Chronic overeating and inactivity is definitely a path to an obese, unhealthy life. But, are we as a nation really eating that much more? According to surveys conducted in 1977-78 and 1994-96, reported daily caloric intake increased from 2239 Kcal (calories) to 2455 Kcal in men, and from 1534 Kcal to 1646 Kcal in women. Are these really enough calories to cause such massive decreases in the health of so many people? I don’t think so. There is one factor; however, that I believe is responsible for the greatest portion of the unhealthy state of our union. It’s not necessarily how much we’re eating, genetics or even a virus: It’s what we’re eating.

If a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, as most dieticians, nutritionists and doctors claim, why doesn’t the percent of increased caloric intake match the percentage of increase in overweight or obese individuals? The increase in calorie consumption in men and women has increased 7% and 9% respectively since the seventies. The increase in the percentage of individuals who are overweight or obese has increased almost 20% in each category. And remember, this increase literally occurred in less than 30 years, which is less than a generation. Why such a discrepancy between calories consumed and weight gained? Because there’s more to this epidemic than the amount of calories people are consuming.

The food processing industry has dropped the ball when it comes to supplying healthy food for our consumption. It is blatantly obvious by the ingredients listed in food labels coupled with the downward spiral of ill health in the U.S., the food industry is obsessed with increasing the bottom line with no regard for the negative effects of its products. It would be naive to assume that this billion dollar industry has the best intentions for our food’s safety and nutritive value.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to make excuses for people who don’t exercise and overeat. I know that the vast majority of overweight individuals eat excessive calories, however as stated above, the numbers just don’t add up.

On the-other-hand, the obesity epidemic and its related afflictions do have a linear relationship to the amount of denatured, devitalized, processed food people consume, especially simple sugars and vegetable oil.
Bullz-eye.com

Unless you’ve been in a vacuum, you’re aware that the U.S. has a little bit of a weight problem. As a matter of fact, if you’re born in this country your chance of being overweight is greater than 60 percent. One of the many great benefits of coconut oil, specifically the medium chain fatty acids (MCFA) it contains, is its ability to increase energy expenditure. In other words, it increases your metabolism.

Unlike long chain fatty acids (LCFA’s), MCFA’s are processed very easily by the body. When they are consumed, MCFA’s are absorbed directly into the blood stream from the small intestines and go right to the liver. Once in the liver, they are easily burned as fuel. Because of their size and the ease in which they are processed, MCFA’s are not readily stored as fat. On the contrary, because of their size, LCFA’s are not as efficiently processed and the body prefers to store them in fat cells.

MCFA’s metabolism boosting effects have been known for decades and are heavily documented through research:

In a study, researchers compared the thermogenic effect between MCFA’s and LCFA’s after single meals. The meals of 400 calories consisted entirely of either MCFA’s or LCFA’s. The thermogenic effect of MCFA’s over six hours was three times greater than that of LCFA’s. Researchers concluded that as long as the calorie level remained constant, substituting MCFA’s for LCFA’s would result in weight loss. [1]

Farmers found that when they fed their livestock feed that contained polyunsaturated oils like soy and corn oil, animals readily gained weight. However, when they used feed that incorporated coconut oil, the animals got leaner. The main reason for this is that polyunsaturated fats suppress thyroid function, which decreases the animal’s metabolic rate. Soy oils are the worst offenders because of the goitrogens (anti thyroid substances) they contain. [2] This is what happens to us. Is it any wonder the obesity epidemic is so bad when our consumption of vegetable fats has increased more than 400%? [3]

Researchers at Vanderbilt University compared the thermogenic effect of liquid diets containing 40 percent of fat as either MCFA’s or LCFA’s. All subjects were studied for one week on each diet in a double blind, cross-over design. Resting metabolic rate did not change during the week. The thermogenic response to MCFA’s was roughly twice that of the LCFA’s. [4]

A study was published last year conducted by researchers at McGill University to evaluate existing data describing the effects of MCFA’s on energy expenditure and to determine their efficacy as agents in the treatment of obesity. They reported that several different studies have shown weight loss equivalent to 12 to 36 pounds a year simply by changing the types of oils used in everyday cooking and food preparation. Animal and human studies have shown greater energy expenditure, less body weight gain, and decreased size of fatty deposits when using MCFA’s as opposed to LCFA’s. [5]

Sources of Coconut oil:
Only use organic virgin coconut oil. I am currently using Tropical Traditions Virgin Coconut Oil. This oil is truly unrefined and made from organic coconuts. It contains a very high lauric acid content between 50 and 57 percent. I use between two and four tablespoons per day, which is what is recommended.

References
1. Seaton, T.B., et al. “Thermogenic effect of medium chain and long chain triglycerides in man.” Am J of Clin Nutr. 1986;44:630

2. Daniel, Kayla T. The Whole Soy Story. Washington, New Trends Publishing, 2005.

3. Enig, Mary., and Sally Fallon. “Myths and Truths about Beef.”westonaprice.org www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbeef.html

4. Hill, J., et al. “Thermogenesis in humans during overfeeding with medium chain triglycerides.” Metabolism. 1989 July;38(7)641-8. www.ncbi.nlm.gov

5. Jones, P. “Physiological effects of medium-chain triglycerides: potential agents in the prevention of obesity.” J Nutr. 2002 March;132(3):329-32. www.thyroid.about.com

“Behold: the world’s 10 fattest countries” a recent article published on the GlobalPost, discusses the world-wide rise in obesity and ranks the top 10 fattest countries. Although the author mentions processed food and inactivity as the causes of obesity, she fails to go into detail. I do not feel an article on the obesity epidemic is doing justice by not mentioning sugar, in particular high fructose corn syrup, or vegetable oils. These two foods, and I use the term “foods” loosely, Are increasing in use around the world as they have in the US. Vegetable oil consumption in the US, including hydrogenated oils, has increased 437%. (1) Sugar consumption went from 5 pounds per year in 1900 to 163 pounds per year today. From 1970 to the present, fructose and vegetable oil consumption have increased over four fold.(2) During this same time saturated fat has decreased over 20%.

Because we’ve decreased saturated fat consumption and increasing vegetable oil and carbohydrate consumption like the “experts” at the AMA and the ADA (American Dietetics Association) have advised for decades, you’s think we’d be getting healthier. However, we in the US are getting fatter and more unhealthy and are taking the world with us.

1. America Samoa 93.5% – percent of population that is overweight
2. Kiribati 81.5%
3. U.S. 66.7%
4. Germany 66.5%
5. Egypt 66%
6. Bosnia-Herzegovina 62.9%
7. New Zealand 62.7%
8. Isreal 61.9%
9. Croatia 61.4%
10. United Kingdom 61%

A new ad campaign try’s to tell viewers fructose is not different from other sugars. Well this couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, We’ve known for decades fructose is metabolized completely differently from other sugars and has a whole host of side effects. And the studies keep coming.

Overweight study participants showed more evidence of insulin resistance and other risk factors for heart disease and diabetes when 25 percent of their calories came from fructose-sweetened beverages instead of glucose-sweetened beverages.

A study looked at 32 overweight or obese men and women. Over a 10-week period, they drank either glucose or fructose sweetened beverages totaling 25 percent of their daily calorie intake.

Both the groups gained weight during the trial, but imaging studies revealed that the fructose-consuming group gained more of the dangerous belly fat that has been linked to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke. The fructose group also had higher total cholesterol and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, and greater insulin resistance. Mercola.com

Russ Bianchi, a pharmacologist and toxicologist, explains: “there is no safe form of fructose available from any source, unless already existing in an unprocessed apple or other piece of fruit. The science is known and epidemiologically proven”.

If you follow the obesity epidemic in the U.S., you’ll find that Americans are eating less fat. In 1965 men ate an average of 139 grams and women 83 grams of fat per day. In 1995 men ate 101 grams and women ate 65 grams of fat per day. With the way fat has been demonized over the last four decades, you’d expect an increase in fat consumption to be the main cause of the obesity epidemic, yet it’s not.

What does mirror the increase in fat Americans is the consumption pattern of HFCS. Between the years of 1970 and 1990, HFCS consumption increased 1,000 percent, and today represents 40 percent of the sweeteners added to foods and beverages. It is the sole caloric sweetener in soft drinks in the United States. Is it any wonder why obesity is an epidemic? One of the main ingredients in our food supply not only converts to fat when we consume it, it facilitates fat storage. And Americans as a whole are eating more and more and more.