Dr. Jonny Bowden

Category: Weight-Loss

  • Bloody Aftermath of The Diet Wars

    Anyone who follows politics has heard the oft-repeated axiom that we are, at heart, a center-right country. And it’s true. Most people in the country are centrists, agreeing on more things than you might suspect from watching the cable news channels.

    Sure, the devil is in the details, and sure there are some areas of strong disagreement, but when you discount the extremists on both sides, you can’t escape the conclusion that the axiom is correct: the vast majority of Americans are just a few degrees right of center.

    Which got me wondering… what would it be like if we looked at nutrition through the same lens as we do politics?

    In the diet wars, the extremists get the most press, just like they do in politics. Cable news loves the Tea Party and the Occupiers, but the vast majority of people fall somewhere between those two poles. And so it is with nutrition.

    Let me explain.

    The Diet Wars can get pretty dicey. Not only is there major disagreement over the amount (and type) of protein we should be eating, but there’s wild disagreement over the role of fat, the importance of carbs, the value of exercise, the need for calorie counting, and just about anything else you can think of.

    But– like with politics– when you sit down with people who are not intractably bound to an extreme position you find that there are more than a few things they actually agree on.

    To take the political analogy one step further, let’s say we had to propose a “Nutritional Rights Bill” in the congress of public opinion. This “bill” would have to be bi-partisan–—one that could be accepted by both Dean Ornish and the late Robert Atkins. (Think that’s impossible? Read on.)

    So in the spirit of nutritional “bi-partisanship” I’m going to propose a short list of things everyone I know—-from vegans to Paleos, from raw foodists to calorie counters—-should be able to agree on.

    1. Eat more vegetables. Even if you’re on the strictest high protein high fat program, vegetables are still a free food. Just about everyone agrees that they are a wildly rich source of antioxidants, anti-inflammatories, vitamins, minerals, fiber, and chemopreventive agents like indoles, flavanols, flavonoids, polyphenols, catechins and other health giving plant compounds.

    2. When (and if) you eat meat, make it grass fed. Yes it’s more expensive, but there’s no hormones, steroids or antibiotics, the fat is higher in anti-inflammatory omega-3’s and lower in pro-inflammatory omega-6’s.

    3. When (and if) you eat starchy carbohydrates, the less processed the better. Oatmeal beats Frosted Flakes. Ezekiel bread beats anything else. And you probably don’t need quite as many carbs as you thought, anyway.

    4. Water and green tea are two of the healthiest beverages on the planet. The more the better.

    5. Nuts, beans and berries should be staples of your diet. (I know the die-hard Paleo folks don’t agree with the part about beans, but hey, I’m going for the center here!)

    6. Most people would benefit from a multivitamin, extra vitamin D, probiotics and magnesium.

    7. The less sugar and high-fructose corn syrup you consume, the better.

    8. A certain portion of your daily diet should come from raw foods.

    9. Olive oil is good for you.

    Sure, the disagreements among health professionals make for better episodes on the Today Show —especially when those health professionals are colorful and interesting. But next time you feel like throwing up your hands over the fact that the “experts” can’t “agree on anything”, take another look at this list.
    We actually agree on more things than you think.

    Not long ago, the great consumer advocate and food writer Michael Pollan took a stab at a similar list of “commandments”, even simpler and less specific than my own. It’s worth repeating them here:

    Eat food.
    Not so much.
    Mostly plants.

    If you follow the spirit of these recommendations—whether you’re a high-protein person or a raw foodist– you’ll be building a solid foundation for a healthy eating program.

  • No Willpower? Bulletproof Your Kitchen!

    Know what the first step in any twelve-step program is?

    Admitting that you’re powerless over whatever it is you’re addicted to.

    And that goes for food as well.

    There’s a lot of power in admitting powerlessness, because it opens up possibilities for action.

    If there are certain situations- or in this case, foods- that you have a lot of trouble with, get rid of them.

    Bulletproof your kitchen.

    Why tempt fate?

    I personally can’t eat one small portion of ice cream and put the rest away, so guess what I do?

    I don’t keep ice cream in the house!

    Set yourself up for success by ridding your immediate environment of the stuff you have a hard time with. If it’s not there, there’s much less chance you’ll eat it. And If you live with other people, ask their cooperation or make a separate area of the kitchen that’s just for you—and make the rest of the stuff  in the kitchen off-limits.

    Bulletproofing your kitchen is the first step towards setting yourself up for success. It’s one of the first action steps we take in my new permanent weight loss program, Unleash Your Thin »

    And by the way, why stop with the kitchen?

    Take the lesson you learned about toxic foods and apply it to the rest of your life. Make a list of those “toxic friends”, “toxic situations” and “energy drainers” in your life and start cleaning house. You have enormous personal power to create an environment that supports you in your goals, whether it be weight loss or stress reduction or anything else you want for yourself.

    Start using it now. Start with the kitchen- but don’t stop there!

  • Modest Weight Loss Has Lasting Benefits

    ScienceDaily (Aug. 2, 2012) — Overweight and obese individuals can achieve a decade’s worth of important health benefits by losing just 20 pounds, even if they regain the weight later that decade, according to research presented at the American Psychological Association’s 120th Annual Convention. With a focus on psychology’s role in overcoming the national obesity epidemic, the session also examined research that indicates foods high in sugar and fat could have addictive properties.

    In the Diabetes Prevention Program, a national study of 3,000 overweight people with impaired glucose tolerance, patients were shown how to change their behavior rather than given drugs. The program shows that even modest weight loss, an average of 14 pounds, reduced people’s risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by 58 percent.

    What’s more, the health benefits of this weight loss lasted up to 10 years, even if people gained the weight back over this time.

    Participants in the program practiced basic behavioral strategies to help them lose weight, including tracking everything they ate and reducing the amount of unhealthy foods they kept in their home. They also met with coaches frequently and increased their physical activity over the course of the study.

    “Helping people find ways to change their eating and activity behaviors and developing interventions other than medication to reinforce a healthy lifestyle have made a huge difference in preventing one of the major health problems in this country,” said researcher Rena Wing. “Weight losses of just 10 percent of a person’s body weight (or about 20 pounds in those who weigh 200 pounds) have also been shown to have a long-term impact on sleep apnea, hypertension and quality of life, and to slow the decline in mobility that occurs as people age.”

    Wing is now leading a 13-year trial of 5,000 people with Type 2 diabetes. This study is testing whether an intensive behavioral intervention can decrease the risk of heart disease and heart attacks. “We are trying to show that behavior changes not only make people healthier in terms of reducing heart disease risk factors but actually can make them live longer,” she said.

    Changing food policy is another prevention approach where behavioral science is addressing the U.S. obesity epidemic, according to Kelly Brownell, PhD, of Yale University. “The primary question is whether foods, particularly those high in sugar, act on the brain in ways that create signs of addiction,” Brownell said. “Craving and withdrawal signs can be seen in animal and human brain imaging studies conducted by investigators around the world. This could fundamentally change the debate about diet, nutrition and obesity in this country.”

    If foods have addictive properties, policymakers might be spurred to create laws that would set limits on certain nutrients in food and curtail advertising of these types of foods to children, he said.

    Dr. Jonny comments:

    It’s good to see these psychologists joining the national discussion about obesity and weight, and it’s particularly gratifying to hear them address the very real issue of food addiction.

    As David Kessler’s excellent book, “The End of Overeating” points out, food manufacturers deliberately “engineer” their foods with precise, scientifically determined layers of fat, salt and sugar so as to make them “super-palatable”, or, in plain language, addictive. It’s no accident that one of the most truthful marketing campaigns for food used the slogan “Betcha can’t eat just one”. That’s because you can’t. The foods that are making you fat—and are killing you in the process- have been deliberately designed to be impossible to resist.

    Our “Unleash Your Thin” program spends a great deal of time on the issue of food addiction, and has a specific action plan to break the compulsions associated with irresistible foods—the same foods that make you sick, fat, tired and depressed. Without changing your relationship to these addictive foods, weight loss becomes next to impossible. That’s why “reprograming your brain” to respond differently to the foods that sabotage your best efforts is at the core of the “Unleash Your Thin” program.

    Good to see that the idea of food addiction is finally getting the serious attention it deserves.

  • Diet + Exercise = Weight Loss? Not So Fast!

    Diet + Exercise = Weight Loss? Not So Fast!

    A new study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine claims those battle-tested ways to lose weight usually work and allow people to meet their goals.

    You know the drill: eat less, watch your calories, exercise more, and reduce your fat intake… that sort of thing.

    Researchers here gathered information from over 4,000 obese individuals based on the 2001-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. One year prior to completing this survey, these adults had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30.

    Many participants reportedly did lose weight in that year’s time. More specifically, about 40% lost 5% or their weight or more, and another 20% lost 10% or more.

    Impressive, huh?

    Researchers tidily summarized their results. “Those who exercised more and ate less fat were significantly more likely to lose weight,” they said. Structured programs – weight loss meetings, for instance – also helped some people meet their goals.

    I find these kinds of studies frustrating. For one, surveys aren’t the most accurate or consistent way to learn how people lose weight.  They usually provide very generalized, quantitative, sometimes-biased or confusing questions.

    I could go on, but here’s the deal. Some people lose weight just fine cutting their calories and stepping up gym time.

    These are the same people who brag they can eat anything they want in moderation and burn off that pancake and mimosa breakfast at the gym.

    Their underlying message is that if you can’t do those things, you must be eating too much or not exercising enough or just being lazy.

    You may be one of those people who tried reduced-calorie or low-fat diets on countless programs and spent hours on useless exercise equipment to burn fat.

    Hopefully, you eventually conclude it’s not your fault you keep regaining weight or can’t lose it to begin with. At some point you probably decide these are lousy ways to lose weight.

    Listen, I’m a huge fan of exercise for its zillion benefits, but unfortunately weight loss is probably not going to be one of those benefits.

    As experts like Gary Taubes point out, people who exercise often eat more because, well, exercise makes you hungry.

    People who exercise for weight loss are also more likely to overestimate how many calories they burn. You see these people at the gym huffing away on an elliptical machine while watching The View and keeping one eye on the calorie counter.

    So you’ve done an hour on the treadmill, which promises you’ve burned 500 calories, and you’re famished. You feel like you deserve a reward for your hard work. And there’s a Starbucks around the corner.

    I’ll let you predict that outcome.

    Exercise and counting calories do matter to a degree, but they’re hardly the whole story for fat loss.

    When you eat what nature intended – lean protein, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds – your body recognizes these foods. Your hormones send your body the right messages.

    Your hormone CCK, for instance, tells your brain when it’s full. You also don’t raise your blood sugar, which means you keep steady insulin levels so your body uses, not stores, fat.

    Combine these foods with the right kind of exercise (High Intensity Interval Training which takes minutes, not hours, a day)…

     

    … and you’ll burn fat, maintain muscle, and boost your metabolism.

    You don’t need to count anything or spend hours exercising. You’re getting optimal nutrients. And you’re never hungry. It’s a win-win for weight loss.

  • New Drug Provides Very “Modest Weight Loss”

    Have you heard of the new weight loss drug, Belviq?

    Then gather ‘round, boys and girls, cause we have a rare opportunity to watch sausage being made.

    This is the best time to talk about Belviq, because no one’s really heard of it—yet—so we have a chance to talk about what it does and doesn’t do before we’ve been subjected to what will probably be one of the most expensive pharmaceutical marketing campaigns in years. At that point everyone will have heard of Belviq, anyone who is even a few pounds overweight will be asking their doctor about it—(“Ask your doctor if Belviq might be right for you”)—and I will undoubtedly get a gazillion questions about it on the website.

    So, as Ed Schultz would sway, “Let’s get to work”.

    On June 27, the Food and Drug administration approved a new weight loss drug, lorcaserin, which is made by Arena Pharmaceuticals and marketed under the brand name Belviq. It’s the first time in more than ten years that a weight loss drug has been approved by the agency, so expect everyone to make a really big deal out of that.

    Up to now, everything about Belviq has been “behind the scenes”. It was reviewed by the FDA in 2010 and rejected, one because it produced “modest weight loss” and two because there were concerns about a rat study linking the drug to mammary tumors. But Arena came back to the FDA with new data.

    The new data—in research sponsored by the manufacturer—showing that 38% of patients had lost 5% or more of their starting weight in a year. Among people taking a placebo, only 16% of patients lost that amount of weight.

    OK everyone, let’s do some math.

    If you’re 200 pounds and you lose 5% of your weight over the course of a year—commendable, by the way, I’m all for it—you’ve lost all of 10 pounds. In a year. Which, if I remember my elementary school long division, would come to 10 divided by 12 months or a grand total of .83 pounds per month.

    That’s decimal point 83, in case you missed it.

    Meaning less than one pound per month.

    Meaning approximately 4/5 of one pound. Per month.

    Am I making myself clear?

    Not only that, but 16% of patients were able to lose that much just taking a placebo, meaning that of the 38% of patients on the drug who had these nothing-to-write-home-about results, 16% would have lost the weight on a sugar pill anyway. That means that the actual percentage of patients in the study who achieved these results because of the drug was only 22%.

    FDA Committee member and Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado Daniel Bessesen, who voted for approval, said the drug provides “a modest weight loss, and it’s not what we would like.”

    No kidding.

    Then there are the safety issues. The data shown to the FDA fell just short of the standard the agency sets to rule out an excess risk of valvular heart disease. An increased risk for heart-valve disease was what ultimately caused Fen-Phen to be withdrawn from the market.

    The sausage making part of this story is this: Watch carefully over the next couple of years at how the data on this drug is spun in the sure-to-be spectacular marketing campaign that will be waged on its behalf. These guys are so good at what they do that they will make you forget that their own studies showed only 8/10 of a pound a month weight loss (for a 200 pound patient), and that most people didn’t even achieve that.

    And when you’re tempted to give it a try, please remember to come back to this article and read it again.

    Four-fifths of one pound a month.

    In about 22% of patients. (In other words, 78% didn’t even achieve that!)

    With potential safety issues and side effects that generally don’t become well known till a drug has been out in the market for a while (i.e. Vioxx, Fen-Phen.. shall I continue?)

    But by the time Big Pharma’s marketing departments get done trumpeting “significant results” and “38% of all patients lost an impressive 5% of body weight” and showing you commercials with happy, slim people running around the beach, you’ll almost be convinced.

    Don’t feel bad. I almost bought a thighmaster once.

  • “Low Fat” Comes in Last Place… Again

    So three penguins walk into a bar, get to talking, and decide to enroll in a diet study.

    I’m kidding of course, but I thought it might be a novel way to introduce the new diet study that was just published in the august Journal of the American Medical Association, and has got the media all a dither.

    It’s actually a pretty good study, and there’s even been some truthful and accurate reporting on it, a rarity in an age when simplistic sound bites substitute for careful analysis. But in case you missed reading about it, here’s what you need to know, starting with the back story.

    See, The conventional wisdom is that all calories are calories, that it doesn’t matter where they come from, and that weight loss is essentially about “calories in, calories out”. It’ called the “energy balance” theory; you take in calories through food, you burn up calories through activity, and if you “burn” more than you take in, you lose weight. If, on the other hand, you take in more than you burn up, you gain weight. Period.

    We’ve been hearing this same old past-its-expiration-date claptrap about all calories being equal for decades now. I won’t name names (American Dietetic Association) but lots of mainstream organizations and health authorities have been parroting this “a calorie is a calorie” stuff to us for years. They’re still doing it.

    The researchers decided to see if it were true.

    Spoiler alert: it’s not.

    The researchers in this study wanted to specifically look at the metabolic effects of different diets composed of the same number of calories. They wanted to see if varying the amount of protein, fat or carbs impacted important metabolic markers, like, for example, how many calories you burn at rest.

    Remember—the holy grail of “diet” programs, the promise of every infomercial, is the ability to “boost your metabolism”. Burning more calories at rest—and burning more calories, proportionately, when you’re active—is the very definition of a “boosted” metabolism, isn’t it? The researchers wanted to see if, for example, a high-protein diet caused people to “burn” more calories than, say, a low-fat diet, even if calories were kept the same.

    So what happened?

    Let’s go to the videotape.

    Researchers first took 21 participants, age 18-40, and put them on a variation of the Zone diet, feeding them 45% carbs, 30% fat and 25% protein. All of them lost between 10-15% of their body weight over the course of three months. So far, so good.

    A month later, the participants were placed on one of three diets for a month.

    1. A low-fat diet (fat= 20% of calories)
    2. A low-carb diet modeled on Atkins (10% of calories from carbs)
    3. A low-glycemic diet (40% carbs, 40% fats and 20% protein)

    (Note: low-glycemic means that all the foods had minimal impact on blood sugar; essentially that means a very low-sugar diet with minimal amounts of processed carbs like cereals and breads. Processed carbs have the most dramatic effect on blood sugar, which, in turn, raises levels of the fat-storage hormone insulin, making it really easy to gain weight.)

    Participants were switched around so that every person ultimately went on each of the three diets for one solid month.

    Ready for the results?

    The low-fat diet had the worst effect on calorie burning.

    Low-fat dieters also had increases in triglycerides—a major risk factor for heart disease—and had decreases in protective HDL cholesterol. “The low-fat diet that has been the primary approach for more than a generation is actually the worst for most outcomes, with the worst effects on insulin resistance, triglycerides and HDL, or good cholesterol, said David Ludwig, MD, lead researcher on the study.

    In other words, the low-fat diet stunk.

    (No news to readers of this newsletter, but I digress.)

    The group that had the greatest increase in “energy expenditure” (calories burned)? The low-carb group.

    The low-carbers actually boosted their metabolism by a whopping 350 calories a day compared to those on the low-fat diet, approximately the same as an hour of moderate exercise. And the low-glycemic dieters did pretty well also, burning 150 calories more per day than those following the god-awful low-fat diet.

    The news wasn’t all good for low-carbers, however. The extra calories burned came at a cost. Those on the low-carb diet had higher levels of CRP- a measure of systemic inflammation—and higher levels of cortisol, the major stress hormone in the body. Those on the low-glycemic diet did not have any of those negative results.

    I’m a huge fan of David Ludwig, one of the smartest and least biased researchers working in the field of weight loss. And I can certainly see why he concluded that, all things considered, the low-glycemic diet is the way to go. You still get a huge bump in metabolism, but no negatives to go along with it.

    My only question here is why the low-carbers saw their CRP and cortisol levels rise. It’s tempting to think it’s simply the low-carb diet, but I’d want to know more specifics.

    For example, the low-carbers were on a diet of 40% fat. I’m guessing most of that fat was vegetable oil, the kind we’ve been taught is so “healthy” but is actually quite pro-inflammatory. (That could have accounted for why their CRP, which is a measure of inflammation, went up.)

    The take-away from this very good study is this: Stick with whole foods, minimally processed. “We should avoid severely restricting any major nutrient and focus on the quality of the nutrient”, said Ludwig.

    “It’s time to reacquaint ourselves with minimally processed carbs. If you take three servings of refined carbohydrates and substitute one of fruit, one of beans and one of nuts, you could eliminate 50 percent of diet-related disease in the United States. These relatively modest changes can provide great benefit.”

    Amen.

    And hopefully we can finally put to rest the outdated notion that “all calories are created equal”.

  • 5 Tips for Kicking The Junk Food Habit

    A study in the International Journal of Obesity found that sugary, fatty foods create similar reactions (including the inevitable crash) to drugs.

    Similar to drug addicts, researchers found bingers seek to recreate this destructive food euphoria to beat depression. Not surprisingly, a vicious cycle ensues.

    “Data shows that obesity is associated with increased risk of developing depression, but we have very little understanding of the neural mechanisms and brain reward patterns that link the two,” researchers said. “We are demonstrating for the first time that the chronic consumption of palatable, high-fat diets has pro-depressive effects.”

    Researchers fed mice different kinds of food and monitored how those foods affected behavior.

    They also determined the relationship between rewarding mice with food and the behavior and emotions these foods evoked. Later, researchers looked at the mice’s brains to see how they changed.

    The gorging mice’s brains showed increased anxiety, stress, and depression. In other words, these eating binges physically changed their brain structure.

    Other studies show the same thing. One in the journal Nature Neuroscience found lab rats gravitated to high-fat foods and became dependent on getting their “fat fix” much like drug users need their daily fix.

    Dopamine played a key role in getting those fixes. I’ve written before about this brain molecule, which controls pleasure and rewards certain kinds of behavior. Dopamine plays a powerful role in overeating.

    But here’s the keeper: the anticipation of eating fatty foods, rather than eating the food itself, releases this powerful hormone.

    Nothing wrong with anticipation: it helped us evolve as a species, after all. But problems arise when you associate pleasure with the wrong stimuli or the system malfunctions, as it did in these mice’s brains after eating the fatty foods.

    When your reward circuitry becomes hijacked, your “enough!” switch becomes blunted, and addiction often results.

    Ultimately, that chocolate chip cookie (or whatever your food addiction might be) fails to satisfy. But oddly enough, you repeatedly gravitate to it again because you anticipate it will satisfy.

    When you return, two things happen. You strengthen the association between cue (chocolate chip cookie) and reward (that dopamine blast). And the cue itself (the thought or sight of a cookie) triggers dopamine circuits, where after you have little control over your behavior.

    Dopamine is what fuels your drive to get a chocolate chip cookie when it feels like nothing else will satisfy you, and when you certainly know you don’t need or even want it.

    Pair that cookie with a powerful emotional stimuli—say, wonderful memories of your grandmother baking gooey chocolate chip cookies — and those powerful associations release so much dopamine that your reward circuits become hijacked.

    Next time you notice a powerful craving for something sweet, stop and ask yourself whether the anticipation of eating something is more rewarding than actually eating it.

    I also want to provide five strategies to gain control over hormones like dopamine so you don’t subsequently spiral into overeating and depression:

    1. Make lateral shifts. Telling yourself you can’t have something only makes you want it more. Instead of deprivation, make what my friend JJ Virgin calls a lateral shift. Instead of cookies, for instance, have apple slices with almond butter. You’ll get a satisfying crunch and sweetness without the sugar.
    2. Find non-food rewards. Isn’t it funny how we can always find a reason to celebrate with food? Instead, give yourself a non-food reward, such as a massage or long walk with your dog.
    3. Distract yourself and the temptation will pass. Instead of succumbing to the chocolate chip cookies, get lost in a good book or call an old friend. Other strategies include brushing your teeth and drinking a glass of water. I can almost guarantee you’ll forget about your craving.
    4. Keep the enemy out of your house. Don’t set yourself up for disaster. Even if you’ve been good all day, all bets are off around 11 p.m. when you’re exhausted and suddenly remember those freshly baked cookies in the fridge. Don’t let them into your house and you’ll be far less likely to give in.
    5. Get enough sleep. A study in The Journal of Neuroscience found that your brain compensates for lack of sleep by increasing dopamine. Too little sleep also knocks your fat-burning hormones out of whack. Couple that with sleep-deprived lack of judgment, and you’ve got a surefire strategy to overeat. Aim for seven to nine hours of high-quality sleep every night to trigger fat burning, balance dopamine levels, and reduce your urge to overeat.

    If you want more in-depth information on the topic of food addiction then you should know I’ve dedicated an entire 12 page chapter to it in my new weight loss program Unleash Your Thin »

  • Overnight Fasting Brings Big Gains for Fat Loss

    A study in the journal Cell Metabolism found enforcing a late-night food curfew could help you burn fat without dieting.

    Researchers here discovered that mice confined to an eight-hour feeding period became leaner and healthier than mice that casually ate throughout the day.

    Here’s the story. They divided the mice – all of which shared the same genes, gender, and age – into one of two groups. Both groups ate the same mice equivalent of pizza, Ben & Jerrys, and beer.

    But their meal timing was different. One group ate whenever they wanted. Because mice are nocturnal, these guys put away half their food at night and otherwise casually noshed throughout the day.

    The second group, however, could only eat within an eight-hour window every night. In other words, for 16 hours every day, these mice fasted.

    Bad news for the mice that chowed down 24/7: after 100 days, they became fat with high blood sugar, cholesterol, liver damage, and with deteriorating health.

    The fasting mice, on the other hand, weighed 28% less and – you guessed it – were in glowing health.

    Oh, and guess which group won the exercise contest? Yep, the fasting mice.

    I’ll repeat that again: both groups ate the same crappy diet, just at different times.

    “It’s a dogma that a high-fat diet leads to obesity and that we should eat frequently when we are awake,” said senior author Satchidananda Panda. “Our findings, however, suggest that regular eating times and fasting for a significant number of hours a day might be beneficial to our health.”

    These researchers suggested people could get the same metabolic benefits as the eight-hour mice by putting the brakes on eating after dinner until the next morning’s breakfast.

    You’ve probably heard about intermittent fasting (IF), where you voluntarily forego food for a certain period of time. Besides numerous health benefits, proponents claim IF is a great way to burn fat.

    The concept is nothing new. Even in the early 60s researchers noted that people could become and stay lean by doing one water-only fast every week, which allowed “them to be more liberal with their diet on the other days.”

    Hunger is a powerful force. And despite these benefits, walking around famished and cranky all day is absolutely no fun. That’s a big reason you might be reluctant to try IF.

    Which makes this study so relevant and interesting: by doing most of your IF while you’re asleep, you can get its benefits without suffering hunger or deprivation. At worst, you might have to surrender your midnight snack.

    So you could have a big dinner at 6 p.m. and then resume eating the following morning at, say, 9 a.m. In other words, you’ll be “fasting” for about 14 hours, which gives your body enough time to shift into serious fat-burning mode.

    Now, I’m certainly not suggesting you have an all-you-can-eat deep dish and cheesecake dinner and then expect your fat to melt away.

    But if you’re stalling with your current eating plan (maybe your low-carb diet has hit a plateau) or want to burn a few pounds before your two-week trip to Kauai, you might want to give this overnight fast a try.

  • Want to Burn More Fat? Spend More Time in Bed!

    Want to Burn More Fat? Spend More Time in Bed!

    A study in the journal Sleep found that getting adequate sleep could help you overcome a genetic predisposition towards being overweight.

    The study looked at 1,088 pairs of twins. Researchers learned those who slept less than seven hours a night had a higher body mass index (BMI), one measure of being overweight or obese.

    What’s more, genes influenced about 70% of that high BMI. (The other 30%, in case you were wondering, involved environment.)

    On the other hand, for twins who got more than nine hours’ sleep, genes contributed only about 32% to higher BMI.

    In other words, sleep determined how much genes influenced these twins being overweight.

    “The results suggest that shorter sleep provides a more permissive environment for the expression of obesity related genes,” said lead researcher Dr. Nathaniel Watson. “Or it may be that extended sleep is protective by suppressing expression of obesity genes.”

    If you keep up with science, you’ll know genetics are the next big thing for fat loss and ultimate health. You can now take tests, for instance, that look at your genetic DNA profile to determine your ideal diet, nutrient needs, and exercise regimen.

    But I think this study proves a valuable point beyond genetics: sleep matters for fat loss.

    Indeed, too many people coast by on five hours’ sleep and caffeinate themselves the next morning with a big vat of Starbucks. But as you’ll see, that’s a recipe for terrible health and gaining fat.

    That’s because too little sleep knocks your hormones out of whack. Let’s take a look at five hormones that sleep impacts:

    1. Ghrelin – this is your hunger hormone: it tells your brain to eat. When you get a crappy night’s sleep, you crank out more ghrelin. Couple that with lack of judgment from being so tired, and you can see why you’re mindlessly devouring a Starbucks Danish that you didn’t even want.
    2. Leptin – leptin tells you to stop eating. In other words, it has the opposite effect of ghrelin. When you don’t sleep well, you become more leptin resistant so your brain doesn’t get the message as effectively.
    3. Insulin – insulin is your ultimate fat-storing hormone. Chronically elevated insulin makes fat burning almost impossible. Guess what? A few nights of terrible sleep can make your cells insulin resistant, leading to higher insulin levels.
    4. Human growth hormone (GH) – this “youth” hormone prevents aging, builds muscle, and helps fat burning. Lack of sleep means you make less GH.
    5. Cortisol – cortisol is your stress hormone. Couple a crappy night’s sleep with rush-hour traffic and an irate boss, and you’ve got a recipe for chronically elevated cortisol levels.

    Get what I’m saying now about poor sleep adversely affecting your hormones? It all adds up to a dismal picture for fat burning and feeling your best.

    I know getting a good night’s sleep is easier said than done. I want to leave you with three tips to prepare for a good night’s sleep so it happens more often:

    1. Cut off the stimulation and power down. About an hour before your bedtime, turn off your laptop, TV, and other distractions. Take a hot bath, drink some chamomile tea, meditate, or do whatever works for you to unwind.
    2. Stop eating about three hours before bed. Those late-night Haagen-Dazs freezer raids aren’t doing anything for sleep or your waistline. Close the kitchen after dinner for better sleep and fat burning.
    3. Try a natural sleep aid. Everyone needs a little help falling asleep sometimes. If you suffer jet lag or are trying to adjust to a new time zone, melatonin could be your answer to fall and stay asleep.
  • Physical Activity Prevents Cognitive Decline

    Physical Activity Prevents Cognitive Decline

    The next time your partner complains about washing the dishes, remind him or her doing them could help prevent cognitive decline.

    A new study in the journal Neurology found any kind of physical activity, including household chores, could reduce your risk for Alzheimer’s disease and other brain-related deterioration.

    According to lead researcher Dr. Aron S. Buchman, exercise and “other activities such as cooking, washing the dishes, and cleaning are associated with a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

    You’re probably thinking, Really, another study that shows exercise works!? After all, you don’t hear about too many studies that show exercise doesn’t work.

    But this one proves significant for two reasons. One, it was the first study to objectively measure physical activity.

    More specifically, researchers asked 716 people with no dementia to wear an actigraph, which measured their activity and non-activity for 10 days.

    The actigraph measured any kind of physical movement, including cooking, playing cards, and even operating a wheelchair. If these participants moved, the actigraph measured it.

    Participants reported their physical and social activity, but they also wore the actigraph to validate those claims, since many people overestimate or misjudge how much exercise they do otherwise.

    Over the three-and-a-half year study, 71 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.

    The take home: movement counts, but intense movement matters more.

    • People who engaged in the least amount of physical activity were over twice as likely to succumb to Alzheimer’s than those who engaged in more physical activity.
    • People who exercised less intensely were almost three times more likely to get Alzheimer’s than people who did exercise intensely.

    Oh, the other significant detail worth mentioning: the average age of these participants was 82.

    Now, Alzheimer’s is a complex, multi-factorial disease, and experts lack any easy solutions. One thing we know for sure: a major player for any degenerative disease is inflammation.

    And exercise can reduce it. A study in the Journal of Applied Physiology for instance, showed that exercise protects against chronic inflammation and disease.

    I agree with Dr. Buchman’s conclusion that exercise is certainly a modifiable risk factor for neurological decline. You can’t change your genes, but you can certainly step up your physical activity.

    Here’s the deal:

    To be beneficial, exercise should be hard.

    For too many people, hours on elliptical machines and aerobic classes become social hour rather than a workout.

    You might as well take it to a bar and have a cocktail… at least the ambiance will be better!

    I also hear people say they walk 30 minutes a few times each week and call it exercise. Walking is good for a zillion other things, but it’s not strenuous physical activity.

    To really get exercise’s numerous benefits, including burning fat and preventing brain deterioration, you’ve got to step it up. You should push yourself to maximum intensity and be a little breathless when you’re done.

    A study in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise for instance, found intense exercise for 45 minutes boosted metabolism for 14 hours post-workout and helped participants burn an additional 190 calories after that workout.

    The good news is that you don’t need 45 minutes. After all, you could spend an hour on the treadmill and not get much of a workout.

    I often talk about burst training, my favorite form of exercise that gives you an intense workout in just four minutes a day »

    Combine burst training with weight resistance, and you’ve got the best exercise combo on the planet to burn fat, boost metabolism, build muscle, and prevent disease. In just minutes a day.

    Trust me, if you’re doing it right you will feel the burn and get results that benefit your brain and waistline.