As I sit down to write this article, I am well aware that nothing is as overdone quite as much as the topic of weight loss. The weight loss column is worn out, filled up with competing diet theories and endless streams of advice.
The thing is, though, despite this overwhelming amount of information, the problem does not seem to be getting addressed in any effective manner. As obesity rates continue to increase, even reaching their claws into overweight and obese children in younger and younger ages, there has never been a time more desperate for an authentic, effective weight loss strategy – a strategy that can be employed by the masses so that we can begin to do some serious work combating the obesity epidemic.
What I am going to attempt today is not to come up with yet another argument for why one common approach is better than another, or why we need to stop doing X and all do Y. Rather, my approach has been to examine the major methods of addressing weight loss, to think critically about why they work and why they fail, and to combine the strongest principles from each theory and practice into one strong solution.
By examining how the best strategies work effectively, along with considerations of their weaknesses, we can come up with a more powerful combined approach, one that encompasses the strengths of each strategy while working to avoid the weaknesses.
The Problem:
Before we get started, let us make sure we are clear on the problem at hand. To state the problem generally, the problem is one of excess energy storage. To be more specific, the problem is that this excess energy is stored as excess fat, and this is a problem because when accumulated in excess, that fat can become a burden on the body. Although the human body is designed to store fat, it is only designed to store so much of it. Beyond a certain threshold, that fat can interfere with an individual’s ability to live a normal life and can additionally become hazardous to that individual’s health (more on this here).
Now, while we are all clear that the problem is excess fat accumulation, to truly understand the extent of the problem we need a bit more information. The thing is, this excess fat accumulation problem – it isn’t as simple and straightforward as most people like to believe. Most individuals have come to understand this as they try and fail (and try again and fail again) to achieve and maintain weight loss. For something that should be so simple, the problem turns out to be much more complex than we could have imagined.
Therefore, we need to understand a bit of the complexity behind what actually causes this excess energy accumulation so that we can address the problem effectively.
The human body is no passive structure that simply allows for the accumulation and release of energy as we demand. Fat does not accumulate by any passive means and is certainly not released without the right conditions being met.
To understand what “these conditions” may be, we have to first understand a basic principle about the human body in regards to the control of energy in the body.
A steady supply of energy is essential for the survival of the body, so it makes sense to acknowledge the fact that the body would have evolved systems in place to ensure careful control over these energy stores, including mechanisms in place to prevent the body from losing too much energy.
Moreover, we know that this excess energy is a burden to the body – something that would hinder its ability to survive and reproduce – which means that the body would have evolved signaling mechanisms to ensure that this excessive energy build-up does not happen.
This is an application of a very basic biological principle: homeostasis. When you look across all sorts of biological systems, you will find that while the factors in these systems fluctuate over time, they generally tend to head back towards a stable point. If a variable increases too much, other / linked factors change in response, and these changes drive the original variable back towards baseline.
Again, this is a well-established biological principle, one witnessed across all biological systems. The human body, being an incredible biological machine, is no different, which means that the body, too, is governed by this homeostatic principle. This means that the body’s energy stores are governed by these same homeostatic principles and that there are factors in place to drive energy levels back to a level that the body has deemed “healthy” (hold onto this concept – we will return to it later).
It is normal (and healthy) for a body’s weight to fluctuate. Remember, a key feature of the human body is its ability to store away excess energy so that it can be used as fuel in times where energy cannot be consumed. However, if that stored energy begins to extend beyond a healthy range, there are mechanisms that kick into gear to counterbalance this weight gain (i.e. promote weight loss). In this way, the body ensures that too much weight is not gained.
Energy homeostasis is a well-established principle, one that would have been essential to our survival as our species evolved over millions of years. Yet, today, we clearly live in a world where this principle has been tossed out the window. Clearly, the body no longer has the ability to maintain energetic homeostasis, and this means that the mechanisms in place to prevent excess weight gain are no longer functional.
Therefore, a better way to frame the excess energy problem may be to see this as an inability to maintain metabolic homeostasis, resulting in excess fat accumulation.
The excess energy accumulation problem: the population-wide loss of the ability to maintain metabolic homeostasis, resulting in excess fat accumulation.
The important questions for us to answer are why is it the case that the modern human body has lost its ability to maintain homeostasis, and what can we do to reverse it?
Remember, when answering these questions the goal is not to support the reigning theory that we believe has the strongest support. Rather, the goal is to look at the logic behind the best weight loss methods, to examine the strongest science, and put it all into practice with the most effective practices.
Today we are going to focus on the two most prominent approaches to weight loss that address this problem with the understanding that it has become a norm, affecting the majority of people across all backgrounds. This means that we are going to ignore the excess fat mass problem from the viewpoint of rare gene mutations or viruses, along with psychological or emotional based reasons. Instead, we will focus on how it is possible for a typical human body (i.e. a body with no obesity-linked mutations or other special circumstances) to gain excess weight in a manner of which it becomes a health concern.
Perspective 1: A method for framing the problem and understanding the end goal
Given our problem statement, we know that the problem at hand involves the result that is excess stored energy. Naturally, this draws one’s attention to viewing the problem from one well-known perspective: as an energy imbalance.
Energy balance is a simple fact about any closed system. As we all know from high school physics, energy cannot be created nor destroyed and can only be transformed from one form to another. Extending this concept further, we know that in any system, any change in energy must be equal to the difference in energy entering the system and energy leaving the system:
energy in – energy out = change in energy in the system.
This is basic energy balance, a well-established scientific theory that has its application in problems of all shapes and sizes. Given that the problem we have on our hands is a problem of energy imbalance, it makes sense to bring this concept into use.
This brings us to the first perspective on the excess energy accumulation problem: energy balance, commonly understood as calorie balance.
I can be confident that you are familiar with this concept, as the term “calories” has been brought to the forefront of our attention in regards to anything diet, exercise, or health-related. That being said, before we get carried away with previous conceptions of “calories,” let us first take a step back to understand the theory.
Calorie Balance Theory
As we know from the research unearthing the physical laws governing the universe, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only transformed from one source of energy to another. Another way to say this is that energy is conserved.
The conservation of energy tells us that, because energy cannot be created nor destroyed, any change in total energy in a system must equal the difference in the amount of energy entering the system and the amount of energy leaving the system: energy in – energy out = change in total internal energy
Now, this principle can be applied to any system, which would, of course, include the human body:
If there is a net positive change in energy, this means that energy in > energy out.
If there is to be a net negative change in energy, this means that energy out > energy in.
Given the excess energy accumulation problem, we know that the problem is created when energy in > energy out. Conversely, if we want to counteract the excess energy problem, then energy out > energy in.
Remember, this is simply stating a matter of fact – here we are taking a physical law and applying it to a system that we have defined as the human body.
Now, how do we take this principle and apply it as practical advice? Well, since we know that the body receives energy in the form of food and that the body expends energy through different means (e.g. exercise and basal metabolic processes), we can work to balance the energy consumed as food and expended through exercise and other metabolic processes.
Moreover, to allow us to speak of all of these different energy types in a common unit, we can speak of all of this in terms of a particular unit of energy: calories. This “calorie” concept is useful as it is simple to estimate the amount of calories a food contains, it is also simple to estimate the amount of calories expended during an exercise session, and, finally, it is fairly straightforward to estimate the amount of energy expended by the body throughout the day. Combining all of this information, we can extend energy balance to calorie balance:
Calories consumed – calories expended (exercise) – calories expended (basal metabolic rate) = change in calories
One last step to apply this to weight loss: because the problem at hand is one of excess energy contained in stored fat, then as the logic goes, if we can create a calorie deficit, then the body has to let go of that excess stored fat.
Thus, to lose weight, all that needs to happen is the successful creation of a calorie deficit. This means that we simply need to consume fewer calories than we expend. It couldn’t be more simple, right?
As we know, this theory then gets translated to practical advice to create a calorie deficit – that advice being to consume fewer calories and exercise more to burn more calories.
Calorie balance in practice: to lose weight a calorie deficit needs to be achieved, and therefore an individual looking to lose weight needs to eat fewer calories and exercise more to burn more calories.
Which sounds like such a beautifully simple and elegant solution, allowing it to be spread into every nook and cranny of society, adopted by doctors, nutritionists, and individuals everywhere.
Calorie balance provides a wonderfully simple solution to weight loss – that is, until we put it into practice and it fails us miserably.
Calorie Balance in Practice
The reality is that, when it comes to achieving and maintaining substantial weight loss, the focus on calories often does not work, and the proof is written everywhere. We have been told for decades to focus on our calorie intake (by eating fewer calories) and to focus on our calorie expenditure (by exercising more). Yet, this advice has done nothing to counteract the obesity problem, and finds us, today, in a state with calorie content plastered on every food item and displaying prominently on every exercise machine, yet an incredible 70% of the population overweight. Clearly, this advice went awry somewhere.
Still though, how could it possibly be wrong to recommend eating less and exercising more? As a direct extension of a scientific theory clearly shows us, a calorie deficit must be achieved to lose weight. So why, then, are people not losing weight when all of society is set up around this concept of working to create a calorie deficit by consuming fewer calories and expending more calories?
The problem is actually quite easy to spot once we understand some basic biology. The thing is,“direct extension” of a scientific theory is not so direct once we bounce from energy balance to the practice of creating a calorie deficit in a human body. Let’s look at why this may be:
Calorie Balance:
calories consumed – calories expended = change in internal calories
Application of Calorie Balance:
calories consumed – calories expended (exercise) – calories expended (basal metabolic rate) = change in internal calories
If we want to lose weight, the right side of the equation must be negative. This means that calorie expenditure must be greater than calorie intake:
calories consumed < calories expended (exercise) + calories expended (basal metabolic rate)
To successfully reach a calorie deficit, we must consistently consume less than we burn through exercise combined with what is naturally burned by our metabolisms throughout the day.
But what about the following situations:
Situation 1:
Eating less —> decreased metabolic rate and/or less exercise
In this case, is a calorie deficit necessarily met?
Situation 2:
Exercising more —> eating more and/or lower metabolic rate
In this case, is a calorie deficit necessarily met?
This is the first problem with calorie balance: it ignores natural homeostatic principles which drive changes in behavior or other unconscious processes in response to our actions. While we can try to force a calorie deficit by restricting calories or expending more of them, in practice this can become very difficult because the body responds to these behaviors.
When we eat less, the body tends to burn less. When we exercise more, the body wants to eat more. And, even if we are able to harness our willpower and not give into this desire to compensate with eating more or exercising less, there is still the matter of that third variable: basal metabolic rate.
Calorie balance seems like a great practice, yet its fault is that it is a great oversimplification of the problem. As we will see, this does not mean that we need to throw calorie balance out the window, but it does mean that we must incorporate more information into the model if we are going to have any chance of effectively addressing the excess energy accumulation problem.
Calorie balance tells us that to lose weight, a calorie deficit must be achieved. However, it does nothing to tell us how this deficit should be met. This leads us to jump to conclusions about how that deficit might best be met (i.e. by eating less and exercising more), which does not necessarily work.
This brings us back to the concept I opened this series with – the idea that the human body has in place mechanisms designed to maintain homeostasis. When we fight against these mechanisms it becomes very difficult to have any lasting effect.
What if, instead, we worked to understand these mechanisms so we can align them with our weight loss goals?
Which is a good place to shift over to the second major theory describing the excess energy problem: disrupted metabolic signaling.
Perspective 2: Understanding primary metabolic mechanisms
Health and nutrition principles have traditionally been applied with the assumption that the human body will respond to choices forced upon it with our conscious decisions. For example, if we can choose to eat less and exercise more, then the body will respond as we intend it to: by losing weight.
Yet, as the evidence to the contrary has piled up and as stronger science has been brought to light, it has become very apparent that weight loss models must be updated to include how the body regulates its internal energy stores. This brings us to the weight loss advice that is popping up with more regularity – metabolic signaling.
The human body is no passive structure – it is supported by a highly responsive network of signals that respond to the nutrients and signals received from the external environment. This highly dynamic system operates via countless signaling mechanisms, and these mechanisms work together to achieve a homeostatic network – a network that fluctuates throughout the day or season, yet remains more or less stable over time. This stability is owed to mechanisms in place to ensure that energy does not fluctuate too much as to become a threat to the survival of that human body.
At least, that is the theory based on how the body has operated throughout evolutionary history. Throughout evolutionary history, the body would have needed to gain weight in the days of plenty so that this energy could be used in times of famine. However, if that energy would have dropped too low or built up too high, that would become a threat to the survival of the body, making it absolutely necessary to cause changes to shift that energy balance back into a healthy range.
Yet, in recent years, the body has clearly demonstrated that it is capable of entering a state in which it is incapable of maintaining homeostatic energy balance, leading to unhealthy, and in some cases, life-threatening weight gain.
This shift to the seemingly simple ability of the body to load on dozens (to even hundreds)of pounds of excess weight demonstrates that these mechanisms are not at play – at least, not to any sort of effective extent.
So then, the interesting and potentially useful question – what has happened to cause this shift? What has changed to cause this inability to effectively regulate the body’s own internal energy stores?
An Introduction to Primary Metabolic Signals:
To attempt to answer this question without getting lost among a sea of mechanisms, molecules, and complex pathways, let us keep our attention on two primary signaling molecules: insulin and leptin. There are two ways that we can look at these two signals that may prove useful in our understanding of this metabolic system. Let’s examine these now.
The first perspective of these two primary signaling mechanisms is in regards to short vs. long term energy storage:
A. Short term signaling: We can think of insulin as our short term energy regulator – it is the hormone that is constantly changing in regards to the energetic needs in available energy in the bloodstream. More specifically, insulin fluctuates based on blood sugar levels. As sugar is a primary source of energy, it is essential that blood sugar levels remain in a tight window. Insulin is released in response to these fluctuations.
The release of insulin signals to the body that energy needs to be stored. This happens as blood sugar levels begin to elevate – through the release of insulin, these blood sugar elevations signal that energy needs to be stored away.
B. Long term signaling: We can think of insulin as our long term energy regulator – it is the hormone that slowly fluctuates based on the amount of stored energy we have in our adipose tissue (i.e. fat storage depots). As fat accumulates over time, leptin elevates, signaling that the body needs to shift away from fat storage and towards fat utilization.
There is an alternative way we can view these two hormones that may better help us relate them to our excess energy problem. As the problem at hand is the continuous storage of fat beyond a healthy amount, we can view the problem as an excessive signal to store energy and a lack of signal to halt this energy storage. Thus, we can view disruption in healthy insulin signaling as the excess energy storage signal, while we can view the disruption in healthy leptin signaling as the lack of a stop signal.
This means that, as we begin to think about a practical approach to weight loss using these signaling concepts, we can view the problem as excess secretion of insulin combined with a decreased ability to respond to leptin.
Of course, this is a great oversimplification of the many signaling mechanisms in place that regulate energy intake, energy expenditure, and the many metabolic processes that go on inside the body with no real net change in total energy (e.g. the conversion of energy from one type to another). Still, with a basic understanding of these two hormones, we gain great power to make decisions that will most likely put our body in the metabolic state we want it – that is, a fat-burning state.
In the name of further simplicity, we are going to move forward focusing on the most relevant hormone responsible for energy storage: insulin. Once we understand these primary signals and can apply their function to our dietary and lifestyle choices, we can then circle back around and add more signals to build a better picture of the entire system.
Creating a Powerful Approach to the Excess Energy Problem
We now have at our hands an understanding of the two key theories attempting to explain and address the excess energy problem. Through the lens of calorie balance, we can see that the problem is that of excess energy accumulation and that the answer is to create a calorie deficit to force the body to release that excess energy. Through the lens of energy signaling, we can see that this problem is one of disrupted metabolic signaling, allowing the body to be put in a chronic energy-storage state. As the body has been designed to have tight control over its energy storage (via signals such as insulin and leptin), there must be some factor that is causing this metabolic disruption and, as a result, causing the excess energy problem.
This leaves us with two very logical approaches to addressing the problem at hand. We can look towards creating a calorie deficit to force the body to release excess energy, and we can also look towards minimizing insulin to keep the body out of energy storage. Should we get started?
Before we jump into using these approaches, we first must address the problem that is the application of both approaches, at least in regards to how they are commonly implemented in today’s society. As you probably know, these theories are not typically seen as two tools to implement, but rather, as two competing theories with very different modes of application.
So what’s the problem? Why are these two approaches so regularly seen as competitive – as alternate approaches of which one must choose the right option?
The problem is one of the common practice of these two theories. Calorie balance is commonly a practice of calorie intake minimization and calorie outtake maximization. When speaking of calorie intake, we know that certain foods (more specifically, certain macronutrients) contain more calories than others. Fat contains more than twice the amount of calories of carbohydrate or protein, so it makes sense to avoid fat while consuming more carbohydrate.
On the other hand, when we look at insulin signaling – it turns out that carbohydrate is what results in the most insulin secretion, while fat has hardly any impact on insulin at all.
This is what puts these two theories head-to-head. Through the lens of calorie balance, carbohydrates are our friends while fat is the foe; however, through the lens of metabolic signaling, fat now becomes our friend while carbohydrate is the foe. (We’ll leave protein out of the conversation for now – although there is debate over how much protein should be consumed, it really deserves its own discussion and should not be viewed as a trade-off with the other two macronutrients).
The result is two competing theories that find themselves in different camps continuously arguing against one another. From the macronutrient perspective, we have the high-carb low-fat (HCLF) camp pitted against the low-carb high-fat (LCHF) camp. Moreover, as these macronutrients tend to vary depending on different food types, this seeps into arguments for different food groups. For example, we have the HCLF vegan camp pitted against the higher fat-lower carb paleo camp and the very low-carb high-fat keto group.
While debate over different weight loss approaches can provide beneficial insight, the problem is that these wars over “ideal” diets have poor implications for the individual who is simply trying to make a choice on what to do.
The problem with the weight loss theory wars is the implication for an individual simply trying to figure out what to eat. An individual seeking advice on how to lose weight enters a battlefield of different camps arguing for what view is right and which view is wrong, for which foods or macronutrients we should be eating and which ones we should be avoiding. This can easily leave that individual utterly frustrated, with feelings of overwhelm or even hopelessness of figuring out what one is to do to just lose some weight.
There is another way – a method in which we leave these camps behind by dropping labels and checking egos at the door – a method that simply looks at the facts and combines the useful information while ditching that which is no help.
The Reprogrammed Systems Approach to the excess energy problem
At the beginning of this article, I asked you to hold onto a concept – the idea that the body will not let go of its energy stores without certain conditions being met. Let’s bring this concept back into the picture now.
We know what needs to happen for the body to release a large amount of fat mas: a calorie deficit must be achieved and maintained.
Moreover, we know that to achieve this goal certain conditions must be met for the body to release that fat in a healthy manner.
To accomplish the goal – to achieve and maintain weight loss via the release and utilization of excess fat, we now need to understand how our actions result in these conditions being met.
This article introduced what these conditions may look like and also framed these conditions within the big picture – that of a calorie deficit. With the next article, my goal is to explain what the most significant conditions may be, along with the actions that each individual can take to meet them.