Screen Shot 2014-02-18 at 9.36.34 PM

Whoo hoo the TheFatNurse appears to be a board certified FNP now! With this out of the way I can return back to obsessing over obesity related topics…although it would probably be better career wise to obsess over primary care in general…or obsess over learning spanish…or obsess using my energy to look for a full time primary care position…

In anycase, thank you so much for keeping up with this blog and my progress. A special thank you to the people who have e-mailed me their own personal stories with their struggle against obesity and metabolic disease; it is you guys who drive me to always be open minded and always do my best!


Saturated Fat, Cholesterol & Carbohydrates all over the World & Updates

Hello again! It’s been a long 5 months since TheFatNurse’s last post! I’ve been finishing up the last semester of my Family Nurse Practitioner Program and getting ready for the Boards. This means I’ve been spending less time focusing on fat related issues and more time diving into other areas of health. As result, I’ve had less time to focus on the blog. I do plan to get back into updating more regularly once the year is over.

However, the past couple of weeks has had several developments that are too note worthy to not mention! Starting in Australia:

ABC has an investigative show called Catalyst in Australia. Last week they aired a controversial report on saturated fat and cholesterol’s weak association with heart disease. This generated the obvious controversy…but the show followed it up with an episode about statins that generated even more controversy!

The basic premise of this episode was the overprescription of statins based off faulty guidelines and research on primary prevention groups (this is important to keep in mind). In addition to the literature on statins and heart disease, the show also covers some of the research process/designs when drug trials are conducted that can lead to flawed conclusions.

The expected controversy even lead the Australian Advisory Committee to urge ABC to pull the episode from airing since they believed it could have lead people to stop taking their medications – leading to death. Today Dr. Kerryn Phelps, a former Australian Medical Association president, added to the controversy by writing:

Screen Shot 2013-11-01 at 12.33.06 PM

Both episodes are worth a look to understand what the discussion is all about as many people are probably going to be confused with all this conflicting advice.

Moving onto Italy:

Apparently Pasta consumption has dropped 23% in the past decade. Why is this?

Worried about its fattening effects, she and her husband eat it no more than a few times a week, favoring couscous, meat and vegetables instead. “Metabolism changes when you approach 40,” she says, “and pasta is out of the question.”

The share of women between 26 and 30 years old who believe pasta is fattening increased 26% from 2008 to 2012, according to a Nielsen survey. And among 26- to 30-year-old men, the number who think pasta makes people fat increased 16%.

Reminds me of this episode of Portlandia:

Now to Britain:

Looks like the amount of saturated fat that will be in Britain will be decreased and taken out of the food supply:

Almost half of the food manufacturing and retail industry has signed up to the Responsibility Deal Saturated Fat Reduction Pledge by agreeing to reduce the amount of saturated fat in our food and change their products to make them healthier.

Cutting the amount of saturated fat we eat by just fifteen per cent could prevent around 2,600 premature deaths every year from conditions such as cardiovascular disease, heart diseaseand stroke.

Check out the link to the story which details what companies are planning to do. Such as:

Nestlé – which will remove 3,800 tonnes of saturated fat from over a billion Kit Kat bars per year by reformulating the recipe

And whatever they end up replacing the saturated fat will make kit kats “healthier?” Sigh…

And in Sweden:

Apparently, “Sweden has become the first Western nation to develop national dietary guidelines that reject the popular low-fat diet dogma in favor of  low-carb high-fat nutrition advice.”

I’ve heard in the past that a huge portion of the population in Sweden follows a Low Carb High Fat diet so this is not too surprising.

We’ll end with China

I’ve covered in the past how asians are often used in popular press to demonstrate how carbohydrates cannot be fattening since Asians are so skinny…despite being healthy and skinny not being the same thing.

Apparently a new study was released last month showing increased carbohydrate consumption being tied to coronary heart disease in the Chinese.

I won’t get into too much about this particular study since it’s observational and relies on questionnaires – which have faults in generating conclusive evidence. However, these study designs were used in the past to demonize dietary fat. So even if this study is not conclusive, it’s worth noting since it produced different results using similar methods in the past. Some notable observations:

These associations were robust and independent of several known CHD risk factors, including socio economic status, centralobesity, smokingstatus, hypertension, and saturated fat intake.

In a Japanese cohort, the average intakes of raw white rice were 170 g/day in women and 180 g/day in men. In that study, white rice intake was found to be inversely associated with death from cardiovascular disease in men but not in women (49). The reasons for the apparent conflicting results between that study and ours are not clear.

Perspectives on Obesity Between the Clinician and Patient Pt.2

In part 1 we went over some data that showed some clinicians may have negative attitudes about their obese patients – which sadly reflect the same negative attitudes society has on the obese (lacking willpower and etc). We explored clinician beliefs on the causes of obesity and provided contradicting data that did not support some of the beliefs clinicians had on why people gain weight. In the end, while some clinicians may have negative attitudes towards the obese, it is not clear if these negative attitudes are due to some intrinsic prejudice or were formed due to frustration in not being able to treat obesity efficiently. In this post we will go over one of the dogmas in healthcare that contributes to this frustration: “calories in & calories out”

You may already be familiar with the arguments against this concept and there are certainly other experts out there who are actively challenging this belief. Instead of going through an in depth review of the literature, I’ll provide a perspective on how this belief has influenced my formal education as a nurse, how it can effect the clinicians perspective when interacting with an obese patient and some responses I’ve received from people who felt they were treated differently by their providers due to their weight.

The basic concept of “calories in and calories out” is that eating more calories than you burn will lead to caloric excess and when you build up 3500 calories you’ll gain a pound of fat. Pretty straight forward and this concept was pounded into my brain while studying for my licensure:

Screen Shot 2013-05-02 at 2.29.08 AM

Review Material for the RN licensure that Pretty Much Sums up What you Learn in Nursing School

Screen Shot 2013-05-02 at 2.29.37 AM

Two things should jump out at you. The first is that nutrition only comprises a small portion of an RN’s formal education. The second point is that the education you need to pass the NCLEX in regards to nutrition is very thin. Additionally, most of the education on nutrition is focused on specific physiologic/pathophysiologic states and not necessarily on health promotion/prevention. The parts that are focused on health promotion are based on the usual “calories in & calories out” model in conjunction with advice such as limiting dietary fat (especially saturated dietary fats).

A lack of nutrition education extends to medical schools as well [1]

Researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill asked nutrition educators from more than 100 medical schools to describe the nutrition instruction offered to their students. While the researchers learned that almost all schools require exposure to nutrition, only about a quarter offered the recommended 25 hours of instruction, a decrease from six years earlier, when almost 40 percent of schools met the minimum recommendations. In addition, four schools offered nutrition optionally, and one school offered nothing at all.

For those schools who do offer the minimum hours in nutrition It is likely that the calories in and calories out model is used for weight maintenance. The simplicity of this model is a big contributor to what causes so much frustration for not only the patient, but the clinician as well.

When I was still deciding on pursuing a career as a family nurse practitioner, one of the books I read was Unforgettable Faces a memoir of an FNP from her point of view while treating patients with a variety of diseases. It gives a nice personal view of what goes on in a clinicians head when interacting with patients who are suffering a host of physical, mental and socioeconomic issues. There is a section where the author talks about treating obesity that is worth a visit.

In the book, the author meets a male patient who if 5’1″ and 330 lbs. He is clearly described as obese and the author comments that obesity is one of the hardest medical problems to deal with. Flipping over his chart, the clinician notices the patient has been skipping out on appointments:

He was supposed to lose ten pounds on a new diet. Instead, he gained fourteen more pounds! Most people who seriously diet will lose weight in seven days from water loss alone. He stepped down off the scale like a boy who’s gotten a bad report card and trailed me into my room.

The patient came in originally to apply for disability related to his hypertension (which was under control with meds according to the author) and difficulty with physical labor which puts him out of breath. However, the clinician informs the patient that his shortness of breath was related to his weight and that he needed to lose weight not apply for disability.

As i looked at the morbidly obese, thirty-five-year-old man, galvanized by a strong sense of denial, I realized that the real problem was motivation. Without superior motivation on the part of everyone concerned, nothing could be accomplished. It was clear to me that this patient was malingering.

“Do you think you’d feel better if you could lose some weight?”

“Maybe,” Mr. White said indifferently with a shrug of his shoulders.

In that exchange from the clinician’s perspective, it seemed that the clinician felt the patient was unmotivated in addressing his weight. That may be true…but this tells us absolutely nothing about WHY the patient is unmotivated. The next part of the story involves the harm of using “calories in & calories out.”

“Are you sticking to your diet?”

“I try to.”

I worked out the incriminating math…The result was impressive, but did not surprise me. Leaving aside his weight gain, he was ingesting at least three-thousand-nine hundred sixty calories a day. Some diet!

His [BMI] was almost twice that level, drug treatment is necessary, but it would not be successful without dieting. If Mr. White didn’t take the matter seriously, he might be facing surgery.

“I don’t think you’re sticking to your diet. I calculate that you are eating two or three times more than you should be eating.”

He sat with his arms folded and looked straight ahead, avoiding my eyes. His face turned expressionless.

This is where “calories in & calories out” is extremely unfair to both parties. The clinician in this case calculated the patient’s theoretical daily calories based off his weight and used it as an assumption of how the patient is eating. Based on this assumption, the clinician then makes another assumption that the patient doesn’t view the matter seriously. This is all possible of course if the story is all about the quantity of “calories in & calories out,” but this simplistic view ignores the quality of where these calories come from.

This perspective is already changing a bit with people such as Dr. Lustig informing the public about how the differences in calories from sugar impact the body. Last year, another study showed how the composition of a diet can create different responses despite being isocaloric [2]

…because metabolic pathways vary in energetic efficiency, dietary composition could affect energy expenditure directly by virtue of macronutrient differences or indirectly through hormonal responses to diet that regulate metabolic pathways.

Acutely, reducing dietary glycemic load diet may elicit hormonal changes that improve the availability of metabolic fuels in the late postprandial period, and thereby decrease hunger and voluntary food intake.

In otherwords, while calories in & out tells us how much we need to eat and how much we need to expend, it tells us absolutely nothing about how the foods that make up these calories effect our metabolism and psychologic satiety. So what the study did was take overweight individuals and semi-starved them to achieve an average weight loss of 13.6% from their baseline. As clinicians, when we inform a patient to cut the calories and lose weight, there are a lot of patients who are initially successful but then eventually gain the weight back (sometimes gaining more weight than initially lost!).

What seems to happen is that metabolism decreases in these individuals to adjust for the weight lost. So this study wanted to see is if this metabolic compensation occurs with the same amount of calories but with different compositions of dietary fat, protein and carbohydrate after the initial 13.6% weight loss. To test this, the study evaluated a low carb high fat diet, a low GI diet and a low fat diet. Or another way to put it: a restricted carbohydrate diet, modified carbohydrate diet, and high carbohydrate diet. So what did they find?

This study was covered in large depth by the media when it was released a year ago so you can read over it yourself if you want a little more information. I would also recommend reading the actual study as well since there are some limitations to the study (it is written in an easy to understand manner) if you have time. But the basic finding was “calories out” differed between diets despite “calories in” being the same between all 3. The calories out were so dramatic between two of the diets (the low fat vs low carb high fat) that the author’s note:

…differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets [in favor of the low carb] , an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.

Not only was the calories out different between the three diets, but other metabolic markers differed significantly between all three despite “calories in” being the same. Again, the calories in & calories out model tells us nothing about what certain foods are doing to us metabolically and psychologically. Let’s get back to our story.

When we last left our story, our clinician had just informed the patient he must have been overeating based off calculating their weight maintenance from the calories in and calories out model. As we went over briefly, a positive caloric balance is influenced by more than how much a person simply eats. The quality of where those calories are coming from can influence a person’s metabolism. Was it really okay for the clinician in this case to accuse the patient of over eating? The clinician then continues:

“If you eat right – plenty of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables – you can still eat pretty well and it won’t seem like a diet. Do you want to talk to the dietician again?”

He thought for a moment. That face again.  “No.”

“Okay, then let’s start over and set a weight management goal. If you could lose five pounds in a month, that would be something we can work with. If you could lose anymore weight, you’d feel good that you are doing something about this.”

So there are two things to keep in mind about this conversation. How does the clinician know the patient isn’t already eating “plenty of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables?” In the previous study it was shown that restricting carbohydrate (low carb) or modifying carbohydrate (low GI diet) both yielded better metabolism and metabolic markers than a low fat high carbohydrate diet. The second and most important thing to notice is that not once did the clinician ask the patient what he was doing at home. Instead the clinician starts informing the patient that he needs to lose weight. This tells the patient absolutely nothing.

A patient who is obese has already been told that they need to lose weight from previous providers. And if they haven’t, have probably been told by friends/family and society to lose weight (sometimes unfairly). Why didn’t the clinician simply ask what sort of foods the patient was eating or if the patient thought the diet was working? And if the diet wasn’t working…how come? How did the diet that was previously recommended make him feel? Did the clinician simply conclude further exploration wasn’t necessary because the patient was obviously non compliant due to her previous calculations of calories in and calories out? The frustration from the clinician’s side starts to become more apparent:

My inner voice was less optimistic. I wondered why I bothered going through the motions. We both knew that nothing was going to happen.

Like a mother trying to coax a recalcitrant child, I felt foolish.

Without warning, Daniel White stood up. The chair creaked and groaned as if in pain as he did so…His parting words were to the point: “Dieting sucks.”

At this point the frustration from both parties was pretty clear. I think the patient’s last words are very telling of what went wrong in this meeting. Dieting for this patient does suck…but why? Were they constantly hungry all the time? Was dieting simply not working? What exactly did “dieting” for this patient mean? It just seemed the patient was informed to lose weight by the clinician. Was it not worth exploring these issues further? It could just be the patient is non-compliant, but without asking these questions we’ll never know. Ultimately, this is the greatest harm of the calories in & out model – it can lead providers to conclude that weight gain is nothing more than a patient being non compliant/weak-willed/undisciplined.

After reading this post please do not view the clinician from this book as incompetent or mean. In fact, from reading the book, she is actually a very good provider and cares very much for her patients. Her case study was used to simply highlight and explore a bigger issue – a systemic issue on why some healthcare providers may feel frustration towards obese patients. The book was also written in 1999 when a lot of the research on obesity was still new and calories in and out was still king (for many providers it still is).

However, the frustration that some patients have with the interactions from their providers for obesity related issues is still very much prevalent. After sharing part 1 of my exploration into provider attitudes with some of the communities I’m a part of, I received a touching amount of stories from people who felt their providers treated them with negative attitudes based off their weight. If you’re a provider it would be great to always remember the patient’s point of view. While it can’t be confirmed that provider mistreated them due to their weight, a patient should never leave an office visit feeling disrespected for any reason.  [Some passages altered for identifying factors and to keep the content related to obesity]

1) I last saw a Dr about six months ago. He was the perfect example of robust health. I look to be the polar opposite of him. He ignored everything I said gave me some exercises to do and left. His demeanor was condescending and aloof. I have not been back nor will I.


2)  I had a doctor once tell me “put the fork down,” instead of running blood work for a genetic problem that’s caused everyone in my family to become grossly overweight. I went to see them because over the course of a few months had become horribly tired all the time, had issues with my monthly visitor, started noticing my skin was getting grey-ish and I was gaining weight when I was usually quite active and hadn’t changed eating habits. It’s horrible how they treat people that are overweight.


3) I went in to ask to get my thyroid tested and she {my doctor} was an ass. I was trying to talk to her about it and she said “I’ll order the test but I don’t get paid to discuss nutrition with you”…I was trying to talk about my inability to lose weight {along with other symptoms} despite my restrictive diet and working out 3 times a week…


4) I had a doctor (a back-up doctor, not my regular doctor) who seriously thought that all she had to do was point to a red dot on a height-weight chart and glare at me for a few seconds and I would magically become thin. I’d tell her, “I know I’m fat, but you pointing to that chart doesn’t make me thin. I know I should eat less, but I’m hungry all the time. So, give me a pill that makes me less hungry, or tell me what to eat so that I won’t be so hungry.”

She was absolutely no help whatsoever. I had to figure it all out myself – through relentless self-experimentation along with trial-and-error. (Hint: a lot of the foods which made me less hungry turned out to be nutritionally-dense whole-foods which were high in natural fat and quality protein).Eventually I lost about 40 pounds. And I see this same doctor. And I’m all excited about my progress. And she points to another red dot on the same damn height-weight chart, about 2 inches away from the previous red dot, and glares at me just as much as before.

So I show her my belt, which has about 12 notches cut into it from all the lost weight, and I show in my medical file how I used to weigh a lot more. She leaves the room, and this time she comes back with a photocopy of the USDA Food Pyramid and some advice on chewing more slowly. Now, I’ve lost even more weight – 87 pounds in total, and I’ve been taken off 80% of my meds, and the doctors are amazed. I’m sure she’ll take full credit for my health improvements, and get a fat bonus for all of that work she did, pointing at a red dot and Xeroxing the Food Pyramid


5) 2 years ago, I went to my doctor. I couldn’t understand why I kept gaining weight while eating a low (no) fat vegetarian/vegan 1200 calorie diet. I did everything by the book. Ate little and burned 500 cal/day on the elliptical and I still gained. She asked me how heavy I was, then she asked how tall I was. She calculated my bmi and said:”your bmi is high enough for a gastric bypass”.

She didn’t say she felt for me, she didn’t listen to the fact that I already ate little calories. She just assumed that I was lying, ate too much and that limiting the size of my stomach would be the best option. It seriously was the first thing she said to me after I sat there telling my story in frustration and tears. I then went a little crazy and yelled at her that she was the most incompetent person I had ever come across and left her office to never return. I don’t go to doctors anymore. Not for advice anyway.


6) Frequently. For most of my life, the fact I could walk several miles without tiring, could lift-and-carry 100-200 pounds, but couldn’t run a quarter mile without my lungs seizing meant I was “out of shape and fat,” not asthmatic. Funny. I can even jog, if I get to take my inhaler. I’ve not had an inhaler of my own for long, about a year — I still remember the first time I had my very own inhaler. I was 1) giddy from oxygen as it was a nasty bout of bronchitis, 2) I cried for a couple of hours out of sheer relief-joy. No longer did I have to hope/beg to borrow an inhaler from my sisters or a friend.

I didn’t know that a five mile walk or a quarter mile jog wasn’t supposed to take two days to recover one’s breathing, only 5-10 minutes to “catch my breath.” But — despite having a sympathetic pulmonologist who has heard me on a bad day — I still have a couple of doctors who sneer at me, and tell me I don’t REALLY have asthma, or I don’t REALLY have an ear/sinus infection, I just need to lose fifty pounds…


7) Not only do some doctors have a prejudice against fat patients, they automatically assume that 1) the fat is YOUR fault and 2) because you’re fat, you must be sick (diabetic, etc). My daughter’s doctor is notorious for this. She even had me go get blood work done on her. Being a concerned mom, I was worried that something was really wrong. After all, doctor knows best, right? Wrong. Her blood work came back perfectly healthy. 

I think a lot of doctors forget that THEY work for US. Some are really arrogant. But I, too, live in a small town. So, if a doctor doesn’t do something the patients like, the patients will talk. It’s nothing to hear a group of mothers/parents talk about which doctors they like and which ones they don’t.


8) I was fortunate in that when I was told I needed to lose weight I already knew that LCHF worked for me, my problem was just doing it, all my doctor really did was have the nurse hand me some Xerox’d sheet telling me to eat less fat


9) My ob/gyn, yesterday, blew me off. The VERY first thing out of her mouth was “you’re fat, and you need to change your diet.” She did not, in any way, shape, or form, ask me what is a normal day’s worth of meals for me. [The sneer and look she gave me, quite full of disgust, indicated she has the belief I only eat fast food/junk food. Grr.]…

…I’m getting very, very tired of the memorized rote script doctors, who cannot accept patients are individuals, and might actually KEEP RECORDS and DATA of their own, and might actually have more than one doctor. If I wanted a completely useless answer in response to a question, I would call Dell’s tech support in India. It’d certainly be more -amusing-. Needless to say, I won’t be going back to her. She doesn’t appear to value my -life- more than the fact I’m fat.


10) As a patient I hope whoever I see understands I am in front of them so I can improve my health. My hope is that he/she is open minded and willing to listen to what I have to say understanding that just because I have no titles after my name I am knowledgeable enough to take part in improving my health. Most often what I encounter are busy people with huge workloads that stereotype people while making a snap judgement.

By the time I see someone I have waited for 2-4 hours passed tons of bureaucratic hurdles and exhausted my patience. I always feel rushed when I am talking to any primary care nurse or physician. I try and cover everything about why I am in front of that person in the 5-10 minutes we have. It never works out well for either of us. Having tried this many times over the years I have simply given up. I find it easier to work on my health alone.

Summary: This post explored additional issues on clinician perspective in dealing with issues on obesity. Patients are more than just calories in and calories out. Using this model to calculate and make assumptions about a patient’s lifestyle is detrimental for both the provider and patient – leading to both parties being frustrated at one another. 



2) Ebbeling, C. B., Swain, J. F., Feldman, H. A., Wong, W. W., Hachey, D. L., Garcia-Lago, E., & Ludwig, D. S. (2012). Effects of Dietary Composition During Weight Loss Maintenance: A Controlled Feeding Study. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association307(24), 2627.


Perspectives on Obesity Between the Clinician and Patient Pt.1

As healthcare providers, we often spend more time focusing on the cardiometabolic effects of obesity and forget about the psychologic aspects. It should be obvious to anyone in America that there is a huge prejudice against the overweight/obese in society. This isn’t surprising, but you may be surprised to find this same sort of prejudice in the clinical setting – a place where patients expect their clinicians to treat them with empathy and respect.

For example, primary care providers were asked about their attitudes on the obese (defined as BMI > 40 in one sample and BMI > 30 in the other to see differences in attitude related to BMI). What did they find? [1]

More than 50% of physicians viewed obese patients as awkward, unattractive, ugly, and noncompliant…Primary care physicians view obesity as largely a behavioral problem and share our broader society’s negative stereotypes about the personal attributes of obese persons.

Surprisingly, we found few differences based on physician characteristics (including BMI and gender) or how obesity was defined in the survey. Among those that were detected, the mean differences were very small, raising doubts about their clinical significance.

This perspective may even be more prevalent in younger primary care providers: [2]

We found higher prevalence of negative attitudes toward obese patients than reported by others. For example, almost 80% of our respondents reported that patients frequently or almost always lacked discipline, and 52% felt patients lacked motivation to lose weight.

The high prevalence of negative attitudes may hinder primary care physicians from discussing weight loss with extremely obese patients. It was interesting that older age and higher patient volume were independently associated with less negative attitudes. Perhaps, physicians with more experience or who are more successful develop a “tolerance” toward patients with extreme obesity.

There was a high prevalence of negative attitudes, particularly in younger physicians and those with lower patient volume. Increased knowledge of weight-loss diets was associated with less dislike in discussing weight loss (P < 0.0001), less frustration (P = 0.0001), less belief that treatment is often ineffective (P < 0.0001), and less pessimism about patient success (P = 0.0002)…further research is needed to determine if interventions to increase knowledge of physicians will lead to less negative attitudes toward weight loss and extremely obese patients.

It’s hard to say why some clinicians may feel this way towards the obese. Do the negative attitudes occur because of societal beliefs? Or do they occur due to frustration at not seeing weight loss from patients after intervention? I would argue it’s a combination of both with one belief reinforcing the other. However, is the difficultly in helping patients lose weight really a result of low “will power” or “discipline?” Perhaps providers have the wrong beliefs about causes of obesity in the first place – which influences the interventions they are likely to tell their patients. From the first study on primary care provider beliefs:

 Physical inactivity (mean rating of 4.3) was rated significantly more important than any other cause of obesity (p < 0.0009). Two other behavioral factors—overeating and a high-fat diet— received the next highest mean ratings (3.9 and 3.8, respectively; 3, moderately important; 4, very important; 5, extremely important).

So primary care providers seemed to rate physical inactivity as the leading cause of weight gain in obesity. It definitely is true that exercise can help a person lose weight, but exercises’ effect on weight loss is more dramatized than reality. In Identifying the difference between exercise + diet versus diet alone in randomized control trials by the Cochrane Collaboration, the difference with the addition of exercise was: [3]

In the group exercise plus diet versus diet alone fourteen trials involving 1049 participants included data regarding weight loss that were suitable for meta-analysis. Participants in both groups lost weight across trials. The pooled effect for interventions with a follow-up between 3 and 12 months was a reduction in weight of 1.1 kg (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6 to 1.5) in the exercise and diet group compared with the diet alone group.

So the difference these RCTs found with the addition of exercise + diet versus diet alone was an average of 2.4 lbs lost in favor of exercise with diet. Again, the addition of exercise does help with more weight loss but hardly the amounts that all those late night exercise gadget infomercials portray. This is not to say that one shouldn’t bother with exercise if they are already eating right – exercise has other obvious benefits.

Going back to the study on primary care provider attitudes on obesity, you’ll notice that the next two highest rated beliefs providers have on causes of obesity are: overeating and a high fat diet. One of these points is not supported by the literature. If you look at the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from the CDC you’ll see this:

Image From Dr. Feinman

Image From Dr. Richard D. Feinman professor of biochemistry at SUNY

It is definitely true that both Men and Women are eating more calories since the 80’s…but is it from a high fat diet? Men have actually decreased their total fat and saturated fat calories while women have increased both. However, both men and women have increased their dietary carbohydrate by vast margins at + 23.4% and + 38.4% respectively! If one is to believe a high fat diet is one of the independent causes of obesity, how can they discount the increase in carbohydrate as a factor as well?

Additionally, the increase in carbohydrate consumption likely contributes to the increases in overeating/calories. This requires a paradigm shift from viewing a calorie is a calorie and focusing on the hormonal, physiologic and psychologic effects that macronutrients have on the body and mind. By doing so, we can see that a patient’s inability to lose weight has nothing to do with a lack of discipline, laziness or willpower to reduce/count calories. Instead, it may just be that they’ve been receiving the wrong advice in the first place.

BTW, before this post ends, it should also be pointed out that negative attitudes/beliefs to the obese applies to clinicians from the patient’s perspective as well. From a study last month: [4]

Respondents reported more mistrust of physicians who are overweight or obese, were less inclined to follow their medical advice, and were more likely to change providers if the physician was perceived to be overweight or obese, compared to normal-weight physicians who elicited significantly more favorable reactions.

These weight biases remained present regardless of participants’ own body weight. Stronger weight bias led to higher trust, more compassion, more inclination to follow advice, and less inclination to change doctors when the physician was presented as normal weight. In contrast, stronger weight bias led to less trust, less compassion, less inclination to follow advice and higher inclination to change doctors when the physician was presented as obese.

This study suggests that providers perceived to be overweight or obese may be vulnerable to biased attitudes from patients, and that providers’ excess weight may negatively affect patients’ perceptions of their credibility, level of trust and inclination to follow medical advice.

At the end of the day, after all this talk of health and weight, let’s just treat individuals as individuals irrespective of their weight.

 Summary: The prejudice that the obese face in society is very prevalent, but this negative attitude may also be present in the healthcare setting from clinicians. It’s hard to say if these attitudes from clinicians originated with the same prejudice from society in general, or if they are from clinicians developing negative attitudes due to lack of success in treating their obese patients. Interestingly enough, patients have negative attitudes about their providers if the provider is obese. In the end, let’s just get respect one another whether a person is obese or not.


1) Foster, G. D., Wadden, T. A., Makris, A. P., Davidson, D., Sanderson, R. S., Allison, D. B., & Kessler, A. (2003). Primary care physicians’ attitudes about obesity and its treatment. Obesity Research11(10), 1168-1177.

2) Ferrante, J. M., Piasecki, A. K., Ohman-Strickland, P. A., & Crabtree, B. F. (2009). Family physicians’ practices and attitudes regarding care of extremely obese patients. Obesity, 17(9), 1710-1716.

3) Shaw, K., Gennat, H., O’Rourke, P., & Del Mar, C. (2006). Exercise for overweight or obesity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev4.

4) Puhl, R. M., Gold, J. A., Luedicke, J., & DePierre, J. A. (2013). The effect of physicians’ body weight on patient attitudes: implications for physician selection, trust and adherence to medical advice. International Journal of Obesity.

A Tale of Two Lipid Panels

Awhile ago, TheFatNurse noticed something strange while reviewing some Lipid panels. Normally, when you receive a lab result, a reference range is given and any numbers above or below the reference range is flagged. What was strange about some of these lipid panels was the lack of flags for patient numbers that were clearly in the high risk range. For example, Let’s take a hypothetical patient:

Total Cholesterol: 165
HDL: 35
LDL: 105
Triglycerides: 244

If you’ve read through the critique of LDL Cholesterol as an indicator of risk you’ll know that LDL cholesterol can sometimes be inaccurate in gauging heart disease risk. However, that is a different problem all together (addressed later in the post) and for the purposes of this post let’s just use the standard numbers provided by the ATP-III clinical guidelines:

So according to the clinical guidelines, this patient’s total cholesterol would be classified as “desirable,” his HDL cholesterol would be “low,” his LDL cholesterol  is pretty much at “optimal,” and his triglycerides are “High.” Therefore, on a lipid panel  you may assume that his Triglycerides and HDL will be flagged. However, depending on what reference ranges a lab uses, this can differ. Here are two example:


This patient is within “range” according to this reference


This patient is not within “range” according to this reference

Before going on, it should be made clear that one should never make the mistake of thinking a reference range is the same thing as target goals (which change according to an individual’s risk category) for a patient. A reference range is simply the distribution of values that are seen in the folks of a given population. However, patients can make the mistake of comparing their numbers to the reference range (and sadly sometimes even clinicians make this mistake) and therefore think they are at low risk when the opposite is really true.

In the first panel, the numbers from our hypothetical patient would not be flagged and a person may think they are at low risk. In the second panel, the numbers from HDL and Triglyceride would be flagged as abnormal. Therefore, it’s more important to go by target goals rather than what a lab supplies as a reference range. As a side note, the advance lipid panels such as the NMR, VAP, and Ion Mobility advance lipoprotein tests, suggest a reference range for triglycerides at <150 mg/dL. The reference range supplied by the first lab at <250 is obviously way too high to be viewed as a target goal and should never be viewed as such.

However, as mentioned in a previous post, even reaching the target goals of LDL cholesterol can be inaccurate to risk. This is even mentioned in the ATP-III where it is suggested to use Non-HDL cholesterol as a target goal if triglycerides are above 200 like our hypothetical patient. However,  Non-HDL isn’t always supplied in a lipid panel and many clinicians do not understand its purpose nor do they know how to calculate it even if they wanted to use it. The same dilemma holds true for looking at the TG/HDL ratio as well. In this scenario, our hypothetical patient’s TG/HDL ratio of 6.97 indicates a high likely hood of increased small and total LDL particles which means he’s at risk for atherosclerosis despite being at target for his LDL cholesterol. If we could advance test everyone with LDL particle testing that could solve a lot of confusion but that would be very expensive  and it’s not always an appropriate test if the regular lipid panel is concordant. With this in mind and everything else we’ve discussed so far on reference ranges and target goals, it’s not hard to imagine a situation where the interpretation of risk between the patient and the clinician and another clinician is vastly different between each party.

TL:DR; Different labs provide different reference ranges which are not the same as target goals. Some of the supplied reference ranges can be vastly outside what would typically be considered a target goal. This can lead to different interpretations of a lipid panel where risk may be judged inaccurately.

How You Know Things Aren’t Changing

Picture by Glane 23

By now you may have heard that McDonalds is introducing a healthier yolk-less Egg McMuffin. This of course will do nothing in promoting health since dietary cholesterol, as previously mentioned, has very little to do with serum cholesterol. However, while the claims of health from this new McMuffin are likely to be bunk, the fact that this new sandwich was developed tells us a lot about our existing paradigm; mainly that it hasn’t changed.

McDonalds is one of the most successful companies on the planet and there is no doubt that they must have spent considerable amount of research before the launch of this new McMuffin. Using this new sandwhich as a surrogate, it’s reasonable to conclude that the world still fears dietary cholesterol and believes it is related to heart disease. Not only is dietary cholesterol still feared, but the response online criticizing this move from McDonalds reveals other paradigms still in existence:

McDonald’s says its new Egg White Delight (ugh, even the name seems like a late-in-the-day boardroom compromise) clocks in at 250 calories, according to CNN. But holding the yolk only cuts the calorie count by 50…an original Egg McMuffin has 300 calories. True, without the yolk you’ll skip the cholesterol, but the white cheddar and Canadian bacon will still give you a wake-up call of fat.

And from the CNN Link:

McDonald’s (MCDFortune 500) will release the Egg White Delight, an egg white version of the Egg McMuffin breakfast sandwich, nationwide on April 22, said company spokeswoman Danya Proud.

The new sandwich, which contains bacon and white cheddar on a whole grain English muffin, totals 250 calories, according to Proud. That’s compared to the classic Egg McMuffin, which has 300 calories. She added that egg whites will also be offered on the other breakfast sandwiches sold at McDonald’s.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an egg yolk contain 5 grams of fat, 2 grams of saturated fat and 213 milligrams of cholesterol, as well as 60 calories, Egg whites, however have no fat or cholesterol, and 15 calories. The USDA recommends that egg yolk consumption should be limited to four yolks per week.

So not only is the paradigm of dietary cholesterol reinforced, but also the paradigm of “a calorie is a calorie” and the paradigm on the horrors of dietary fat. Sad times and a reminder on how far we still are from changing our current knowledge of what really causes heart disease, obesity and diabetes.

Glucose and Cancer

This lecture from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is over two years old, but the information contained is still relatively unknown. The video is basically a cancer 101 segment in the beginning which progresses into cancer proliferation metabolism; mainly the important role that glucose plays:

Screen Shot 2013-03-09 at 10.23.33 PM


Cancer cells seem to seek a high amount of glucose. So one of the cancer therapies they’ve researched is blocking the cancer’s ability to take up glucose with a drug. In the still above, you can see two cancerous hot spots on the liver (T) that disappear post therapy of the glucose blocking drug. Naturally, this will drive increased interest in the development of pharmaceutical treatments…but what about the other obvious issue here? Oh, they address that as well:

Screen Shot 2013-03-09 at 9.18.16 PM


The answer is carbohydrates since we’re talking so much about glucose metabolism. The lecturer even points out that fat is not cancerous. So if carbohydrates can be cancerous…and fats aren’t…can diet play a role? Perhaps that is why we can see case studies like this:

Of course case studies are just case studies and we’ll need to wait for some randomized clinical trials to really know how well diet can play a role. If you’re interested in more heavy detailed information about the microbio of cancer you may be interested in watching this lecture: