Author: David Meagher

In a seminar to the UGA Foods and Nutrition Department, Dr. Amy Goss began by discussing the etiology of metabolic disease and the common misconception of obesity as a root cause for theses pathologies; she stressed that obesity should be viewed as a result of a common antecedent, instead preferring to categorize it as collateral damage due to multiple factors including inflammation and hyperglycemia.

Individuals who struggle with maintaining their weight might be predisposed to being overweight or obese due to a specific genotype or phenotype they possess that is multiplied by nutritional insult. Nutritional insult is defined as a diet rich in highly processed carbohydrates, such as added sugar, wheat bread, and flour that results in subsequent spikes in blood insulin levels. Since insulin regulates body fat storage, constant large increases in insulin are likely to lead to increased deposits of fat and an increase in adipose tissue. This turns into one seemingly endless cycle because both ectopic fat and visceral fat contribute to insulin resistance. Thus, the more fat a person has means the more insulin resistant they are, so they have to increase the output of insulin which increases fat storage.

Dr. Goss’s most recent research involved comparing a low carbohydrate, high fat diet (43%CHO;18%Pro;39%Fat) to a more standard, control diet (55%CHO;18%Pro;27%Fat). It was determined that the low carb, high fat diet intervention resulted in relatively greater decrease of visceral fat and insulin secretion as compared to the control diet. Additionally, more weight loss was observed with a hypocaloric diet (500 kcal reduction) after eight weeks. However, one big limitation of these findings is that both diets had different glycemic loads. Dr. Goss was able to replicate these findings in women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome where a low carb, high fat diet (41%CHO;19%Pro;40%Fat) resulted in decreased visceral and intramuscular fat and increased fasting glucose, insulin sensitivity, and beta-cell function, as compared to a control diet (55%CHO;18%Pro;27%Fat).

Dr. Goss finished her talk by discussing the UAB EatRight Clinic’s various diet plans that have proven effective in their patient population. These include a low carbohydrate diet, a Risk Reduction diet that is prescribed to individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, and the OptiFast diet which is a complete meal replacement program for individuals who need to lose at least fifty pounds. A more specific low carb, high fat diet that involved eating three eggs per day for eight weeks resulted in decreased weight, total fat, and insulin resistance as compared to controls who consumed Kind Bars.

While the jury is still out on the most effective diet plan to follow for weight loss and sustained health and wellness, it certainly seems that low carb, high fat diets are still on the table. With more corroborating research across different populations, this can potentially be an important prescription for disease prevention among normal weight adults and children of the general population (18.5-24.9 kg/m² BMI) who are at a high risk of becoming overweight and obese.

Influencing people to walk more throughout the day is a common behavior change that is often promoted by physical activity researchers and health professionals. It seems that this may be attainable now more than ever with the advent and subsequent widespread use of wearable physical activity trackers, most notably brand name devices like Garmin, FitBit, and Apple Watch. Dr. Kelly Evenson has been on the forefront of researching this technology and applying it to increase the awareness of the need for, and practice of, regular participation in physical activity among the general population.

According to Dr. Evenson, 69% of U.S. adults track at least one health indicator on average, of which most is done mentally. Of course, a convenience of physical activity trackers includes the ability to monitor multiple measures of fitness. Five of the most common and useful health tracking measurements include number of steps, total distance, and level of physical activity achieved, energy expenditure, and sleep. The ideal device combines the aspects of being wearable, controllable, mobile, and enhancing of physical activity. However, above all else, Dr. Evenson stressed the need for devices to be proven to have both intra- and inter-device reliability and meet both construct and criterion validity. Dr. Evenson’s research is mostly focused on FitBit, and using the Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance System, she has found that there are poor correlations between activity and body mass index regarding the use of FitBits. However, the technology is still very much in its infancy and has positive implications for use among cardiac rehabilitation patients.

As an aspiring strength and conditioning professional, I am highly intrigued by the use of physical activity trackers and their ability to monitor fitness among athletes and non-athletes alike. Catapult is a popular and successful Australian-based company leading the way in fitness monitoring through its partnerships with Australia’s Cooperative Research Centres and the Australian Institute of Sport. Combining the technologies of GPS tracking, accelerometers, video and statistical analysis, and computer-based software programs, Catapult is on the forefront of the application, prescription, and analysis of physical activity trackers.

Ultimately, I see a link to public health practice when I think about Catapult being utilized in research studies for the general population. If public health practitioners could partner with a company like Catapult, the results could be astounding. Researchers could have endless opportunities to validate and test Catapult products and their reliability in the general population, which could lead to even better physical activity and fitness practices and recommendations. Also, Catapult could create a market among the general population with the advent of new devices, increasing competition and supply-and-demand for wearable technology that would create greater access for the general population.

What do you think – Is there a viable connection between companies like Catapult and public health researchers and practitioners? Are physical activity trackers apart of the future of public health research? What kind of impact can physical activity tracking have on the general population?

Follow this link for more information on Catapult: https://www.catapultsports.com/