Читать книгу Fat Chance: The bitter truth about sugar - Dr. Lustig Robert, Dr. Robert Lustig - Страница 9

Is Sienna obese because of her behavior? Was this learned behavior? When would she have learned this behavior, and from whom? Has she, at age one, learned to control her mother to get what she wants? Should she accept personal responsibility for her actions?

Based on “a calorie is a calorie,” behaviors come first. Personal responsibility implies a choice: that there is a conscious decision leading to a behavior. This behavior is formed because of learned benefits or detriments (e.g., a child placing her hand on a stove and learning it is hot). But does this make sense with regard to obesity? In everyone? In anyone? There are six reasons to doubt “personal responsibility” as the cause of obesity.

1. Obesity Is Not a Choice

The concept of personal responsibility for obesity doesn’t always make sense. In our society today, one has to ask: Are there people who see obesity as a personal advantage? Something to be desired or emulated? Across the board, modern Western societies today value the thin and shun the obese. Obesity frequently comes with many medical complications, and those afflicted are more likely to develop heart problems and type 2 diabetes (see chapter 9). Obese people spend twice as much on health care.[12] Studies show that the obese have more difficulty in dating, marriage, and fertility. The obese tend to be poorer and, even in high-paying jobs, earn less than their peers.[13]

Now ask the same question about children. Did Sienna see obesity as a personal advantage? Did she become obese on purpose? Obese children have a quality of life similar to that of children on cancer chemotherapy.[14] They are ostracized by their peers and are the targets of bullies. Many obese children suffer from low self-esteem, shame, self-hatred, and loneliness. One study showed children pictures of potential playmates. Each looked different and some had physical handicaps, such as being deformed or in a wheelchair. The researchers asked the children with whom they would rather play. The obese child came in dead last. Clearly, obesity is not something to which people, especially children, aspire.

However, this view of obesity does not necessarily square with the beliefs of obese people themselves. They see themselves as perpetrators, not victims. They often state that they know their behavior is out of control and that this behavior is their own fault. They frequently experience yo-yo dieting. They lose weight for a period of time, and when they gain it back they blame themselves, seeing the gain as a character failing. They often recount binge eating, which suggests that a degree of dietary control is lost. These experiences of losing control make them think they had the control in the first place. Did they?

2. Diet and Exercise Don’t Work

If obesity were only about increased energy intake and decreased energy expenditure, then reducing intake (diet) and increasing expenditure (exercise) would be effective. If obesity were caused by learned behaviors, then changing those behaviors would be effective in reversing the process and promoting weight loss. Specific and notable successes have led to behavior/lifestyle modification as the cornerstone of therapy for obesity.

There are the anecdotal cases of weight loss by celebrities, such as Kirstie Alley or Oprah Winfrey, who publicly endorse their diets as if they were the latest fashionable handbags. They share their stories on TV and convince their viewers that this lifestyle change is possible for them, too, and that, as with adding the newest fall color to their wardrobe, losing weight will make them attractive and happy. There are reality television shows, such as The Biggest Loser, that document the weight loss (along with many a meltdown) of “normal people” through controlled diet and exercise. Publicity, cash prizes, and constant attention are often enough to change one’s diet and exercise response for a short time. In any magazine and many infomercials, peddlers of new weight-loss remedies provide before and after pictures of people who have lost 100 pounds.

Whether this constitutes a true lasting change in behavior is doubtful. After all, Kirstie Alley and Oprah, celebrities who live in the public eye, have gained their weight back several times (until their newest miracle diet began, countless new diet books were sold, new gurus were anointed, millions of dollars were made, and the cycle repeated itself). There have been numerous reports of contestants on The Biggest Loser regaining much of their weight after the show ended. Most notably, Eric Chopin, the Season 3 winner, appeared on Oprah to tell his sorry tale of gaining at least half the weight back after his victory. He wrote in one blog post, “I’m still not back on track totally. I don’t know what it is.” Significant weight regain has been seen in up to one third of patients who have had surgery for weight loss (see chapter 19), because the reason for the obesity is still there. Unless it’s dealt with directly, regaining will be the norm, not the exception.

Strict control of one’s environment through limiting caloric intake and increasing physical activity can result in weight loss. This is true as long as the environment remains regulated. A perfect example is the army recruit who consistently loses weight due to monitored diet and vigorous exercise. This also accounts for the number of “fat schools” and “fat camps” that have sprung up nationwide. Parents send their overweight child away for the summer and are thrilled when he returns thinner, if harboring parental resentment. There are numerous reports of Hollywood stars who bulk up for a role (remember Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull?) and then lose the excess weight after shooting. (Of course, they have the benefit of round-the-clock personal trainers and nutritionists to monitor their food intake.) While such results are dramatic, they usually cannot be sustained. Environmental control is different from behavioral control (see chapters 17 and 18).

The real problem is not in losing the weight but in keeping it off for any meaningful length of time. Numerous sources show that almost every lifestyle intervention works for the first three to six months. But then the weight comes rolling back.[15] The number of people who can maintain any meaningful degree of weight loss is extremely small (see figure 3.1). However, because behavior/lifestyle modification is the accepted treatment, the general explanation of weight regain is that it is the individual’s fault. Because he is “choosing” not to live a healthy lifestyle, the doctors and the insurance industry do not feel it their responsibility to intervene.

The same is true for children. Due to some notable and individual successes, behavior/lifestyle modification is the cornerstone of therapy. However, this is not a winning strategy for most obese children. Research shows that dietary interventions don’t often work. Exercise interventions are even less successful. And unfortunately for children like Sienna, at one year of age they are unable to run on a treadmill. Also, the effects of altering lifestyle for obesity prevention are underwhelming and show minimal effect on behavior and essentially no effect on BMI.

Fig. 3.1. The “Biggest Loser”—Not You. Percentage of obese individuals who were able to maintain their weight loss over nine years.

3. The Obesity Epidemic Is Now a Pandemic

If obesity were just an American phenomenon it would be an epidemic, an outbreak of illness specific to a certain area. One might then blame our American culture for promoting it. Due to our slippage in education and technological superiority, we’re labeled as “fat and lazy” or “gluttons and sloths.” Yet obesity is now a pandemic, a worldwide problem.

The United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada are right behind us. Also, in the past ten years, obese children have increased in France from 5 to 10 percent, in Japan from 6 to 12 percent, and in South Korea from 7 to 18 percent.[16] In fact, obesity and chronic metabolic diseases are occurring in underdeveloped countries that have never had such problems before.[17] Previously, poorer countries such as Malaysia had problems with malnutrition. Now Malaysia has the highest prevalence of type 2 diabetes on the planet. China has an epidemic of childhood obesity, at 8 percent in urban areas. Brazil’s rate of increase in obesity is predicted to reach that of the United States by 2020. Even India, which continues to have an enormous problem with malnutrition, is not immune – since 2004, the number of overweight children increased from 17 percent to 27 percent. Sienna is not a rarity; her obese peers are being born everywhere. The areas experiencing the greatest rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes include Asia (especially the Pacific Rim) and Africa, which are not wealthy areas.[18] No corner of the globe is spared.

This is not an American problem, an Australian problem, a British problem, or a Japanese problem. This is a global problem. Could each of these countries be experiencing the same cultural shifts toward gluttony and sloth that we are? Childhood obesity knows no intellect, class, or continent.

What change in the last thirty years ties all the countries of the world together? As I mentioned in the introduction, the “American diet” has morphed into the “industrial global diet.” Despite people in other countries disapproving of our fast food and TV culture, our diet has invaded virtually every other country. Our fast food culture is now global due to taste, shelf life, cost, shipping ease, and the “cool” factor (a result of effective marketing). Its acceptance is also a response to the contaminated water supplies in these areas: soft drinks are often safer, cheaper, and more available than potable water.[19] They are also cheaper and certainly more available than milk.

4. Even Animals Raised in Captivity Are Getting Fat

A recent report documented that, in the past twenty years, animals raised in captivity exhibit increasing body weights. The study examined the records of 22,000 animals of 8 different species, from rats to orangutans.[20] These animals were housed in multiple human-built colonies around the world, including labs and zoos. They don’t eat our commercial food. However, their food is still processed and composed of the same general ingredients as our own. Also, these animals drink the same water and breathe the same air that we do. We don’t yet know why this is happening, but the fact that even animals are showing signs of weight gain argues both against personal responsibility and in favor of some sort of environmental insult to which all life on the planet is now exposed (see chapter 15).

5. The Poor Pay More

As stated earlier, personal responsibility implies a choice, usually a conscious choice. Can one exercise personal responsibility if one doesn’t have a choice? It is well known that the poor have much higher rates of obesity and chronic disease than do the rich. There are many reasons for this difference, and it is difficult to pinpoint one factor that is responsible. In the United States the poor exhibit two separate traits that argue against personal responsibility.

First, there are possible genetic issues. It is well known that African Americans and Latinos in the United States are more economically disadvantaged than their Caucasian peers. These demographic groups have higher rates of obesity than Caucasians—40 percent of Latinos and 50 percent of African Americans are obese – and are more likely to have associated medical problems, such as metabolic syndrome.[21] Certain genetic variations are more common in specific minority groups. These differences in DNA may, in part, explain the higher rates of obesity and certain metabolic diseases, such as fatty liver (see chapters 7 and 19). Genetic makeup is certainly not a choice.

Second, there are issues of access. There is a difference between the “healthy” diet of the affluent, who can purchase fresh, unprocessed foods that are high in fiber and nutrients and low in sugar, but at high prices, and, the unhealthy diet of the poor, which consists mainly of low-cost processed foods and drinks that do not need refrigeration and maintain a long shelf life. But access does not refer only to what people can afford to buy. Many poor neighborhoods throughout America lack farmers’ markets, supermarkets, and grocery stores where “healthy” foods can be purchased.[22] Many supermarkets have pulled out of poor neighborhoods, mainly because of financial decisions based on revenue and fear of crime. The national supermarket chain Kroger, which is headquartered in Cincinati, in 2007 purchased twenty former Farmer Jack stores in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan, but none within the Detroit city limits. The nearest branch is in Dearborn, eight miles away from downtown. Many who live in low-income areas also have limited access to transportation. Lower-class urban areas throughout America have been labeled “food deserts” because they are unable to sustain a healthy lifestyle. If the only place you can shop is a corner store for processed food, is what you eat really a choice? In wealthier areas of San Francisco, nearly every block has an organic food store, while in the city’s poorer areas, each corner is dotted with a fast food franchise.

Even when all foods are available at low cost, the poor may not have access to refrigerators or even kitchens. Many SROs (single-room occupancy) hotels have only hot plates and no space for keeping or cooking healthy meals. Further, there is the issue of time. Many poor families are led by parents who work multiple jobs and are unable to come home and prepare healthy meals for their children, instead relying on fast food or pizza.

Lastly, the poor suffer from issues of food insecurity. People experience massive amounts of stress when they don’t know where their next meal is coming from (see chapter 6). They eat what is available, when they can – usually processed food. That level of stress is incompatible with the concept of choice. Stressed people can’t make a rational choice, particularly one in which short-term objectives (e.g., sating their hunger) are pitted against longer-term objectives (e.g., ensuring good health).

6. The Greatest Rate of Increase in Obesity Is in the Youngest Patients

When you look at U.S. trends in childhood obesity over the past forty years, you see that every age group is affected. However, the age group that shows the greatest rate of increase in the last decade is the two- to five-year-olds.[23] It is impossible to ascribe personal responsibility or free choice to this age group. Toddlers don’t decide when, what, or how much to eat. They do not shop for or cook their own food. However, as all parents know, they do have lungs and they do make their preferences known in the supermarket. Research has shown that children are not able to tell the difference between a TV show and a commercial until they are eight years old. Children in the United States watch an average of three to four hours of TV per day. The programs are interspersed with commercials that target these young viewers and convince them of what they need.[24] If you can’t discern what’s marketing and what’s not, how can you defend yourself against it?

We even have an epidemic of obese six-month-olds.[25] They don’t diet or exercise. They drink breast milk or formula and lie in their cribs. While our society easily puts the blame on our current diet and exercise practices, how does this explain the obese six-month-old? Whatever theory you have to explain the obesity epidemic, it has to explain them also. The concept of diet and exercise in an obese infant is a non sequitur. Sienna and other obese six-month-olds lay waste to the idea of personal responsibility for obesity. Instead of perpetrator, the obese six-month-old must be a victim. But a victim of what? Or whom?

Who Is to Blame?

So we are left with a conundrum. We’re all eating more and exercising less. By 2050, obesity will be the norm, not the exception. Do abnormal behaviors drive obesity? If so, behavior is primary, behavior is a choice, and personal responsibility is front and center. But what if it’s the other way around? What if our biological process of weight gain drives these abnormal behaviors (see chapter 4)? To argue against personal responsibility is to argue against free will. “Free will” is defined as “the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by necessity.” Who is making the choices? Philosophers and scientists have argued this topic for centuries. Albert Einstein stated, “If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…so would a Being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.” Anthony Cashmore of the University of Pennsylvania recently proposed that free will was in reality an interaction between our DNA and our environment, along with some stochastic (random) processes.[26] Because our DNA cannot be changed, and because random processes are random, we’re left with our environment, both as the sentinel exposure and the only factor than can be manipulated.

The debate about who or what is to blame for obesity will not be settled anytime soon. But I would argue that ascribing personal responsibility to the obese individual is not a rational argument for an eminently practical reason: it fails to advance any efforts to change it. The obesity pandemic is due to our altered biochemistry, which is a result of our altered environment. Part 2 will demonstrate how our behaviors are secondary, and are molded by our biochemistry.