Tag: nutrition

  • Lighten Up to Lose Weight!

    Lighten Up to Lose Weight!

    guest article by Craig Weatherby

    Rather than self-esteem, “self-compassion” may enhance health and ability to limit food intake.
    We were intrigued by the implications of a new body of research summarized by New York Times health correspondent Tara Parker-Pope in her “Well” blog.

    As she wrote, “… giving ourselves a break and accepting our imperfections may be the first step toward better health … self-compassion can even influence how much we eat …”

    Her article focused on research by Kristin Neff, Ph.D., of the University of Texas, and summarized a controlled trial from Wake Forest University, which found that planting self-forgiving notions in the minds of female college students reduced their junk-food consumption.

    Prompted by Parker-Pope’s blog post, we searched the literature, and uncovered additional relevant research published four years ago by Duke University researchers (Leary MR et al. 2007).

    The Duke team investigated the thinking and emotional processes by which people with self-compassionate attitudes deal with unpleasant life events.

    (The term “self-compassion” refers to people who forgive their own shortcomings, and tend not to beat up on themselves.)

    The five Duke studies grouped participants’ according to their attitudes toward themselves, then evaluated their behavior in various contexts:

    • Reports on negative events in their daily lives
    • Responses to hypothetical scenarios
    • Reactions to interpersonal feedback
    • Rating their or others’ videotaped performances in an awkward situation
    • Reflecting on negative personal experiences

    The results showed that people with self-compassionate attitudes had resilient reactions to negative events that buffered them against negative self-feelings when imagining distressing social events.

    When notions of self-compassion were planted in the minds of participants who ranked low in self-esteem, this intervention seemed to moderate negative emotions in response to ambivalent feedback from other people.

    People who ranked low in self-compassion undervalued their videotaped performances, compared with the perceptions of those performances by objective observers.

    Finally, when people were unknowingly nudged toward having a more self-compassionate perspective, they were more likely to acknowledge their role in negative events without feeling overwhelmed with negative emotions.

    The Duke team concluded that feeling kindly toward yourself is more psychologically beneficial than holding yourself in high regard:

    “In general, these studies suggest that self-compassion attenuates people’s reactions to negative events in ways that are distinct from and, in some cases, more beneficial than self-esteem.”

     

     

  • “Should I Eat Before I Exercise?”

    “Should I Eat Before I Exercise?”

    For as long as I can remember- from the first time I set foot in a gym, actually- I’ve been listening to folks debate the question…

    “Should I eat before I exercise?”

    Now a new study may finally shine some light on the matter. Researchers found that exercising on an empty stomach has several beneficial effects, including preventing weight gain and maintaining insulin sensitivity.

    Researchers in Belgium took 27 healthy young men and fed them all a horrible diet, high in sugar and fat and calories. The particular diet was chosen because it was just about guaranteed to create both weight gain and a reduction in insulin sensitivity.

    Insulin sensitivity, you may remember, is something good- it’s when the cells respond well to insulin, meaning that insulin does an excellent job of removing excess sugar from the bloodstream and getting it into the cells where it can be “burned” for energy. When someone is said to be insulin resistant on the other hand, this system doesn’t work well, and the person winds up with high blood sugar and high insulin and is on the path to either metabolic syndrome or diabetes. Most diabetics are insulin resistant, and most people who are insulin resistant are overweight, since insulin “shuts down” the fat burning process.

    In the Belgian study, the researchers divided the men into three groups:

    1. One group did nothing but eat the terrible diet (the control group). This group didn’t exercise at all during the study.
    2. The second and third group did exercise, and did the exact same workout;
    3. but the second group did it after breakfast and the third group did it before breakfast, exercising on an empty stomach.

    The results were both surprising and dramatic.

    The control group- not surprisingly- gained a lot of weight and also saw their insulin sensitivity plunge (meaning they became much more insulin resistant). The “exercise after eating” group also gained weight, but not nearly as much as the control group. And their insulin sensitivity went down, just as it did in the control group.

    But the “exercising on an empty stomach” group was a whole different story. This group- despite eating a perfectly horrible, weight-gain inducing diet- did not gain weight. Not only that, their insulin sensitivity remained high and the bad diet did not make them insulin resistant. “This study for the first time shows that fasted (empty stomach) training is more potent than fed training to facilitate adaptations in muscle and to improve…. glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity…” said the study’s authors.

    Conventional wisdom- which is not always so wise—has held that it’s always best to eat something before working out. Proponents of this way of thinking would always point out that you need “energy” for working out, energy which comes from—what else?—carbohydrates. “Fat burns in a flame of carbohydrate” they’d proclaim solemnly.

    Problem is, the conventional wisdom is wrong.

    It’s interesting that back in the days of “Stay Hungry” and “Pumping Iron” when the big meccas of bodybuilding like World Gym and Gold’s Gym in Venice were home to such legendary bodybuilders as Arnold Schwarzenneger, Lou Ferrigno and Franco Columbo, everybody exercised on an empty stomach. Bodybuilders of that era believed that you were more likely to mobilize your fat stores for fuel if you didn’t have to burn off a whole bunch of carbs that you just scarfed down for breakfast.

    We now know that they were mostly right.

    So should you forgo eating before working out? Not necessarily. “If you’re interested in performing better- like if you’re training for an event—you might want to eat first”, says my friend exercise physiologist Liz Neporent, MS, CSCS, author of “Fitness for Dummies”. “But for weight loss, evidence does seem to be trending towards not eating before working out”.

    Neporent points out that as a practical matter, there are going to be a fair amount of people who don’t do well when they don’t eat before working out. “They get dizzy, sick, and even faint sometimes”, she told me. “But I’ve also had people eat right before working out that have felt exactly the same way!”

    Bottom line, it’s going to be- like everything else- an individual thing and no one prescription is going to work for everyone.

    But for those who want to try it- and who don’t get lightheaded or dizzy- exercising on an empty stomach might be just the thing to stop weight gain in its tracks. It did in the Belgian study, and those folks were purposely eating a really bad diet. It should work even better if you also couple it with a diet designed to help you reach your goals.

    Watch this funny little video where I reveal my 5 favorite fat burning snacks that won’t trigger a high insulin response.

  • “Eat Every Three Hours”: Oh, Really?

    “Eat Every Three Hours”: Oh, Really?

    On a recent blog I talked about a popular tactic advocated by many personal trainers called “The Cheat Day”. As I explained on last weeks blog, the “cheat day” is a “day off” from your weekly diet, a day on which you can eat anything you like.

    Trainers who advocate this are clearly attempting to come up with a real-life weight-loss plan that works for their clients, and–as I pointed out last week– it may in fact work for some.

    But it doesn’t for everyone.

    Far from it.

    Which got me thinking.

    What other principles are being promoted out there that might have, shall we say, a less than perfect relationship with the truth?

    As it turns out quite a few. And I’ll be visiting some of them in the coming months. But right now  I want to deal with one I’m sure you’ve heard a million times, because virtually every personal trainer says it, and every magazine quotes it, and just about everyone believes it.

    All together now:  “Eat six small meals a day“.

    OK, you say, you haven’t heard it said quite this way. But I’ll bet you’ve heard “eat three big meals and two snacks”. Or another variation, “eat every three hours”. Certainly sounds good doesn’t it? And so reasonable, too!

    Trouble is, it’s just not true.

    Or at least not always true. And it’s not true often enough to make it of very questionable value as a golden rule of dieting.

    The “eat five (or six) small meals a day” concept came out of the same culture that the “cheat day” did- the bodybuilding culture of the 50’s. (In fact, many of the things we repeat as gospel today came out of that same culture- including the idea that you have to give each muscle group a couple of days off before training it again. But I digress.)

    The theory of “six small meals” is based on the idea that your body actually uses some calories digesting food, and digestion is a metabolic process, so every time you eat a meal it theoretically “raises” your metabolism (which is pretty close to a magic talisman in the world of weight-loss). By eating small meals frequently, the thinking goes, you constantly keep your metabolism elevated.

    Problem is that this is to metabolism and physiology what Dr. Phil is to psychological science.

    Every time you eat a meal your blood sugar goes up and the pancreas responds with a shot of insulin. When people have absolutely normal metabolisms, with no issues around carbohydrate processing, the system works fine. But in people for whom blood sugar response to food- and even more important, insulin response to blood sugar– is kind of screwed up, eating frequently may actually work against you.

    The constant elevation of blood sugar (and the subsequent raising of the fat storage hormone insulin) just about guarantees that your body will never have to reach into its stores of fat to find energy to burn since there’s a constant supply of glucose (sugar) from the bloodstream (thanks to that meal you ate a couple hours ago and are about to repeat).

    Fact is– as many people can attest to from personal experience– it’s perfectly possible to do quite well on three squares a day.

    Snacking isn’t necessary, and in some cases, may be counterproductive. For some people, keeping insulin low for most of the day sets up a favorable metabolic environment and may also keep cravings at bay.

    And let’s not even talk about the fact that most people haven’t the slightest idea of what the “small” in “six small meals” refers to. Our sense of portion size has been so distorted by routine restaurant eating that many of us have come to classify a meal that would fill out the flat side of a Bosu ball as a “snack”.

    The bottom line is this: If eating every three hours or so is working for you that’s great. If you really feel better on such a routine, by all means carry on.

    But if you’re one of the many people who just don’t “get it”, and for whom frequent snacking (or the “grazing” way of eating) causes you to think about food all the time, produces cravings, and results in overeating, don’t beat yourself up. You may be one of the people for whom the mantra about eating “to keep your metabolism up” just isn’t true.

    And if that’s so, don’t be afraid to go back to basics. Three definite meals, each with a beginning and an end, each nutritionally dense and filling.

    And nothing in between.

  • Teenagers and Heart Disease: The Number One Culprit

    Teenagers and Heart Disease: The Number One Culprit

    United Press International: Teenagers who eat a diet high in sugar — mainly due to sweetened drinks — may have a higher risk of heart disease later in life, U.S. researchers suggest.

    Study author Jean Welsh, a nurse who is a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric nutrition at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, says overweight or obese teens with the highest levels of added sugar intake had increased signs of insulin resistance — often a precursor to diabetes.

    “Adolescents are eating 20 percent of their daily calories in sugars that provide few if any other nutrients,” Welsh says in a statement. “We know from previous studies the biggest contributors of added sugars to the diet are sugar-sweetened beverages such as sodas, fruit-flavored drinks and sweetened coffees and teas.”

    The study of 2,157 teens ages 12-18, published in the National Health and Nutrition Survey, found the average daily consumption of added sugars was 28.3 teaspoons or 476 calories — 21.4 percent of their total calories.

    Teens who consume the highest levels of added sugars had lower levels of high-density lipoprotein levels, the “good” cholesterol, and higher levels of triglycerides and low-density lipoproteins, the “bad” cholesterol.

    Dr. Jonny Comments: Look for all the big soda companies to spin this in the usual way: “no one food causes obesity”, “soda can be part of a healthy diet”, “consumers have the freedom to choose what they want” and all the other same old corporate PR claptrap designed to take the focus off the single, politically incorrect truth which is that sugar is the major culprit in the American diet and they’re in the business of selling sugar water.

    I see this latest study as one more blow to the “fat causes heart disease” hypothesis (known technically as “the lipid hypothesis”), as we begin to confront the fact that consuming a high-glycemic diet contributes to every one of the major causes of death on the planet.

    Cutting back on sugar- from all sources, but especially from processed carbs and soda- might be one of the most important action steps you can take to improve your health immediately.

  • Top Ten Ways to Jump-Start Weight Loss

    Top Ten Ways to Jump-Start Weight Loss

    These ten tips for jump-starting weight loss will serve you well!

    They are simple and easy to follow. Give them a try and watch what happens!

    1. Eat protein at every meal, including breakfast.
    2. Eliminate wheat– and flour-based products for the time being. And yes, that definitely includes bread and pasta.
    3. Eliminate “food products”. Ninety percent of what you eat should be food that could have been hunted, caught, gathered from the ground, plucked from a tree or grown
    4. Reduce starch. When you do eat starches, choose from “real” carbohydrates. Best choices are oatmeal, sweet potatoes, beans and legumes.
    5. Don’t eat unlimited amounts of fruit and be careful with the extra-sweet, extra-ripe variety. For now, keep fruits to two a day, and choose the low-sugar, high-fiber variety. Apples, grapefruits and especially berries all are good choices. For now, fruit should be eaten alone or with something light like nuts or a little cheese. Lose the fruit juice.
    6. Reduce or eliminate dairy for the time being, especially cow’s milk. Exceptions: reasonable amounts of cheese and occasional portions of yogurt, but not the fat-free kind (it contains way too much sugar).
    7. Try eliminating alcohol. You can always go back to moderate drinking later on if it works for you.
    8. Stop using vegetable oils such as sunflower, safflower and corn. The supermarket kinds are highly refined, and oxidize easily when heated, contributing to arterial plaque.
    9. Worry less about the amount of fat you eat and pay more attention to the kind of fat you eat. The worst are fried foods, margarine and foods that contain hydrogenized or partially hydrogenized oils. The best is omega-3, found in fish and flaxseed oil.
    10. Drink at least eight or more large glasses of pure water a day. Every day. No excuses.
    This is just one of the “Top 10 Lists” that is included with my Diet Boot Camp
  • The Diet Wars: The Saga Continues

    The Diet Wars: The Saga Continues

    A new study was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine testing a low-carb diet against a conventional low-fat one.

    Here’s what happened. (more…)

  • The Hidden Danger of Bread, Pasta and Rice

    The Hidden Danger of Bread, Pasta and Rice

    Consuming carbohydrates with a high glycemic index increases the risk of coronary heart disease in women, according to a new study in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

    If you’ve read my book “Living Low Carb: Controlled Carbohydrate Eating for Long-Term Weight Loss” then you probably understand the meaning of glycemic index. If you haven’t read the book, here’s the executive summary on glycemic index: it’s a measure of how quickly food affects your blood sugar. (more…)

  • Vitamin D: The “Real” Fountain of Youth?

    Vitamin D: The “Real” Fountain of Youth?

    (source: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology- FASEB)

    According to legend, it was The Fountain of Youth that the famed Spanish explorer Ponce de Leon was seeking when he landed on the Floridian coast in 1513. It has long been said that he who drinks from the Fountain will have his youth restored. Without a doubt, the quest for eternal youth is as ancient as any pursuit. However, although we are now living longer than ever, there is now growing concern that quantity of years is not nearly as important as quality of those years.

    Indeed, as we experience the many joys of living longer, we also must deal with myriad consequences accompanying this aging trend. For instance, osteoporosis, arthritis, and other serious and often painful bone and joint diseases are much more common as we get older. And, not surprisingly, seniors often struggle daily with what was once the simple task of getting around. (more…)

  • Lethal Fructose – Teenagers Staggering Consumption

    Lethal Fructose – Teenagers Staggering Consumption

    Back in 1977, average daily consumption of fructose was about 37 grams per person per day.

    Recent surveys show that it’s up to 54.7 grams, or about 10 percent of total caloric intake. And for teenagers- who consume a ton of sodas– fructose intake averages a whopping 72.8 grams, the equivalent of 18 spoonfuls of the stuff every single day.

    Why should we care? It’s deadly. Fructose is one of the worst sweeteners you can possibly consume.

    Table sugar (sucrose) is made up of fructose and glucose. Studies that compare the effect of these two simple sugars (glucose and fructose) consistently show that it is the fructose part of table sugar that does the most damage, raising triglycerides and creating insulin resistance.

    High-fructose corn syrup- while it’s been demonized a lot recently- is only marginally worse than plain old sugar (high fructose corn syrup is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose while table sugar contains equal amounts of both).

    Recently, researchers at the Department of Physiology at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland decided to investigate the effect of a high-fructose diet on the children of diabetic patients. Twenty-four healthy young men were enrolled in the study; 16 of them were children of diabetic parents, 8 were not.

    In the first part of the study, all of the 24 young men were fed a “regular diet” and in the second part, they were switched to a diet that added 35% more calories from fructose.

    The researchers expected that the children of diabetics might be more susceptible to disorders associated with insulin and fat metabolism, so there was reason to expect that the children of diabetic parents would be particularly vulnerable to the effects of a high fructose diet.

    And indeed, the children of diabetic parents did start the study with higher levels of triglycerides and lower levels of insulin sensitivity. But the fructose caused havoc not only in the children of diabetics, but in the children of non-diabetics as well.

    In other words, high fructose is bad for everyone.

    The high-fructose diet decreased insulin sensitivity in both groups (by about 5%).

    It also increased blood levels of triglycerides by a whopping 110 % in the children of diabetics. But the children of diabetics were not the only ones affected: the high-fructose diet increased triglycerides by a stunning 50% in the children of non-diabetic patients as well!

    It gets worse. In both groups, deposits of fat in the liver increased by more than 75%.

    To me, fructose is like fur. Fur looks great on its original owners- it belongs on the backs of animals where it looks just fine, thank you very much! On the backs of people at the opera…. Not so much..

    It’s the same thing with fructose!

    Fructose belongs in fruit, where it is surrounded by fiber, phytochemicals, vitamins, minerals and other good stuff. Extracted from its natural source and concentrated as a sweetener, it’s a metabolic disaster.

    I have no problem with consuming fructose in fruit (unless you are a diabetic or very insulin resistant). I have a huge problem with extracting fructose from its normal sources, producing cheap fructose-based syrups made from corn, and then sticking it in every food and food product in the supermarket.

    That’s a recipe for disaster.

    By the way, my personal favorite sweetener is Xylitol. It mixes great in hot beverages, stands up to heat, is sweeter than sugar, has a very very low glycemic impact, and actually has some health benefits, preventing bacterial adhesion to surfaces.

    Save this week with 15% off Xylitol – read about it here

    Reference:
    J Clinical Nutrition 09; 89: 1760-1765

    « Go Back to Newsletter