Spaniards (and American Tourists in Spain) Don’t Get Fat

Clearly, all drinks should
come in a chocolate cup.

My husband and I went to Madrid in March. He went on business and I went to see how much I remembered from Spanish II almost 20 years ago (not much), drink sangria (a lot), and sample the local cuisine (a whole lot). On the day we arrived, we went on a great tapas (no, I didn’t say topless) tour of the city, stopping at three tapas bars to sample their specialties, cervesa, and sangria; plus a pit stop for a shot of liquor inside an edible chocolate cup. This was by far my belly’s favorite 14 Euro expenditure of all time.

The next morning, feeling guilty about our night of overindulgence, we went for a run through Parque del Retiro, Madrid’s central park. It was ridiculously crowded, even for a 70-degree Saturday morning. People were running, walking, rollerblading, and biking wherever there was room. And everybody was fit.

Examples of Spaniards. You're welcome.

While the only trees we saw in Spain we safely constrained within park gates, the Spaniards in-shape physiques were everywhere. As we walked around taking in the sites (mostly restaurants and bars), we noticed that these tapas-loving, ham-eating, partying-until-6-am, cigarette-smoking locals were all thin. 

Pig at the airport:
He is only smiling because he
is getting the hell out of Spain.

The food wasn’t particularly healthy. At times I felt hard pressed to find a fruit or a vegetable. A lot of the foods were fried (my mouth is watering thinking about the calamari). And then there’s the jamón (ham). Ham is ubiquitous (i.e., freaking everywhere) in Madrid. Madrid is home to a chain of restaurants called Museo de Jamón (ham museum), not to be out done by Palacio del Jamón (ham palace). In the touristy parts of Madrid, one of these shops is on pretty much every block.

Perhaps Spaniards wouldn't
be so slow if they invested
in big-girl size cups of coffee.

While the Spaniards spent a lot of time in the park, we also saw them sitting around eating—A LOT. Things in Spain take a really long time. They eat dinner at 11 pm; it takes FOREVER to bring the check; the lines at the airport stretch into oblivion while the three United employees leisurely check passports. Spaniards are god-awful slow when they’re not running around the park.

As with the end of every vacation, we were scared to weigh ourselves when we came home. It turned out that there was no need to worry. I lost a pound and my husband only gained half a pound. It appears that the super-awesome Spanish thinness wore off on us too.

This octopus was so fresh that it swam
to the bar on its own accord. This
ain't no Red Lobster.

The main difference between eating out in Madrid and eating out in America seemed to be the level of processing. Things just seemed a lot fresher, a lot more natural in Spain.

Processed foods tend to by higher in fat and sugar, both known culprits in the battle of the bulge. They also are engineered to taste good and to play to our natural caveperson instincts to take in as much fat and as many calories as possible since the next food shortage is immanent. Our trip to Madrid sparked my curiosity about whether there was something a little more complicated at work. Is there a difference in how our bodies process whole foods versus processed foods?

I did a Google search and found a lot on this topic—a lot of really questionable theories, that is. There were blog posts about how toxins from processed foods collect in body fat and, uh, make the body fat weigh more (or something like that); articles about how processed foods make the body work harder (which would actually burn more calories, not less); and Kirstie Alley’s new diet plan (yes, she’s at it again). Just a couple of minor issues—none of these articles cited research or made a lick of sense.

While people are blogging about this subject ad nauseam, few are researching it. Hours of searching the peer-reviewed literature turned up exactly one article. Pomona College researchers experimented on 18 subjects to see if a processed cheese sandwich a la Kraft Singles Prepared Cheese Product on white bread reacted differently than a slice of natural cheddar on multigrain. It turns out there was a pretty substantial difference.

Our bodies burn energy three ways: basal metabolic rate (BMR) (the calories that the body burns doing normal bodily functions like breathing), activity, and through the thermal effect of foods (TEF) (i.e., the energy our bodies use to breakdown food, digest it, use nutrients, and do all sorts of other things). On average, 10% of our calories are burned through TEF, but that number can fluctuate quite a bit. Protein takes the most energy to metabolize, followed by carbohydrates, then by fats. Foods that are structurally more complex, that is they have more nutrients, more fiber, and more protein, take more energy to process. Whole foods are generally more complex than processed foods.

Step away from the processed cheese
food and no one gets hurt.

The Pomona College researchers carefully matched the two cheese sandwiches fed to their subjects; both sandwiches contained the same number of calories, and the same ratio of bread to cheese (60% bread and 40% cheese). The researchers measured the subjects' metabolic rate before eating to get a baseline and then every hour after that.

The researchers found that after eating the processed cheese sandwich, the subjects burned 50% less calories than after eating the natural cheese sandwich. 


And by tapas, I mean wine.

Even with such limited research, I believe that our bodies respond better to real food than to processed crap. Really, I just like the idea of eating and drinking my way through Madrid guilt free. Bring on the unprocessed, all natural tapas! Lots of them! 

The one article I could find:

Barr, SB, Wright, JC. (2010). Postprandial energy expenditure in whole-food and processed-food meals: implications for daily energy expenditure. Food & Nutrition Research. 54: 5144.





Obesity Scans and the Real Hunger Games

I’m a really awkward cheerleader. As my neighbors can attest, cheering for sporting events comes natural to my husband; he’s loud and passionate. Meanwhile, I make weird arm motions and say “go” and “yeah” in my normal speaking voice. Sometimes I say inappropriate things at the defense like “Kill him!” (Because football is supposed to be a fight to the death, right?)

Magic obesity-crushing
DXA scanner.

A story on the Nightly News with Brian Williams earlier this week had me yelling at the TV with gusto that I’ve never been able to muster during a Ravens game. Said story was on the future of obesity measurement. The segment covered research claiming that far more Americans, especially older women, are obese than previously thought. Using a DXA scan that can separately measure bone density, muscle weight, and body fat for “a few hundred dollars” a pop, the researchers found that an additional 13% of people are actually obese given their body fat.

Researcher Eric Braverman, MD criticized BMI, our standard obesity measurement, saying, “BMI is an insensitive measure of obesity, prone to under-diagnosis, while direct fat measurements are superior.” He goes on to say that these tests “will pay off enormously” as “fat is costing the country a fortune by not measuring.”

Brian Williams called this a “game changer.”

Magic wand cures obesity
when used with
a healthy diet and regular
exercise.  

The report worked off the assumption that obesity is worse because we don’t know how to measure it. Perhaps if we had a good screening test, we could make everyone thin and healthy by using, ugh, magic. (Yeah, the magic part is where the logic broke down for me too.)

I was surprised that this story made the news, let alone elicited shock and awe. It must have been a slow news day. I guess neither Mitt Romney nor Joe Biden made a gaffe to fill up three minutes of the broadcast.

It’s non-news, because at best, this test will have zero effect on obesity. I think that there are also ways that it could make our problems worse. A more expensive test for obesity further separates our haves (money, health insurance) from our have-nots (crappy food, no health care). It also takes the focus away from actual solutions to the obesity problem.

The DXA scan, while less expensive than a heart transplant, is more expensive than stepping on a scale. Even a cheaper alternative test suggested on the broadcast, a leptin blood test, comes with obstacles (e.g., need for health insurance, needles hurt).

Better obesity measurement: muffin-topometer

Money used towards this new high-tech test that tells us what we already know based on our muffin tops—we need to lose weight—could be better spent in a variety of ways: improving our food supply, making fresh produce more affordable, encouraging mixed land-use developments, adding sidewalks to neighborhoods, getting me out of my pesky underwater mortgage. (Okay, the last one might not have much effect on the obesity epidemic, but would be a solid use of money.)

Adam Drewnowski: I <3 him.

There’s also the minor detail that people who can afford more expensive versions of medical tests, groceries at Whole Foods, a gym membership, a personal trainer, a bike, high-tech running shoes, and race entrance fees, are not obese. That’s because, according to Adam Drewnowski, my favorite researcher, “Deep down, obesity is really an economic issue.”

Dr. Drewnowski’s research has shown that only 4% of those who shop at a Seattle Whole Foods are obese, compared with nearly 40% who shop at lower-priced Albertsons stores.

This all feels very Hunger Games-esque to me. Money is spent on needless medical testing for those who have disposable income, while so many others eat dollar-menu, pink-slime laced burgers and have no access to healthcare outside of emergency rooms.

It makes me think of the Hunger Games scene where Katness and Peeta are at the celebration in the affluent capitol. Because of the abundance of food, the hosts offer a cocktail to help the party goers throw up so they can continue to eat. Meanwhile, the majority of the population, living in the poorer districts, is starving.

Of course, today’s American poor are not hungry. They are overfed on high-fructose corn syrup and genetically modified fat manufactured from soy beans.

I think that movement towards urban gardens; WIC/SNAP (née food stamps) acceptance at farmers markets; food revolution movies, documentaries and books; and eating-local movements are moving us in the direction of a real “game changer.” But I’m sad to say, Brian Williams, we just ain’t there yet.