Overweight, Obesity, and Co…

The big question is whether it’s natural to accumulate fat everywhere or not.

And, as a secondary question, whether this excess fat comes solely from calorie overload, as dietetics teaches, or from the absorption of substances that are not metabolized. In other words: is the problem quantitative or qualitative?

Since it’s not easy to track the various molecules ingested, empirical experience will once again be the deciding factor.

What happens with domestic animals, such as dogs, cats, and pigs? When they are given cooked food, for example, table scraps, they gain weight dramatically and quickly reach the same level of overweight as their owners.

In the 1960s, I conducted the following experiment: I fed a cage of white mice the leftovers from my downstairs neighbor’s table every day. She brought them to me every evening and would pause for a moment to admire the mice’s healthy condition.

But after a few weeks, some of the mice had grown so large that they looked more like omelets spread out on the bottom of the cage than like proper rodents.

The downstairs neighbor’s mother was also so obese that she could barely move. The comparison was too striking, and the neighbor decided to end the experiment.

There are no specimens fatter than the others in the middle of a herd of deer, nor are there obese individuals to slow down a pack of wolves. All marmots, at the onset of winter, adopt the same plumpness. Nevertheless, animals in the wild exhibit a high degree of uniformity in form between individuals, whereas domesticated animals, including humans themselves, display a rather alarming variability. Could Homo sapiens possess a greater diversity in calorie storage, as is the case with language abilities or artistic creations?

This is all the more relevant given that statistics show obesity is a contributing factor to cardiovascular disease and numerous pathologies linked to modern lifestyles.

A mathematical formula allows us to assess height-weight balance, that is, the ratio between weight and height. The body mass index (BMI), as it should be called, is calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by height in meters squared: BMI = W(kg) / H(m)²

For example, a person weighing 60 kg and 1.70 m tall has a BMI of: 60 / 1.7² = 60 / 2.89 = 20.76 kg/m²

This value falls perfectly within the normal range. The BMI can therefore give us an idea of ​​the effects of diet on weight, whether it’s a so-called normal diet or an instinctive diet, which is simply what nature intended for us to eat.

The Body Mass Index as an Indicator

The BMI, or Body Mass Index, is a good indicator of height and weight balance. It is calculated by dividing weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters.

For example, if you weigh 60 kg and are 1.70 m tall, your BMI is: 60/1.7² = 60/2.89 = 20.76 kg/m² This value would be perfectly within the normal range. BMI is therefore an indicator that allows us to assess the effects of a given diet on weight and height.

Here are the results of a small study involving about forty long-term cases of instinctotherapy, published in the thread “Instinctotherapy: Hoax or Stroke of Genius?” on the forum of the Observatoire Zététique website.

I finally have some figures to share with you. I asked one of my former colleagues to repeat the protocol we had followed in the first phase, this time on everyone he could reach who had been practicing intuitive nutrition in France for more than five years, in order to calculate their Body Mass Index (BMI).

BMI measures weight and height balance by dividing body mass in kilograms by the square of height in meters.

It is a good indicator of metabolic function and long-term nutritional balance, as any deficiency leads to problems most often manifesting as weight loss, while excess calories promote overweight or even obesity.

BMI is categorized by the WHO into several categories corresponding to different body weight levels: underweight, healthy weight, overweight, and three obesity categories.

Hypotheses

Our hypotheses are as follows:

• Instinctual nutrition should not influence height and weight balance, so the mean values ​​and standard deviations should be the same. - The transformation of the organoleptic properties of food would not alter the nutritional balance.

• The biochemical modifications of nutrients and complex molecules would not cause weight imbalance.

Our protocol included the following steps:

1. Identify approximately forty people who had been practicing intuitive nutrition for at least 5 years.
2. Record their age, duration of practice, weight, and height (sex was not considered in this study as it does not have a significant influence on BMI).
3. Calculate the BMI of each subject.
4. Calculate the average BMI.
5. Calculate the standard deviation of the individual values.
6. Compare the average obtained to that of a general population constituting the control group¹.
7. Compare the standard deviation obtained to the standard deviation in the general population.
8. Interpret the results in light of the initial hypothesis.
9. Interpret the results in light of the secondary hypotheses.
10. Formulate alternative hypotheses.

Results

A normal body mass index (BMI) is defined as a BMI between 18.5 and 25 kg/m². The average BMI under the instinctonutrition program is 20.98 kg/m², slightly lower than the theoretical median: (18.5 + 25) / 2 = 21.75 kg/m².

However, it is significantly lower than the actual average measured under a traditional diet, which is 25 kg/m².

The average weight-for-weight (WFW) of the population following a traditional diet is 25 kg/m² (meaning that a large portion of the population is overweight or obese).

The dispersion corresponds to a standard deviation of 4 kg/m². Therefore, there is significant disparity between individuals.

Under the instinctonutrition approach, the average weight-for-weight (WFW) obtained is 20.98 kg/m² and the standard deviation is 1.5 kg/m².

The average is therefore at an intermediate value between the limits considered normal: (18.5 + 25) / 2 = 21.75 kg/m² The standard deviation, approximately three times smaller (1.5 instead of 4), demonstrates remarkable consistency from one individual to another.

This significant difference in dispersion means that individual values ​​are much more clustered around the average under instinctonutrition.

In the general population, the higher standard deviation, on the contrary, reflects a much greater variability in height and weight balance.

An unpaired t-test on the BMI of the two populations shows that they are statistically very significantly different: t = -6.594, df = 541493, p < 0.001

Discussion

The mean BMI in the population consuming a traditional diet is 25 kg/m², which is equal to the upper limit of normal body weight. This clearly reflects the fact that a large part of the population is affected by overweight or obesity. The standard deviation of 4 kg/m² corresponds to a distribution extending into the upper range of excess weight. In contrast, the average of 20.98 kg/m² obtained under instinctonutrition is close to the average between the upper and lower limits of normal body weight.

The distribution of subjects can therefore be seen as falling between the two extremes. The standard deviation of 1.5 kg/m² shows that the vast majority of subjects will fall within the normal body weight range. The respective standard deviations of 1.5 and 4 kg/m² are in a ratio close to 1 to 3.

Combined with an average BMI close to the center of the normal range, this low dispersion indicates more regular growth and weight regulation under instinctonutrition.

It can be interpreted as a sign of a less disrupted metabolism, while the dispersion observed under traditional diets could reflect the effect of culinary changes on nutritional balance. These results support the hypothesis that modern humans are less well adapted to a diet transformed by culinary arts and the food industry.

The problem stems from both the failure of alliesthetic mechanisms and biochemical mechanisms. Weight gain can occur for two reasons: either an excess of calories and their inevitable storage, or the accumulation of abnormal molecules that disrupt our less-than-thirsty enzymes. Culinary arts encourage overeating and, to add insult to injury, lead us to consume denatured substrates: it wins on both counts.

Overweight: Why {overweight-why}

Observation of wild animals reveals a high degree of uniformity in body shape among individuals, whereas domestic animals exhibit a rather alarming variability.

This difference could be explained not only by greater natural selection, but also by the nature of their diet.

In other words, a diet close to our ancestral diet could ensure a height and weight regularity in humans comparable to that observed in wild animals.

Conversely, the significant weight disparities observed in modern humans and domestic animals could be linked to the dietary transformations imposed by culinary practices.

Rejecting artificial food processing could thus be a key factor in the natural regulation of weight.

Even in the West, being overweight was long a sign of health or social status: a slender politician was less respectable than a pot-bellied one. The latter ate more, therefore earned more, therefore was considered better. These standards reversed in the second half of the century: a slim figure became the criterion of beauty, and everyone’s weight became an obsession. To such an extent that the nudes of classical painters shock us instead of enticing us with their generous forms.

Faced with all these weight-loving and weight-averse debates, instincto-nutrition provides an answer that has the merit of being empirical, and therefore reliable: without culinary manipulation, excess weight doesn’t exist, except in rare cases of hormonal imbalances.

Weight Evolution Under Instincto-Nutrition

Another essential element from a practical standpoint is determining to what extent and in what timeframe the practice of instincto-nutrition allows for the restoration of a normal BMI.

Is the normalization achieved stable, or should we fear a yo-yo effect like with traditional weight-loss diets? Experiments conducted on obesity have shown a reduction of more than 500 g per day, without any restriction of food portions. Obese individuals, even when all other methods have failed, can easily lose 500g per day without feeling particularly distressed, going, for example, from 150kg to 80kg in six months—simply by eliminating cooking and eating as much as they want of whatever they desire, thus without physiological frustration. The weight loss curve may, however, plateau, as if the body needs periods of stabilization before continuing to eliminate accumulated waste.

Relapsing into traditional cooking often resurrects binge eating habits, which is reflected on the scales: regrettable, but confirms that “normal” eating is the major cause of obesity. For those who don’t want to permanently adopt a “natural” diet, a few weeks of “instinctive” eating can have the advantage, in addition to a vigorous shedding of excess weight, of reactivating taste perception and the signs of fullness. At the very least, it will awaken the attention that is being paid to it. Thus, the formerly obese person who returns to their old habits is better able to recognize the signals their body sends them and benefits from a certain protection against gluttonous temptations—provided they haven’t spent weeks of abstinence fantasizing about raiding every pastry shop and bakery.

The reverse is also true: people suffering from severe malnutrition, for example after years of veganism, have been able to regain a satisfactory weight, going from 31 kg to 50 kg in a few months. These results would not be possible, however, when subjects refuse animal protein.

All of these observations are consistent with the hypothesis that modern humans remain genetically adapted to an original diet. Culinary art could thus contribute to the weight disparities observed in humans and domestic animals fed processed foods. Conversely, an unprocessed diet could promote a height and weight regularity comparable to that observed in nature.

Conclusion

1. The results of this study seem to show that instinctive nutrition is capable of ensuring an average BMI within the range considered normal.
2. They also indicate that the general population is borderline overweight, probably due to the characteristics of traditional diets.
3. The low variability observed with instinctive nutrition suggests that the spontaneous nutritional regulation characteristic of this practice prevents both deficiencies and excesses.
4. The difference between BMIs measured with and without culinary enhancements is statistically very significant and demonstrates a potentially major impact of these enhancements on biological balance.
5. Since weight regulation differs between the two populations, the causes should be sought in the organoleptic and/or biochemical differences between whole foods and processed foods.
6. Since overweight and obesity contribute to cardiovascular disease and certain chronic conditions, it seems that a Paleolithic-style diet and a better understanding of our body’s natural regulatory mechanisms could be a significant preventative factor.

Ultimately, the obesity tsunami sweeping the planet could be an opportunity for everyone to ask themselves some fundamental questions about human nutrition. More than the government’s “five fruits and vegetables a day” campaign, it’s millennia of addiction to the sins of food that deserve to be examined…