.

Just one problem though... the research found the opposite.

Here's what we knew already:

• Low Carbohydrate versus Isoenergetic Balanced Diets for Reducing Weight and Cardiovascular Risk:
  
  Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced in terms of its macronutrient composition. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.
• Comparison of Weight Loss Among Named Diet Programs in Overweight and Obese Adults:
  
  Low-carbohydrate and low-fat dietary programs were associated with more weight loss than no dietary intervention over a 12-month period; behavioral support and exercise enhanced weight loss. The weight loss differences between indivdual named diets were small with likely little importance to those seeking weight loss. This supports the practice of recommending any diet that a patient will adhere to in order to lose weight.
   
• Long-term effects of a low carbohydrate, low fat or high unsaturated fat diet compared to a no-intervention control.
  
  Significant cardiometabolic risk factor reduction was observed equally with VLC, VLF and HUF diets after 15 months.

• Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity.
  
  Cutting carbohydrates increased net fat oxidation, but cutting fat by equal calories had no effect. Cutting fat resulted in more body fat loss as measured by metabolic balance.

Those are the sort of studies that the LCHF fanatics aren't terribly impressed by. Here's their own study, which one assumes they designed to be more stringent, rigorous and unbiased:

• Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men.
  
  Body fat loss slowed during the KD and coincided with increased protein utilization and loss of fat-free mass.
  
  The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology. 

Even More: February 2018

It's funny because professional low carb conspiracy theorists like Taubes & Noakes keep trying to prove the superiority of a low carb approach, and keep failing spectacularly.

• Low-fat vs low-carb? Major study concludes: it doesn’t matter for weight loss.
• Does high-carbohydrate intake lead to increased risk of obesity? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Further & Related: 

• NutritionWonk asks: Is the Insulin Theory of Obesity Over?
• Carbsane asks why Taubes continued to promote his low carb / insulin myth while knowing that his organisation's own study has disproved it?
  
  It's beyond frustrating at this point, it's infuriating. Taubes' dishonesty is unparalleled in its audacity. Truly. The MDs -- Ludwig, Hyman, Lustig to name just three -- cashing in on TWICHOO are simply shameless at this point as well.
• Not directly related but while we're on the subject: High-carb meals better in curbing appetite amongst the obese. Thanks to Gabrielle Maston Dietitian & Exercise Physiologist for bringing this one to my attention.
• Further still, more related to sports nutrition: A problem with the reporting of effects of ketogenic diet.

Read More