Scientific understanding is challenging the conventional wisdom about hunger — now framing it as a scourge that afflicts not only people who get too few calories, but also those who consume mostly sugar and refined starch. Under this new understanding, people eating the wrong kind of diet can suffer from both hunger and obesity.
A more scientifically accurate view of hunger and obesity could not come at a better time. Obesity affects about 40 percent of the US population, almost one in four Americans had trouble affording food last year, and the price of food has risen more than 11 percent since this time last year.
Nutrition experts rightly applauded last month’s White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, as the discussion steered away from helping people get enough calories and instead focused on getting people enough real food. That is also the focus behind a multi-billion dollar initiative by US President Joe Biden’s administration to end hunger in the US by 2030.
Illustration: Louise Ting
The idea that the kind of food matters more than the number of calories consumed started as a heretical minority view but has gradually become mainstream. The old thinking that all calories are alike and obesity was caused by lack of willpower could not explain why poverty, food deserts and obesity have been concentrated in the same communities.
“That puzzled me for many years — how could it be that people who were hungry or didn’t seem to have enough money to buy enough food could be more overweight or obese than people who had lots of resources,” said Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Calories measure the amount of energy available from food, but the human body cannot be fueled up the way a car can.
“We have learned a lot over the years. There are multiple lines that connect poverty, food insecurity and obesity,” Willet said. “One of the most important connections is just simply poor food quality.”
If this new scientific view is correct, it means hunger has actually contributed to the dramatic rise in obesity over the last 30 years — a 70 percent increase in adults and an 85 percent rise in children.
Scientists still disagree over exactly what constitutes the best human diet — clashing over whether people should eat a higher proportion of fat or carbohydrates.
However, emerging from the fray is some agreement about the kind of diet that is harmful to human health. Unfortunately, it includes the food that is cheapest, most convenient, most available in poor areas and most heavily marketed — foods and drinks that are high in sugar or corn syrup, and starchy foods such as white bread, chips and fries.
Endocrinologist David Ludwig, from Harvard School of Public Health and Boston Children’s Hospital, is lead author of a new paper that explains how hunger and obesity might be directly connected. It is all based on the hormone insulin.
The paper, published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition and including Willett as a coauthor, details the way different forms of carbohydrates act in the body. When in the form of fruits, vegetables, beans or some whole grains, they are absorbed slowly because of the fibrous plant material surrounding the carbohydrates, but in white bread, sugary cereal or soda they are absorbed fast and generate spikes of insulin. That insulin causes people to feel hungrier and put on weight.
It makes sense, Ludwig said, if you think of this process as analogous to a teenager getting hormonal signals that spur growth. Those hormones trigger teenagers to eat voraciously and to use the excess calories for growth. Something similar happens in pregnancy when hormones trigger a woman to feel hungrier — the extra energy goes into growth of the fetus and placenta.
“We argued the same thing is true for obesity — that when fat cells in the body get triggered to take in too many calories, there are too few calories for the rest of the body, and that’s why we get hungry,” Ludwig said. “That’s surprising for people, but it’s well demonstrated.”
If that idea is right, it calls for a very different solution to the US’ hunger and obesity problems than the conventional view that people gain weight because they lack self-control and eat too much.
It would not be the first time our understanding of obesity got a major overhaul. Older conventional wisdom also held that dietary fat was the cause of obesity and that people should steer toward a higher carbohydrate diet. That view may have actually made people sicker and heavier.
“How long do you stick with a paradigm that’s based ultimately on ‘eat less and move more,’ in one form or another, when it’s not working?” Ludwig asked.
It is time to retire the old trope that for most of human evolution our species struggled for every calorie and caused us to be wired to be constantly hungry. In that narrative, only those with the most willpower and self-discipline stay thin. The narrative seems obvious the same way it must have for a long time seemed obvious that the Earth was the center of the universe.
It is much more likely that prehistoric people ate the right kinds of food — what humans are well-adapted to eat to be strong, healthy and energetic. That includes meat, fish, dairy, fruit, vegetables and, after farming was invented, whole grains such as brown rice and wheat berries.
There can be a lot of variety in a healthy diet: Ludwig said that traditional cultures from the Inuit to Laplanders to Plains Indians ate diets high in animal fat during much of the year, while other cultures thrive on mostly plants. What nobody seems to thrive on is sugar, white flour, soda and fries. Instead, people choose the wrong foods for economic reasons.
“Many low-income families would love to have access to healthier whole foods,” Ludwig said.
Humans are diverse in shape and size — we do not all have to be skinny to be healthy, and some obese people may be suffering from hunger. Can a government initiative really end hunger by 2030 — just eight years from now? The Biden administration might need more help from the US Congress for such an ambitious goal, but any effort that starts with a science-based approach would help save and improve many lives.
Faye Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She hosts the “Follow the Science” podcast. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS