Verified by 
According to a new study from Cornell University, junk food alone is not driving the skyrocketing obesity rates in the United States. The researchers conclude that although living on a diet of cheeseburgers and french fries washed down with a Big Gulp isn’t advisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods alone are most likely not the sole culprit causing the obesity epidemic.
The November 2015 study, “Fast Food, Soft Drink, and Candy Intake is Unrelated to Body Mass Index for 95% of American Adults,“ appears in the journal Obesity Science & Practice.
For this study, David Just, PhD, and Brain Wansink, PhD, who are co-directors of the Cornell University Food and Brand Lab, reviewed a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States and found that consumption of soda, candy, and fast food is not directly linked to Body Mass Index (BMI) for 95 percent of the population. The exception is people who are on the extreme ends of the BMI spectrum: those who are chronically underweight and those who are severely obese.
Food science and the study of nutrition is surprisingly complex and enigmatic. The reason that so many Americans are currently obese is also controversial. There is an ongoing debate as to whether the dramatic rise in obesity is being caused more by the excessive consumption of unhealthy, calorically dense foods—or, if the lack of physical activity in a post-industrial computer age is the root cause for the obesity epidemic.
Regardless of the cause, the obesity statistics are alarming. Obesity rates have tripled in the past three decades. Over one in three American adults are currently obese. The annual healthcare cost of obesity was recently estimated to be a whopping $147 billion to $214 billion.
Timeless Advice: Exercise More and Eat Less to Lose Weight
Most likely, obesity is caused by a combination of both increased caloric intake and less physical activity. Therefore, taking a dual-pronged approach based on increasing physical activity while reducing caloric intake seems like the obvious way to reverse this trend. Small lifestyle changes in terms of 'calories in' and 'calories out' can make a huge difference to someone's BMI over time. You don't have to take extreme measures to lose some weight. Conversely, it's all too easy to put on extra pounds if you don't watch what you eat and spend most of the day sitting.
For example, if you consider 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound of fat, you need to create a 3,500 caloric deficit to lose 1 pound of fat. Basically, if you cut 250 calories from your typical diet each day, and increase your caloric expenditure by 250 calories you will lose about 1 pound of fat a week (500 calories x 7 days = 3,500 calories).
On the flip side, if you consume just 500 extra calories a day, while remaining sedentary, you will gain about a pound a week. What does 500 calories look like? Four strips of bacon equal about 500 calories. Five apples equal about 500 calories. Another example of this could be the two teaspoons of sugar that you might put in your morning coffee, which adds up to about 35 calories a day. Two teaspoons of sugar a day translates into 3,500 calories (a pound of fat) every 100 days, and over three pounds in a year.
The ability to burn calories through physical activity sums up the energy balancing power of exercise. You don't need to become an exercise fanatic to burn just 250 calories a day through physical activity. These 250 'calories out' a day could add up to twenty-six pounds of weight loss in a year! Also, increasing your lean muscle mass through strength training can boost your overall metabolic rate. In The Athlete's Way, I have a chapter titled, "The Nutrition Philosphy." On p. 342 I say,
"Experts are convinced that making the right dietary choices can improve health and protect us from certain diseases. Unfortunately, no one can seem to agree on what the exact choices should be for every circumstance. When it comes to what people should eat, there are lots of opinions and little certainty. Nutrition is a potentially confusing and often misunderstood field.
Therefore, the nutrition prescriptive set forth in this chapter is: use common sense, eat intuitively, keep track of calories in/calories out, stay hydrated, and eat a variety of foods. You also want to avoid food fads. Don't make dietary choices based on newspaper headlines, and avoid making foods taboo. That's it in a nutshell. Food should be a source of joy, not neurosis."
My nutritional philosophy was influenced by François de La Rochefoucauld who in the 1600s wrote in Réflexions ou Sentences et Maximes Morales, "To safeguard one's health at the cost of too strict a diet is a tiresome illness indeed." I feel vindicated by the latest research by Just and Wansink, and appreciate that they, too, emphasize the importance of not forbidding foods and monitoring caloric intake.
I know from personal experience that portion control and eating 'junk foods' in moderation works better for me in the long run than taking an "all or nothing" approach, which I've found triggers cravings. If I say, "I'm never going to eat a brownie again." Suddenly, all I can think about is eating a brownie. Instead, I'll eat half a brownie once-in-awhile which nullifies any potential cravings and the urge to overindulge because I feel deprived.
Below is an image of the "So, what does this mean for those combating obesity?" advice given by Just and Wansink. For an expanded link to this image click here.
Given that there was ultimately no significant difference in consumption of so-called junk foods between overweight and healthy weight individuals, the researchers conclude that the overwhelming majority of weight problems are not caused by consumption of soda, candy, and fast food alone. In a press release, Dr. Just explains the findings,
"This means that diets and health campaigns aimed at reducing and preventing obesity may be off track if they hinge on demonizing specific foods. If we want real change we need to look at the overall diet, and physical activity. Narrowly targeting junk foods is not just ineffective, it may be self-defeating as it distracts from the real underlying causes of obesity."
Conclusion: Monitoring Calories In-Calories Out Is Tricky Business
Measuring the number of calories you consume each day and the number of calories you burn through exercise will never be one-hundred percent accurate. Therefore, small changes in habits over time and remaining cognizant of your caloric intake and staying moderately active are the key to maintaining a healthy weight.
The Cornell researchers conclude, "These findings suggest that clinicians and practitioners seeking to help individuals obtain a healthy weight should examine how overall consumption patterns, such as snacking, and physical activity influence weight instead of just eliminating 'junk foods' from patient's diets."
If you'd like to read more on this topic, check out my Pyschology Today blog posts,
- "Will Obesity Bankrupt the United States in the Near Future?"
- "Should Obesity Be Classified As a Disease?"
- "Very Small Amounts of Exercise Can Reap Huge Benefits"
- "The 3 Most Significant Risk Factors for Child Obesity"
- "Will Labeling Obesity As a Disease Backfire?"
- "5 Ways to Protect Yourself from the Leading Cause of Death"
- "Irisin: The "Exercise Hormone" Has Powerful Health Benefits"
- "Better Brain Health Is Possible Without Exercise Fanaticism"
- "Is Corporate Money Biasing "Science-Based" Health Experts?"
- "One More Reason to Unplug Your Television"
- "Is Excessive Screen Time Slowly Undermining Our Resilience?"
- "Hippocrates Was Right: Walking Is the Best Medicine"
- "Aerobic Activity vs. Strength Training: Which Burns More Fat?"
- "Could a Social Network Motivate You to Exercise More?"
© 2015 Christopher Bergland. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter @ckbergland for updates on The Athlete’s Way blog posts.
The Athlete’s Way ® is a registered trademark of Christopher Bergland.
