The Obesity Environment: Population Dynamics and Food Quality

My high school European history teacher, Dr. McLintock, introduced me to the works of Thomas Malthus, the 18^th century author of An Essay On The Principle Of Population.  In a nutshell, Malthus proposed that while food supplies increase arithmetically (in small increments – think addition), populations increase geometrically (think multiplication). The result is that at some point we will outgrow our food supply, leading to natural checks on our population via hardships and suffering, as people deal with the shortage of supplies and competition for resources.

While a very compelling view centuries ago, what Malthus did not account for is technology, which post-industrial revolution, has increased geometrically to keep up with our population. You can even argue that, given the fact that our country produces far more calories than need to be consumed and given the extent our obesity epidemic, our ability to feed ourselves has charged ahead of the need to feed a growing population.  For instance our agricultural industry now produces genetically altered, subsidized crops that are easier to manufacture in bulk and more resistant to bugs, disease and spoiling than ever before.  The result is that we have an over-abundance of corn and soy that gets altered and fed into almost all commercially produced foods from junk foods to condiments to our livestock in unnatural ways.  Another example is how we have learned how to raise cows almost twice as fast as when they simply grazed and grass in an open field.

While technology has helped us overcome some of the fears of Malthus, his ultimate concern holds true (even if for another reason).  The second half of his theory was that the discrepancy between our earth’s population and sustenance would ultimately put a cap on population growth through the suffering of man.  While populations continue to grow and the struggle for food in industrialized nations is not what he would have predicted, we are suffering some of the negative consequences of this struggle in obvious ways even as it pertains to the few advances I have illustrated.

1. The production of excess crops (corn comes to mind) has encouraged obesity in more ways than one.  High fructose corn syrup is dumped into countless commercial food products (even those that would not be thought of as sweet such as ketchup and pickles).  Additionally, there is more energy produced in our country than is expended.  In other words, there is more food in our country than is needed – with this excess clearly showing on our bodies.
2. The potential harms of genetically modified crops (even genetically modified fish is on its way) and the pesticides that they can tolerate have yet to be fully illustrated.  At the very least there are associations between pesticide levels in the urine and hormones such as testosterone.
3. The unnatural feeding of our livestock (and inhumane conditions in which they are raised) has necessitated the use of antibiotics and toxic substances that kill microbial infestation that would otherwise not be the case (cow’s that are grass fed are less susceptible to E. coli as the bacteria cannot thrive in a basic environment. Grain fed cattle’s stomachs have an acidic environment like humans, and therefore E. coli proliferates. So when we eat beef and dairy we are consuming antibiotics.
4. In order to make more of the meats we want and quicker, our livestock is pumped with hormones leading to a myriad of known (and unknown) health complications.  This might be the case in anything from meat, to cheese, butter, milk and anything else with dairy.
5. The emphasis on creating large amounts of food (calories) quickly has created a situation where the focus of technology, profit motive and our own genetic susceptibilities perpetuate a system where calorie dense, nutrient-poor and health deteriorating foods have flooded our supermarkets and homes.

What to do?

1. Avoid obviously genetically modified foods (like GMO soy products) until we know for sure what the long term consequences are.

2. If you can afford it, stick to organic meats and poultry

3. Buy local.  Small local farms are far less likely to engage in the practices that might harm your health.  If we don’t buy local, the small farmer will completely disappear in the future.

4. Avoid food with high fructose corn syrup or gratuitous corn or sugar added to the ingredient list.  If you are going to buy pre-packaged foods or snacks, make sure the ingredient list is short.

5. Eat fruits and vegetables instead of processed grains and fats.

Tune in to my next entry for a brief overview of the food industry and how it is contributing to our obesity epidemic.

Image courtesy of Miller Info Commons on Flickr

You Need More Vitamin D…For Now

Vitamin D has been all the rage of late.  Here is a brief review from the New York Times.  Once considered strictly a regulator of calcium and bone mineralization recent findings suggest that vitamin D deficiency is associated with several types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and immune system disorders, raising risk of infection, auto-immune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and type-I diabetes. 

I have found that the overwhelming number of patients that I see have at least insufficient vitamin D levels, while at least half have vitamin D deficiency.  Those at highest risk are obese patients, patients with digestive disorders and, not surprisingly, people who work long hours at desk jobs without sun exposure (lawyers and investment bankers tend to have the lowest in my practice).  In fact, over the past year I have only seen a handful of patients not already taking supplemental vitamin D that meet the suggested 25, OH vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml.

My advice is to start at 1000 IU of vitamin D₃ daily to be taken with a meal (aiding the absorption of this fat-soluble vitamin).  For those at higher risk or whose vitamin D levels do not rise, I suggest 2000 IU or even more aggressive dosing for those severely deficient, although I have found that this moderate supplementation usually is sufficient.   This is not the first vitamin to gain public favor – vitamins A, C and E were popular not that long ago, although follow up studies on broad use of them as supplements in healthy individuals has yet to yield convincing evidence of their benefit.  For now, the association of vitamin D deficiency and disease is convincing.  Whether follow-up studies demonstrate efficacy of vitamin D supplementation in preventing and managing these diseases will ultimately guide recommendations. 

To read the full NY Times article, click here.