Book Report: The Fat Switch
Options
wabmester
Posts: 2,748 Member
I think it was @Foamroller who mentioned this guy:
Richard Johnson
He's written a couple books, including this one:
The Fat Switch
Many of you have read books by Gary Taubes. Taubes came up with an alternative hypothesis on the cause of the obesity epidemic: insulin.
Johnson has a different alternative theory: fructose and uric acid.
Frankly, I think they're both wrong, but Johnson's theory is more interesting.
Insulin does have an effect on fat burning, but in a way, it can be viewed simply as a signal that glucose is available to burn. Low glucose = low insulin. So when glucose is low, insulin is low, and we burn fat because no other fuel is available.
The interesting thing about insulin is insulin resistance rather than insulin itself. Why do some of us become insulin resistant?
Johnson says it's a NORMAL RESPONSE! He tells us that getting fat is a perfectly normal evolutionary adaptation for improved survival, and insulin resistance simply signals that we're in fat storing mode. The problem, of course, is that most of us never leave this mode.
Anyway, if you're at all interested in the biological mechanisms of getting fat and sick, you might love this book. Johnson treats the obesity epidemic as a puzzle, looks at other species for clues, and proposes multiple mechanisms and reasons for fat storage.
Essentially, he argues that we're unwittingly triggering a switch for quasi-hibernation.
It's a lousy book for weight loss strategies, there's a fair amount of speculation, and his theories conflict with other studies, but it's a great read for the science geek!
Richard Johnson
He's written a couple books, including this one:
The Fat Switch
Many of you have read books by Gary Taubes. Taubes came up with an alternative hypothesis on the cause of the obesity epidemic: insulin.
Johnson has a different alternative theory: fructose and uric acid.
Frankly, I think they're both wrong, but Johnson's theory is more interesting.
Insulin does have an effect on fat burning, but in a way, it can be viewed simply as a signal that glucose is available to burn. Low glucose = low insulin. So when glucose is low, insulin is low, and we burn fat because no other fuel is available.
The interesting thing about insulin is insulin resistance rather than insulin itself. Why do some of us become insulin resistant?
Johnson says it's a NORMAL RESPONSE! He tells us that getting fat is a perfectly normal evolutionary adaptation for improved survival, and insulin resistance simply signals that we're in fat storing mode. The problem, of course, is that most of us never leave this mode.
Anyway, if you're at all interested in the biological mechanisms of getting fat and sick, you might love this book. Johnson treats the obesity epidemic as a puzzle, looks at other species for clues, and proposes multiple mechanisms and reasons for fat storage.
Essentially, he argues that we're unwittingly triggering a switch for quasi-hibernation.
It's a lousy book for weight loss strategies, there's a fair amount of speculation, and his theories conflict with other studies, but it's a great read for the science geek!
0
Replies
-
I have found most all books like this makes more or less valid points but since they seem to apply to some people and not to others means opinions on books like the ones you mentioned can be very polarizing.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »... apply to some people and not to others ...
This is probably why diet/health science is still floundering.
He addresses this somewhat in the book in the context of adaptation.
All lifeforms have evolved over millions of years. Some species lost genes along the way. He gives the specific examples of genes that code for an enzyme called uricase and for the gene that codes for making Vit C. Humans lost both, and it's possible that the loss of uricase allowed us to get fat more easily. He compares primates that have the enzyme to those that don't.
There are, of course, individual variations as well, but those tend to be outliers.
What REALLY confuses scientists are adaptations made by our bodies! We all know a bit about keto-adaptation, for example. That happens on the order of a few weeks, but it still confounds experiments that happen over shorter periods.
The real confounders are adaptations that might happen over years. For example, enzymes in our gut that we make in higher quantities as we're exposed to sustained consumption of sugar. No experiment is likely to pick up on those changes, so we get seemingly conflicting experimental results.
Personally, I enjoy these mysteries. I've read a bunch of books and even more studies. Biology is SO much more complex than simple physics. We're trying to understand systems that not only have a bunch of moving parts, but those parts can change at varying rates.
This may be a puzzle that we're simply not smart enough to solve.0 -
wabmester you make good points. With the epigenetics tossed into the mix I am having to rethink health back to ground zero. Heck I can not even find ground zero. 0
-
Thanks for the review. I'll look him up.
So @wabmester, what is your theory on the obesity epidemic? I'm always looking for new ideas. I feel like they are dancing around something but they can't quite seem to get it quite right yet.0 -
I think Johnson gets pretty close with this book. Almost all of us on low-carb notice two things: reduced appetite and increased energy (or at least decreased lethargy).
My guess is that we're now experiencing a NORMAL appetite and NORMAL energy levels. We've left hibernation mode.
By reducing carbs, we've flipped the switch in the other direction, and the results are pretty dramatic and quick. It really does feel like a switch has been flipped.
So, I think Johnson is right that the obesity epidemic is due to some sort of switch that slows us down, makes us hungry, and causes us to start storing fat.
That leaves the mechanism, and I just find his fructose / uric acid explanation hard to reconcile with what we know.
Just about anyone who stops eating SAD becomes "healed": low-carbers, paleo, and even vegetarians.
And in the case of extreme low-carbers, serum uric acid levels rise.
To be fair to Johnson, he does distinguish between serum uric acid and cellular uric acid, and he says it's the latter that causes mitochondrial damage and flips the switch to fat-storing mode.
He also implies that the fructose levels need to be pretty high to cause damage, so he feels fruit is safe, for example. And he argues that starch and glucose can become dangerous once they're converted to fructose enzymatically.
Maybe he's right, but the uric acid aspect of his theory still bugs me. If that part is correct, then just about any meat intake would trigger the switch, and we know that doesn't happen.
So if I had to take a stand, I'd say the culprit is CHRONIC over-consumption of high-glycemic carbs. Just because that's what seemed to do me in.0 -
I've read a number of interesting, speculative articles about how we'd be better off if we starved occasionally. But I don't want my hair or teeth to fall out, or to lose my glute muscle mass (as I did the one time I starved), so I try to eat just enough.0
-
I think Johnson gets pretty close with this book. Almost all of us on low-carb notice two things: reduced appetite and increased energy (or at least decreased lethargy).
My guess is that we're now experiencing a NORMAL appetite and NORMAL energy levels. We've left hibernation mode.
By reducing carbs, we've flipped the switch in the other direction, and the results are pretty dramatic and quick. It really does feel like a switch has been flipped.
So, I think Johnson is right that the obesity epidemic is due to some sort of switch that slows us down, makes us hungry, and causes us to start storing fat.
That leaves the mechanism, and I just find his fructose / uric acid explanation hard to reconcile with what we know.
Just about anyone who stops eating SAD becomes "healed": low-carbers, paleo, and even vegetarians.
And in the case of extreme low-carbers, serum uric acid levels rise.
To be fair to Johnson, he does distinguish between serum uric acid and cellular uric acid, and he says it's the latter that causes mitochondrial damage and flips the switch to fat-storing mode.
He also implies that the fructose levels need to be pretty high to cause damage, so he feels fruit is safe, for example. And he argues that starch and glucose can become dangerous once they're converted to fructose enzymatically.
Maybe he's right, but the uric acid aspect of his theory still bugs me. If that part is correct, then just about any meat intake would trigger the switch, and we know that doesn't happen.
So if I had to take a stand, I'd say the culprit is CHRONIC over-consumption of high-glycemic carbs. Just because that's what seemed to do me in.
I like your theory.
I started eating too much (carbs) when I am not overly well. It's not that I am hungry, it is that I am eating for energy. A pick me up if you will. But once I got going down that path, my appetitite did increase. I'm guessing that was carb driven.
So now I was hungrier, eating to satisfy hunger, and still eating extra for that elusive energy. Perhaps I was eating even more for energy because now I have swinging BG to deal with. Anyways, it all added up to fat gains.
If that theory works, people satred eating those extra carbs for energy (like me- to make up for health issues) or for other reasons like comfort or boredom or whatever. Then the energy levels dip from all the carbs (hibernation) , then we eat more...
It does make some sense...
0
This discussion has been closed.