Proclaimed obesity "expert" Professor Proietto of Australia recently said in some garbage opinion article in the The Medical Journal of Australia that spending money on weight loss efforts by the government is a waste and that people will regain any weight that is lost. His solution? Government funding should be used to fund obesity surgery for the public which in his opinion gives long term weight loss results to those who are suffering from obesity. Apparently public health messages are only good for preventing diseases and smoking so he says.
What? His belief is that once your obese, your body will want to keep you there. You can lose weight in the short term, but according to him it will come back within 1-2 years. Well, how much is that going to cost? 52% of women and 67% of men in Australia are overweight or obese, both numbers are increasing. You though the United States had debt issues... what is interesting to note is that in the long run this might actually save money.....at least according to a study published a few years ago in the American Journal of Managed Care....which claimed that the average cost of bariatric surgery at the time of the study ($26,000) was recovered in 49 months. Other studies show similar results. This however assumed that all patients keep the weight off after about 4 years, which we know is not the case, as many people end up putting the weight back on after surgery. But overall, if having obesity surgery ends up saving people and the country a lot of money, is it worth doing?
Could we actually save money and lives at the same time by having the government start paying for obesity surgery? Do you think people would abuse this process and gain weight just to have the surgery for free through the government?
I'm still a proponent of at least trying WITH FULL EFFORT to lose the weight naturally, but if all else fails, looking at other options.
What say you?
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Friday, August 26, 2011
Dukan Diet Scam
Surprise! Another day another diet. This time it's the Dukan Diet Scam. This French born diet has been fairly popular over there and has slowly been making its way into the United States for the last many months. As I start to read about this diet.....lets see it focuses on eating a lot of lean protein.....so far so good....oh wait, what's that? You can eat as much of it as you want? What? This is phase one. A very unbalanced protein only diet with the exception of a lot of water and 1.5TBS of oat bran. What? Seriously?
Phase 2 is just as good. You get to add no-starch veggies. As many of these as you want along with all the protein you can pig out on. And a bonus of another .5TBS of bran on top of phase one.
Phase 3? Another .5TBS bonus of bran, we're up to 2.5TBS! Wow! Still all the protein and veggies, but now you can have a serving of cheese, a low sugar fruit, and 2 bread slices. And 1-2 party meals a day, basically eating whatever you want. Sweets? Ice wine? You name it. So you've hopefully gotten close to your weight loss goals, and now you're given the leeway to really overeat and ruin it all. Great idea!
Phase 4 the maintenance phase....Oh, and eat whatever you want. Chicken and Waffles? Sure. Fried ice cream? Why not. But be sure to follow these so important rules. Another .5TBS of oat bran, now we can party! 3TBS of oat bran! Walking for a measly 20 minutes a day. That's going to burn a ton of calories. Not. Oh, and once a week go back to phase one for a protein starvation diet.
This Dukan Diet Scam is not meant for anyone who is only looking to lose say 20lbs or so and is just overweight. The ability to pretty much eat as much as you want in the first few phases, adding whatever you want in the last phase on this Dukan Diet Scam would be a disaster for this type of person. For someone morbidly obese I could see this "diet" allowing for weight loss temporarily, as it's going to be pretty difficult to eat more than one's calorie maintenance levels with just protein and/or veggies, but later on as you can reintroduce just about whatever you want and as much of it, there's your recipe for disaster. Walking for 20 minutes? What's that going to do? Burn a few dozen calories? Big deal. Good luck keeping the weight off long term with this joke of a plan.
At the end of the day, diets don't work long term, period. The day people figure this out, the world will be a better place.
Phase 2 is just as good. You get to add no-starch veggies. As many of these as you want along with all the protein you can pig out on. And a bonus of another .5TBS of bran on top of phase one.
Phase 3? Another .5TBS bonus of bran, we're up to 2.5TBS! Wow! Still all the protein and veggies, but now you can have a serving of cheese, a low sugar fruit, and 2 bread slices. And 1-2 party meals a day, basically eating whatever you want. Sweets? Ice wine? You name it. So you've hopefully gotten close to your weight loss goals, and now you're given the leeway to really overeat and ruin it all. Great idea!
Phase 4 the maintenance phase....Oh, and eat whatever you want. Chicken and Waffles? Sure. Fried ice cream? Why not. But be sure to follow these so important rules. Another .5TBS of oat bran, now we can party! 3TBS of oat bran! Walking for a measly 20 minutes a day. That's going to burn a ton of calories. Not. Oh, and once a week go back to phase one for a protein starvation diet.
This Dukan Diet Scam is not meant for anyone who is only looking to lose say 20lbs or so and is just overweight. The ability to pretty much eat as much as you want in the first few phases, adding whatever you want in the last phase on this Dukan Diet Scam would be a disaster for this type of person. For someone morbidly obese I could see this "diet" allowing for weight loss temporarily, as it's going to be pretty difficult to eat more than one's calorie maintenance levels with just protein and/or veggies, but later on as you can reintroduce just about whatever you want and as much of it, there's your recipe for disaster. Walking for 20 minutes? What's that going to do? Burn a few dozen calories? Big deal. Good luck keeping the weight off long term with this joke of a plan.
At the end of the day, diets don't work long term, period. The day people figure this out, the world will be a better place.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Why doesn't society accomodate those who are overweight or obese?
Growing up in an era where smokers were accommodated in many ways, it got me wondering, why don't we as a society accommodate those who are overweight or obese?
Think about it. Restaurants had smoking sections. As did airports, you name it. Ash trays were everywhere. In airplane arm rests, cars, tables, etc. Automobiles had cigarette lighters before they were used for anything else other than cigarettes. Some companies and casinos have filtered air conditioning systems. Many employees are allowed smoke breaks.
The closest parallel I can think of is smoking machines vs. vending machines.
So when it comes to accommodating those who are overweight or obese, where are the over sized chairs in businesses and in public in general? Larger driver seat option for cars? How about airplane seats? Buses? Bathroom stalls? Toilet seats?
The list goes on and on, but with more than half of the people in the United States being overweight or obese, I have to ask, should we accommodate the majority?
Think about it. Restaurants had smoking sections. As did airports, you name it. Ash trays were everywhere. In airplane arm rests, cars, tables, etc. Automobiles had cigarette lighters before they were used for anything else other than cigarettes. Some companies and casinos have filtered air conditioning systems. Many employees are allowed smoke breaks.
The closest parallel I can think of is smoking machines vs. vending machines.
So when it comes to accommodating those who are overweight or obese, where are the over sized chairs in businesses and in public in general? Larger driver seat option for cars? How about airplane seats? Buses? Bathroom stalls? Toilet seats?
The list goes on and on, but with more than half of the people in the United States being overweight or obese, I have to ask, should we accommodate the majority?
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Obesity and Cancer Rates
It's been 2 years since I lost my mother to cancer, which unfortunately was fueled by her obesity. My mother had always been overweight or obese, but unfortunately as she got older she became morbidly obese. Her cancer started off as uterine/cervical cancer, and spread to her lungs, liver and other parts of her body. She went through a multitude of treatments but nothing could stop it, because unfortunately, she had the most aggressive type of cancer cells in her body, known as clear cell. What people don't realize is that fat produces more estrogen which increases your chances of getting cancer. The overall consensus is that being obese increases your chances of having some sort of cancer by 50%. The fat cells not only increase your chances of getting cancer, but speed up it spreading. The other issue is that any required surgery becomes more complicated with a lot of extra fat to cut through.
While most people associate obesity with increased heart disease, what they don't realize is the massive impact obesity has on cancer rates.
Take care of yourself! Don't let obesity take care of you.
While most people associate obesity with increased heart disease, what they don't realize is the massive impact obesity has on cancer rates.
Take care of yourself! Don't let obesity take care of you.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Childhood Obesity and bad parenting
I'm at a "storytime" event with my infant at the public library, and lo and behold there's a kid acting out, screaming, defying his mom, etc. He was older than the age group for the class, but that's a moot point. The mom looking for some way to pacify her child, could have left the room, but no, she shoves about 24 ounces of apple juice down his throat to shut him up. That's right, 360 calories and 72 grams of sugar. I'm thinking to myself, good idea, reward the kid with a sweet sugary drink every time he acts out. Heck, I'd throw a tantrum for that. As much as I wanted to say something, it wasn't the time or place. But it got me wondering....how many parents out there are either so lazy or have so little control over their kids that they're resorting to shoving sweets down their kids' throughts to keep them quiet. An occasional miniscule sucker after a traumatic day at the doctor's office? Fine. But just because your kid is acting out as a result of you being a bad parent? NO.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The future of obesity
Obesity isn't going away anytime soon. The future of obesity unfortunately looks bleak. The front runners including the United States and Australia keep getting worse, with no end in site. Only one state in the United States (Colorado) had less than a 20% obesity rate, and barely. Some states will be in the 40% range in the next year or so, many are well above 30% obesity rates now. While obesity awareness is spreading, changes to food and education aren't coming fast enough, and government interference having to do with what foods people can and can't eat is being met with stiff resistance from people who feel their rights to eat whatever they want are being infringed upon. Without more government intervention and funding, I don't see how we're going to conquer the obesity problem. What is out there right now is very decentralized and disorganized. The government needs to form an organization that will ensure the right information on health is getting to those who need it most, starting with the kids. Schools cutting back their recess time in exchange for more class time for higher test scores is a joke. Budget cuts for programs that let kids get more exercise has to stop. We're so fricking worried about test scores that we're robbing our kids of their health. And while we're at it, let's stop feeding these kids garbage in the cafeteria. I know what was available when I was a kid. Soda, chocolate milk, and sweets galore. Sure they might get it elsewhere, but why give them even more avenues. Parents, you need to get your kids off their butts from playing video games and surfing facebook all day long. Don't feed them garbage in the home. Much of this is on you too.
The future of obesity in other countries is even more dire. Up and coming countries like China that are finding new found wealth, and have westernized influenced like McDonalds popping up all over are very susceptible to an explosion in obesity rates. We shouldn't be passing these bad habits to other countries, we need to figure out how prevent obesity in our own country, share our successes with others, so the future of obesity across the world isn't nearly as bad as what we're dealing with now.
The future of obesity in other countries is even more dire. Up and coming countries like China that are finding new found wealth, and have westernized influenced like McDonalds popping up all over are very susceptible to an explosion in obesity rates. We shouldn't be passing these bad habits to other countries, we need to figure out how prevent obesity in our own country, share our successes with others, so the future of obesity across the world isn't nearly as bad as what we're dealing with now.
Friday, August 12, 2011
African Mango Scam
Every year there is a new "magic" diet pill that comes onto the market. Two years ago it was Zylene, last year it was Acai Berry , and this year it's the African Mango Scam. I call it the African Mango scam because the FDA and independent peer reviewed studies never get a chance to test these new pills before the hit the market and are portrayed as a great weight loss supplement. All of these diet pills have their own studies that "assure us" people will lose weight on these pills, and these biased tests can be misleading. Most diet pills in general are a scam
People buy them with the hopes all they do is pop the pills and the weight just flies off. Any diet pill period needs to be consumed with a combination of healthy eating and exercise for maximum results, yet most people don't do this. See a problem here?
All it takes is a few doctors/health experts to make a diet pill like this famous. This year it was Doctor Oz who helped get the African Mango Scam rolling by promoting it on his show and website, however there are a few other "health professionals" who backup his claims, and a number of people do validate some solid weight loss results from this product.
Even if these pills don't actually work, but give someone a mental edge and they try harder to eat healthy and exercise then it may not be such a bad thing. I'm not saying people shouldn't try diet pills as a supplement to healthy eating and weight loss, I'm saying people should be just a little cautious taking things that aren't independently studied, and need to understand you're not just going to lose 10lbs a week by popping a pill while sitting on a couch eating 5000 calories a day.
People buy them with the hopes all they do is pop the pills and the weight just flies off. Any diet pill period needs to be consumed with a combination of healthy eating and exercise for maximum results, yet most people don't do this. See a problem here?
All it takes is a few doctors/health experts to make a diet pill like this famous. This year it was Doctor Oz who helped get the African Mango Scam rolling by promoting it on his show and website, however there are a few other "health professionals" who backup his claims, and a number of people do validate some solid weight loss results from this product.
Even if these pills don't actually work, but give someone a mental edge and they try harder to eat healthy and exercise then it may not be such a bad thing. I'm not saying people shouldn't try diet pills as a supplement to healthy eating and weight loss, I'm saying people should be just a little cautious taking things that aren't independently studied, and need to understand you're not just going to lose 10lbs a week by popping a pill while sitting on a couch eating 5000 calories a day.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The economic impact of obesity.
I wrote the following article for a column in the New York Times, where I focused solely on the economic impact of obesity.
The Freakonomics column on the New York Times I wrote for has since been moved to the Freakonomics website here: Economic Impact of Obesity
Obesity is a multi-faceted disease fueled by Americans’ poor eating habits, complacency and sedentary lifestyles. While the physical and emotional impact of obesity on a growing number of Americans is glaring, what truly makes obesity an epidemic is the economic impact it has on all of us.
People underestimate the economic effect obesity has on our society. The Center for Disease Control has concluded that illnesses associated with obesity cost the United States $93 billion a year in health care costs. Eric Finkelstein, a health economist at the nonprofit RTI Institute, wrote, “about half of the total cost of obesity-related health care is paid by the government through its Medicare program. For every American citizen, the out-of-pocket tax cost is an average $180.” This dwarfs the $13 billion businesses lose each year from obesity-related medical fees, absenteeism, and decreased productivity (as reported by the National Business Group on Health). Many of these obesity-related business costs are passed down to consumers in the form of more expensive goods and services.
Obesity, like many diseases, has no simple cure that alleviates its negative consequences. The government’s increased involvement and spending on health education, research and obesity programs, combined with our desire as a society to lead a healthier lifestyle, are the driving factors towards finding a solution. The question is, do we invest a lot of time and money fighting obesity now, or pay an even higher price down the road?
The Freakonomics column on the New York Times I wrote for has since been moved to the Freakonomics website here: Economic Impact of Obesity
Obesity is a multi-faceted disease fueled by Americans’ poor eating habits, complacency and sedentary lifestyles. While the physical and emotional impact of obesity on a growing number of Americans is glaring, what truly makes obesity an epidemic is the economic impact it has on all of us.
People underestimate the economic effect obesity has on our society. The Center for Disease Control has concluded that illnesses associated with obesity cost the United States $93 billion a year in health care costs. Eric Finkelstein, a health economist at the nonprofit RTI Institute, wrote, “about half of the total cost of obesity-related health care is paid by the government through its Medicare program. For every American citizen, the out-of-pocket tax cost is an average $180.” This dwarfs the $13 billion businesses lose each year from obesity-related medical fees, absenteeism, and decreased productivity (as reported by the National Business Group on Health). Many of these obesity-related business costs are passed down to consumers in the form of more expensive goods and services.
Obesity, like many diseases, has no simple cure that alleviates its negative consequences. The government’s increased involvement and spending on health education, research and obesity programs, combined with our desire as a society to lead a healthier lifestyle, are the driving factors towards finding a solution. The question is, do we invest a lot of time and money fighting obesity now, or pay an even higher price down the road?
Childhood Obesity programs in Arkansas going the wrong way.
For those that weren't aware, Arkansas became one of the first states to have a childhood obesity report card program, where school children were weighed once a year, their BMI calculated, and this information, along with any obesity related concerns, were sent to the kids' parents.
Unfortunately, Arkansas just took a BIG step backwards in the fight against childhood obesity. While they did not ditch the obesity report card program, what was once yearly mandatory weigh ins for students is now an OPTIONAL every other year program. So the kids get weighed half as often, and parents who claim that these report cards "are bad for their child's self esteem" can pull them out of the program all together.
Kids that get pulled from the program won't be factored into the state's childhood obesity rates, making those statistics worthless.
But I guess in the end, legislators and parents feel that removing a once a year ding to a child's self esteem is more important than their long-term health.
To me this type of behavior is what's contributing to the out of control spiral of what is known as childhood obesity.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Pet Obesity
Pet obesity is considered one of the most common nutritional problems in cats & dogs, two scientists from the University of California, Davis, reported last year at the Waltham International Nutritional Sciences Symposium in Washington. Studies in Western Europe & the United States show that more than 24% of dogs & about 25% of house cats suffer from pet obesity. Why is fighting pet obesity important? Pet obesity can shave 2 to 5 years off your pet’s life.
Surprise surprise! One study found a strong correlation between extra weight in pet owners & in their pets.
Dogs & cats are considered overweight when their body weight is 15 percent above what is optimal for their breed, & obese when they weigh 30 percent above ideal.
Like mothers are poor at assessing their children’s childhood obesity risks, pet owners are notoriously poor at assessing their animals’ pet obesity risks.
Causes:
Normally pet inactivity & overfeeding are the main causes of pet obesity, including the feeding of human food. Human food is much higher in calories than most animal food.
Hypothyroidism (under activity of the thyroid gl&) & hyperadrenocorticism (disorder of the adrenal gl&s, a.k.a. Cushing's disease) are also known causes of pet obesity. You can have lab tests done to see if these are issues.
Genetics may have a role in a pet's chances of suffering from pet obesity. Dog breeds at higher risk: labrador retriever, cairn terrier, cavalier king charles spaniel, scottish terrier, cocker spaniel.
Cat breeds at higher risk: the domestic shorthair. Being neutered is a big risk factor for obesity in dogs & cats. In a French study, neutered dogs were more than twice as likely to be overweight as dogs that were not neutered.
Female dogs are more likely to be overweight than male dogs.
Pet obesity risk rises with age. 2 & 3 year old dogs were nearly three times as likely to be overweight as 1 year-olds. Dogs over 12 years old are 12 times as likely as 1 year-olds to be overweight.
Solutions:
Ridding your pet’s diet of people food & feeding light versions of adult dog food, coupled with increased exercise, are usually all that is necessary to fight pet obesity. Take your dog on more walks or to the dog park. Exercising your dog can be good for you too!
If light food & exercise are not enough, prescription special diet food may be necessary (see your vet for the type of food & instructions for feeding) to fight pet obesity.
Keep tabs on your pet’s progress with weekly weigh-ins at the vet; it’s usually free at most clinics.
Surprise surprise! One study found a strong correlation between extra weight in pet owners & in their pets.
Dogs & cats are considered overweight when their body weight is 15 percent above what is optimal for their breed, & obese when they weigh 30 percent above ideal.
Like mothers are poor at assessing their children’s childhood obesity risks, pet owners are notoriously poor at assessing their animals’ pet obesity risks.
Causes:
Normally pet inactivity & overfeeding are the main causes of pet obesity, including the feeding of human food. Human food is much higher in calories than most animal food.
Hypothyroidism (under activity of the thyroid gl&) & hyperadrenocorticism (disorder of the adrenal gl&s, a.k.a. Cushing's disease) are also known causes of pet obesity. You can have lab tests done to see if these are issues.
Genetics may have a role in a pet's chances of suffering from pet obesity. Dog breeds at higher risk: labrador retriever, cairn terrier, cavalier king charles spaniel, scottish terrier, cocker spaniel.
Cat breeds at higher risk: the domestic shorthair. Being neutered is a big risk factor for obesity in dogs & cats. In a French study, neutered dogs were more than twice as likely to be overweight as dogs that were not neutered.
Female dogs are more likely to be overweight than male dogs.
Pet obesity risk rises with age. 2 & 3 year old dogs were nearly three times as likely to be overweight as 1 year-olds. Dogs over 12 years old are 12 times as likely as 1 year-olds to be overweight.
Solutions:
Ridding your pet’s diet of people food & feeding light versions of adult dog food, coupled with increased exercise, are usually all that is necessary to fight pet obesity. Take your dog on more walks or to the dog park. Exercising your dog can be good for you too!
If light food & exercise are not enough, prescription special diet food may be necessary (see your vet for the type of food & instructions for feeding) to fight pet obesity.
Keep tabs on your pet’s progress with weekly weigh-ins at the vet; it’s usually free at most clinics.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Burger King Trans Fat ban, finally!
Burger King FINALLY jumps on the trans fat ban bandwagon, albeit a year and a half too late.
Burger King's own testing of a new non-trans fat oil blend passed with flying colors and consumers reported equal or better taste with the non-trans fat food compared to the trans fat foods they were given to sample.
While other fast food restaurants such as McDonalds stopped using trans fat oils in mid 2006, Burger King announced that they won't make the switch until the end of 2008. I have no idea what is taking them so long but this is unacceptable to me, especially considering how long they have known of the health risks of trans fats. Their excuse is a lack of supply but you'd think this was something they could have figured out years ago.
I just hope Burger King doesn't go on a marketing spree at the end of 2008 bragging that their food no longer contains trans fats, giving the large mass of uneducated people (when it comes to nutrition) the impression that their fries are now healthy.
Burger King's own testing of a new non-trans fat oil blend passed with flying colors and consumers reported equal or better taste with the non-trans fat food compared to the trans fat foods they were given to sample.
While other fast food restaurants such as McDonalds stopped using trans fat oils in mid 2006, Burger King announced that they won't make the switch until the end of 2008. I have no idea what is taking them so long but this is unacceptable to me, especially considering how long they have known of the health risks of trans fats. Their excuse is a lack of supply but you'd think this was something they could have figured out years ago.
I just hope Burger King doesn't go on a marketing spree at the end of 2008 bragging that their food no longer contains trans fats, giving the large mass of uneducated people (when it comes to nutrition) the impression that their fries are now healthy.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Alli Diet Pills
Well another diet pill is hitting the market. For those of you who haven't followed the buzz, the next big play maker is called Alli, made by GlaxoSmithKline. The FDA claims that people taking Alli lost 2-3lbs extra per 5lbs of normal weight loss. To me that's huge! Well, a huge mess that is. What's this mess I speak of? Well, Alli blocks 25% of all the fat that people consume. Well where does that fat go you may ask? Needless to say I've already seen a warning by Alli that recommends users of Alli to bring an extra change of clothes just in case there's an "accident." Continuous diarrhea sounds like a blast, literally! This is definitely a user beware. Half of patients in experiments and trials experienced gastrointestinal side effects, listed as "leakages and oily discharges." So taking Alli is a 50/50 crap shoot.
Cost for the full 2 pill dose is about $2 a day. So what is Alli exactly? Just a lower dose version of Xenical (Orlistat). Books are already flooding the market for Alli which include exercise plans, eating plans etc, although the pill is not expected to be released until February 2008.
This pill will be a wonderful tool for those who use it in conjunction with a healthy diet and exercise, but I have a gut feeling there will be too many who view this as a magic pill that doesn't require any exercise or healthy eating to go along with it.
Estimated sales for year one are projected at $1.5 Billion. I bet they make a heck of a lot more than that. My money says GlaxoSmithKline runs right to the top of the diet pill market, using some movie star who has lost 10lbs to give his/her stamp of approval.
Cost for the full 2 pill dose is about $2 a day. So what is Alli exactly? Just a lower dose version of Xenical (Orlistat). Books are already flooding the market for Alli which include exercise plans, eating plans etc, although the pill is not expected to be released until February 2008.
This pill will be a wonderful tool for those who use it in conjunction with a healthy diet and exercise, but I have a gut feeling there will be too many who view this as a magic pill that doesn't require any exercise or healthy eating to go along with it.
Estimated sales for year one are projected at $1.5 Billion. I bet they make a heck of a lot more than that. My money says GlaxoSmithKline runs right to the top of the diet pill market, using some movie star who has lost 10lbs to give his/her stamp of approval.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Big Medicine Obesity Surgery Show on TLC
While I am only a proponent of obesity surgery after exercise and healthy eating options have been exhausted (or in serious life threatening situations), I think this new TV show on TLC will offer a wonderful view into the world of weight loss surgery. I have a feeling though it will be slightly biased (not showing all the side effects and other negatives of obesity surgery). The other problem is that the weight loss results will be skewed because people will only see the immediate results and not the long term results. Obesity surgery has an impact right away on weight loss, but if one isn't careful, they can stretch their stomach all the way out through overeating and you'll gain all the weight back. Take Carnie Wilson of the music group Wilson Phillips. She had weight loss surgery, lost a ton of weight, and was constantly in the spotlight for losing all that weight. Then she gained it all back and guess what? She's disappeared off the face of the earth. Unfortunately, that's the dark side of obesity surgery if one doesn't make a permanent lifestyle change. I just hope that this show doesn't dupe people into thinking obesity surgery is an end all way to lose weight.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Diet versus dieting and the balloon effect
Diet versus dieting and the balloon effect
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your diet versus dieting. People frequently refer to their overall eating habits as their "diet," not to be confused with dieting. Dieting is changing ones eating habits in an effort to lose weight. The idea behind dieting is weight loss. The problem is the hard core dieting (AKA crash diets) in the long run don't work. Why you ask? Many short-term diets require a dramatic drop in calories in an effort to lose weight. Sounds simple enough, eat less, lose weight, right? Maybe. Many of these "diets" require you to eat so little that you don't consume enough calories to maintain your body's muscle mass. Why is muscle important you ask? Each pound of muscle on your body burns 50 calories at rest each day. Lose just one pound of muscle from a hard core diet, and your body loses the ability to burn 18,250 calories a year. Since each pound of fat on our bodies is the equivalent of 3500 calories, that one pound of muscle loss reduces your body's ability to burn roughly 5lbs of fat over the course of a year. Say you lose just one pound of muscle due to your "dieting," when you go back to your normal eating habits, your body won't be able to burn off as many of those calories as before. Not only will you eventually gain back all the weight you lost, but you'll quite possibly tack on a few more now that your body's fat burning machine is a little less effective. This is known as a ballooning effect.
How do you avoid all this and effectively lose weight and keep it off you ask? The key is not to go diet crazy, and to make what I like to call a lifestyle change. That means eat a little less, and make what you eat healthier. To lose weight you need to create a calorie deficit, which means taking in fewer calories than your body can burn on its own. The best way would be to combine healthy eating with exercise. If exercise isn't possible, then your only other option is to start dropping the calories from a reduction your daily food consumption. Start logging how many calories you eat in a given day. If you can cut out say 500 calories a day, you'll lose a pound a week. Doesn't sound like much, but that's 52lbs a year, and doing it in a healthy way. But why not push yourself; combine eating less with exercise for a synergistic fat burning experience. Push yourself to go the gym 3 times a week, lift some light weights, and get a little cardiovascular exercise. If you can burn 600 calories 3 times a week at the gym (combined with a 500 calorie reduction in food consumption each day), you'll now be losing 1.5lbs a week, or about 75lbs a year JUST from the your reduction in calories consumption and burning of calories via exercise. What you need to keep in mind is that the 75lbs we just calculated does not factor in the extra calorie burning you will achieve from the added muscle you will gain through exercise. If you can add just 5lbs of lean muscle to your body over a 1 year period, you'll easy shed another 10-15lbs of fat on top of the 75lbs by the end of the year. Sounds like a no brainer to me! For all of you who say you don't have time to watch what you eat or go to the gym, making a little extra time now will add a lot of extra time to your life. A little now for a lot later. If that's not the bargain of the century I don't know what is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your diet versus dieting. People frequently refer to their overall eating habits as their "diet," not to be confused with dieting. Dieting is changing ones eating habits in an effort to lose weight. The idea behind dieting is weight loss. The problem is the hard core dieting (AKA crash diets) in the long run don't work. Why you ask? Many short-term diets require a dramatic drop in calories in an effort to lose weight. Sounds simple enough, eat less, lose weight, right? Maybe. Many of these "diets" require you to eat so little that you don't consume enough calories to maintain your body's muscle mass. Why is muscle important you ask? Each pound of muscle on your body burns 50 calories at rest each day. Lose just one pound of muscle from a hard core diet, and your body loses the ability to burn 18,250 calories a year. Since each pound of fat on our bodies is the equivalent of 3500 calories, that one pound of muscle loss reduces your body's ability to burn roughly 5lbs of fat over the course of a year. Say you lose just one pound of muscle due to your "dieting," when you go back to your normal eating habits, your body won't be able to burn off as many of those calories as before. Not only will you eventually gain back all the weight you lost, but you'll quite possibly tack on a few more now that your body's fat burning machine is a little less effective. This is known as a ballooning effect.
How do you avoid all this and effectively lose weight and keep it off you ask? The key is not to go diet crazy, and to make what I like to call a lifestyle change. That means eat a little less, and make what you eat healthier. To lose weight you need to create a calorie deficit, which means taking in fewer calories than your body can burn on its own. The best way would be to combine healthy eating with exercise. If exercise isn't possible, then your only other option is to start dropping the calories from a reduction your daily food consumption. Start logging how many calories you eat in a given day. If you can cut out say 500 calories a day, you'll lose a pound a week. Doesn't sound like much, but that's 52lbs a year, and doing it in a healthy way. But why not push yourself; combine eating less with exercise for a synergistic fat burning experience. Push yourself to go the gym 3 times a week, lift some light weights, and get a little cardiovascular exercise. If you can burn 600 calories 3 times a week at the gym (combined with a 500 calorie reduction in food consumption each day), you'll now be losing 1.5lbs a week, or about 75lbs a year JUST from the your reduction in calories consumption and burning of calories via exercise. What you need to keep in mind is that the 75lbs we just calculated does not factor in the extra calorie burning you will achieve from the added muscle you will gain through exercise. If you can add just 5lbs of lean muscle to your body over a 1 year period, you'll easy shed another 10-15lbs of fat on top of the 75lbs by the end of the year. Sounds like a no brainer to me! For all of you who say you don't have time to watch what you eat or go to the gym, making a little extra time now will add a lot of extra time to your life. A little now for a lot later. If that's not the bargain of the century I don't know what is.
Monday, January 29, 2007
BMI is a Joke when Measuring Obesity
Seriously, what was the government thinking? I cannot believe all the money they spent on this only to come up with such a flawed formula for measuring obesity.
BMI is a calculation derived from your height and weight. Per the government, there is a set guideline for how much a person should weigh based on their height. So why is BMI flawed you ask? BMI does not take into consideration deviations in the human body. It does not factor in someone with a big bone structure versus someone with a small bone structure. It does not factor in how bone mass lessens with age. It does not factor in how much muscle mass someone has. A professional football player with next to no body fat would be considered morbidly obese because of how much he weighs (which is really due to muscle, not fat).
The government needs to wake up and learn that body fat percentage is a much more accurate way to determine whether or not people are obese. Not just any body fat test will do, but the hydrostatic water tank method (the most accurate of all) should be the gold standard.
What is hydrostatic body fat testing? Bone, muscle, and connective tissue, (collectively known as lean mass) sinks, while body fat floats, is the premise behind hydrostatic testing. By figuring out your land weight and water weight (based on buoyancy), a computer program calculates your body fat as a percentage of your total weight. This type of body fat testing is based on the Archimedes principle which states "when a body is submerged under water, there is a buoyant counter force equal to the weight of the water which is displaced". Since bone and muscle are denser than water, a person with a larger percentage of lean body mass will weigh more in the water and have a lower body fat percentage versus someone with less lean muscle mass. A person with more body fat will make the body lighter in water and will have a higher percentage of body fat.
Yes hydrostatic testing is more difficult (price, time, availability, etc) than punching in a few numbers in some BMI calculator, but no one ever said the truth was easy.
BMI is a calculation derived from your height and weight. Per the government, there is a set guideline for how much a person should weigh based on their height. So why is BMI flawed you ask? BMI does not take into consideration deviations in the human body. It does not factor in someone with a big bone structure versus someone with a small bone structure. It does not factor in how bone mass lessens with age. It does not factor in how much muscle mass someone has. A professional football player with next to no body fat would be considered morbidly obese because of how much he weighs (which is really due to muscle, not fat).
The government needs to wake up and learn that body fat percentage is a much more accurate way to determine whether or not people are obese. Not just any body fat test will do, but the hydrostatic water tank method (the most accurate of all) should be the gold standard.
What is hydrostatic body fat testing? Bone, muscle, and connective tissue, (collectively known as lean mass) sinks, while body fat floats, is the premise behind hydrostatic testing. By figuring out your land weight and water weight (based on buoyancy), a computer program calculates your body fat as a percentage of your total weight. This type of body fat testing is based on the Archimedes principle which states "when a body is submerged under water, there is a buoyant counter force equal to the weight of the water which is displaced". Since bone and muscle are denser than water, a person with a larger percentage of lean body mass will weigh more in the water and have a lower body fat percentage versus someone with less lean muscle mass. A person with more body fat will make the body lighter in water and will have a higher percentage of body fat.
Yes hydrostatic testing is more difficult (price, time, availability, etc) than punching in a few numbers in some BMI calculator, but no one ever said the truth was easy.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
New York City Follows in the Footsteps of KFC and Taco Bell to Ban Trans Fats
Following in the footsteps of KFC and Taco Bell (who both banned trans-fats in their foods, the city of New York passed legislation banning trans fats in all NYC restaurants. I was ecstatic to see this pass, and applaud New York City for doing this. You would think everyone (except those in the food industry) would support this! I was shocked to see how many dissenters there were to this bill and how many people were upset over its passing. I'm sure you're sitting there asking how the hell people outside the food industry could oppose this. That's what I thought at first….and still think to this day.
So the reason you ask? People were upset that their freedoms were being taken away by the government, and they didn't want this bill passed based on principle. I heard everything from, "if I want to poison myself, that's my right," or "who does the government think they are trying to tell me what to do with my body."
You've got to be kidding me. Let's set aside the fact that although the government created the bill, the people of NYC voted on it. Yeah, the people. It wasn't the government that made this final. We did. Even if the government of NYC had instilled this law without a vote, I wouldn't have seen a problem with it myself. I'm baffled that people would complain about the government stepping in and banning the equivalent of a poison that benefits no one except maybe the pockets of business owners. In the long run, if banning trans-fats nationwide reduces coronary problems (the main benefit from the banning), you'd think that would cost the insurance companies less and in turn reduce our insurance premiums. Not to mention friends, family, and ourselves get to live longer.
Don't worry smokers, I think your cigarettes are still safe for now, at least that is if you're allowed to smoke them within a 1000 mile radius of any establishment. But that's a whole other topic for another day.
For more information on nutrition, visit our Nutrition Forum
So the reason you ask? People were upset that their freedoms were being taken away by the government, and they didn't want this bill passed based on principle. I heard everything from, "if I want to poison myself, that's my right," or "who does the government think they are trying to tell me what to do with my body."
You've got to be kidding me. Let's set aside the fact that although the government created the bill, the people of NYC voted on it. Yeah, the people. It wasn't the government that made this final. We did. Even if the government of NYC had instilled this law without a vote, I wouldn't have seen a problem with it myself. I'm baffled that people would complain about the government stepping in and banning the equivalent of a poison that benefits no one except maybe the pockets of business owners. In the long run, if banning trans-fats nationwide reduces coronary problems (the main benefit from the banning), you'd think that would cost the insurance companies less and in turn reduce our insurance premiums. Not to mention friends, family, and ourselves get to live longer.
Don't worry smokers, I think your cigarettes are still safe for now, at least that is if you're allowed to smoke them within a 1000 mile radius of any establishment. But that's a whole other topic for another day.
For more information on nutrition, visit our Nutrition Forum
It's about time! Restaurants are now banning trans fats!
If you've been reading the news lately, you've heard that first KFC, and then Taco Bell decided to ban trans-fats from their food. IT'S ABOUT TIME. Sure it's a step in the right direction and both are doing the right thing…..but…..why were trans-fats used in the first place? My biggest gripe is that numerous food producers and restaurants were willing to put trans-fats in their food without any solid long-term research done on trans-fats. Saving a few bucks up front on their end by not doing studies and by using trans-fats over conventional fats while risking the health of patrons at risk does not sit well with me.
The media has been all over this, touting KFC and Taco Bell as being healthier than before. I'm terrified people are going to take this as "KFC and Taco Bell" are much healthier now than before, when they're really not. You're still going to be consuming the same amount of calories and the same amount of fat as before the trans-fat ban….albeit a different type of fat. You'll still put on just as much weight from eating this garbage, and have the same obesity related side effects as before. I've already heard a few uneducated individuals talk about how much healthier KFC and Taco Bell are now, and how excited they were about it. Looks like it's not just the food producers and restaurants who don't know what's in food these days.
For more information on nutrition, visit our Nutrition Forum
The media has been all over this, touting KFC and Taco Bell as being healthier than before. I'm terrified people are going to take this as "KFC and Taco Bell" are much healthier now than before, when they're really not. You're still going to be consuming the same amount of calories and the same amount of fat as before the trans-fat ban….albeit a different type of fat. You'll still put on just as much weight from eating this garbage, and have the same obesity related side effects as before. I've already heard a few uneducated individuals talk about how much healthier KFC and Taco Bell are now, and how excited they were about it. Looks like it's not just the food producers and restaurants who don't know what's in food these days.
For more information on nutrition, visit our Nutrition Forum
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Elementary schools are banning recess games? Talk about hampering the childhood obesity fight!
At first I thought this was a joke when I read it, but apparently not.
Citing fear that students will get hurt and sue, Willett Elementary School south of Boston has banned tag, touch football, and all other "chase games" from the playground. Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Spokane, Washington, also recently banned tag during recess.
This is over the top. Should schools stop letting kids ride the bus to school for fear they'll get sued if a child will get hurt in an accident? Should schools stop letting kids play football, soccer, basketball and baseball for fear a lawsuit stemming from an injury? Should schools forbid our children from entering contests for fear of getting sued for emotional distress if they don't win? The schools might as well take away all the playground equipment and toys, and put each kid in a fenced in cage during recess to keep them from hurting themselves.
Part of this is our fault as a society for being so sue happy. Some people are willing to sue for anything if they think they can get money out of it. At the same time, if the school was so concerned about getting sued they'd have parents sign recess disclaimers at the beginning of each school year.
Willett Elementary cites that there are plenty of "other activities" the kids can partake in during recess. Sure, I can think of a ton, but almost all of them do not allow the children to get solid exercise from running around. When I was in elementary school, almost all of the exercise we got while at school was at from playing games where we "chased others." Football, basketball, baseball (when running to tag someone with the ball), kickball, rugby, tag, soccer, hide and go seek, capture the flag, running around the track, and red rover would all be banned at Willett Elementary.
On top of not being able to participate in those types of activities, I noticed they only gave the kids 20 minutes during one of their recesses. Twenty minutes? Ridiculous! It sounds to me like we're cutting back on recess to either limit liability for the school, give more time to teach the students to improve standardized test scores (school administrators are judged and sometimes compensated on students' test scores), or combinations of both.
In the end, the ones who are truly being hurt are the children. It seems Americans are so busy tightening the clamps on nutrition at school, that we're overlooking the other half of the equation, exercise.
Childhood obesity is already out of hand and getting worse. Until we scrutinize exercise in the same manner we're beginning to scrutinize nutrition, childhood obesity will only at level off at best, and will not improve any time soon.
For more information on childhood obesity, visit our Childhood Obesity Forum
Citing fear that students will get hurt and sue, Willett Elementary School south of Boston has banned tag, touch football, and all other "chase games" from the playground. Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Spokane, Washington, also recently banned tag during recess.
This is over the top. Should schools stop letting kids ride the bus to school for fear they'll get sued if a child will get hurt in an accident? Should schools stop letting kids play football, soccer, basketball and baseball for fear a lawsuit stemming from an injury? Should schools forbid our children from entering contests for fear of getting sued for emotional distress if they don't win? The schools might as well take away all the playground equipment and toys, and put each kid in a fenced in cage during recess to keep them from hurting themselves.
Part of this is our fault as a society for being so sue happy. Some people are willing to sue for anything if they think they can get money out of it. At the same time, if the school was so concerned about getting sued they'd have parents sign recess disclaimers at the beginning of each school year.
Willett Elementary cites that there are plenty of "other activities" the kids can partake in during recess. Sure, I can think of a ton, but almost all of them do not allow the children to get solid exercise from running around. When I was in elementary school, almost all of the exercise we got while at school was at from playing games where we "chased others." Football, basketball, baseball (when running to tag someone with the ball), kickball, rugby, tag, soccer, hide and go seek, capture the flag, running around the track, and red rover would all be banned at Willett Elementary.
On top of not being able to participate in those types of activities, I noticed they only gave the kids 20 minutes during one of their recesses. Twenty minutes? Ridiculous! It sounds to me like we're cutting back on recess to either limit liability for the school, give more time to teach the students to improve standardized test scores (school administrators are judged and sometimes compensated on students' test scores), or combinations of both.
In the end, the ones who are truly being hurt are the children. It seems Americans are so busy tightening the clamps on nutrition at school, that we're overlooking the other half of the equation, exercise.
Childhood obesity is already out of hand and getting worse. Until we scrutinize exercise in the same manner we're beginning to scrutinize nutrition, childhood obesity will only at level off at best, and will not improve any time soon.
For more information on childhood obesity, visit our Childhood Obesity Forum
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The truth about nutritional labels and trans fats
There's an unknown trick manufacturers of food are doing when they use trans fats in food. If you've looked at nutritional labels lately, you would notice that foods are listed in increments of .5 grams
What you don't know, is that it is legal to have a product with only .4 grams of trans fat, and list is as having 0 grams of trans fat because it does not meet the minimum increment of .5 grams.
Now, you're saying, so what. We're talking .4 of a gram of trans fats, so no big deal.
Take a tub of ice-cream with 12 servings. If there's .4 grams of trans fats in each serving, you'll ingest almost 5 grams of trans fats if you eat the entire tub over the course of a week or so. But according to the label there's 0 grams of trans fat per serving, so that would lead one to believe that there are no trans fats in this product. If you're an ice-cream fanatic and have one serving a day every day for a year, that's 146 grams of trans fat you'd unknowingly ingest that year. Now do I have your attention?
Don't just look for the trans fat in grams; take a peek down in the ingredients. If you see the words "partially hydrogenated" or "shortening" in the ingredients list, it has trans fats. Be careful eating products with labels from outside the US. They may contain partially hydrogenated oil but it's not actually listed on the label, and you won't even see the term trans fats listed. Assume tall unlabeled baked and fried foods contain partially hydrogenated oil.
For more information on fats, check out our Obesity, Diet & Weight Loss
Forum
What you don't know, is that it is legal to have a product with only .4 grams of trans fat, and list is as having 0 grams of trans fat because it does not meet the minimum increment of .5 grams.
Now, you're saying, so what. We're talking .4 of a gram of trans fats, so no big deal.
Take a tub of ice-cream with 12 servings. If there's .4 grams of trans fats in each serving, you'll ingest almost 5 grams of trans fats if you eat the entire tub over the course of a week or so. But according to the label there's 0 grams of trans fat per serving, so that would lead one to believe that there are no trans fats in this product. If you're an ice-cream fanatic and have one serving a day every day for a year, that's 146 grams of trans fat you'd unknowingly ingest that year. Now do I have your attention?
Don't just look for the trans fat in grams; take a peek down in the ingredients. If you see the words "partially hydrogenated" or "shortening" in the ingredients list, it has trans fats. Be careful eating products with labels from outside the US. They may contain partially hydrogenated oil but it's not actually listed on the label, and you won't even see the term trans fats listed. Assume tall unlabeled baked and fried foods contain partially hydrogenated oil.
For more information on fats, check out our Obesity, Diet & Weight Loss
Forum
Thursday, August 10, 2006
What are we feeding our kids!
Parents these days seem to have less and less free time these days. Who suffers as a byproduct of this? Their children, specifically their diet. The lack of time is one of the reasons kids are fed formula instead of breast milk as babies, and given cheap processed or fast food. Numerous studies show that babies who breast feed are less likely to have obesity issues as children, and the same can be said regarding children who eat less fast food....they're less likely to have obesity issues as adolecents and adults.
You ask a parent what they would do for their kid, and they'll say "I'd do anything, I'd give my life for my kid." Parents say they would take a bullet, or sacrafice their own well being for the sake of their children. If parents were truly as concerned about the well being of their kids as they claim, they would not be poisoning their kids with fast food garbage, and would take the time to make sure their kids received breast milk instead of formula. Yes it's an inconvenience to cook meals at home and breastfeed, but if you care about your kids as much as you claim, that shouldn't matter.
Kids develop a lot of habits from their parents. Get them started on fast food and they'll be more likely to continue eating that garbage into adulthood, leading to more obesity related health problems down the road. This generation of children is the first generation in centuries to have a life expectancy less than their parents. This comes as no surprise.
Just remember, your kids see how you parent, and they'll be more likely to parent in a similar manner.....so they'll be depriving their kids (your grandkids) of a proper diet in the same way you deprived them, and now your grandchildren will very likely have obesity problems as well.
Parents, before taking the easy way out, please think of the well being of your children and future grandchildren. Providing a healthy diet will help your children battle obesity throughout their lives, and their habits will be passed on to future generations.
You ask a parent what they would do for their kid, and they'll say "I'd do anything, I'd give my life for my kid." Parents say they would take a bullet, or sacrafice their own well being for the sake of their children. If parents were truly as concerned about the well being of their kids as they claim, they would not be poisoning their kids with fast food garbage, and would take the time to make sure their kids received breast milk instead of formula. Yes it's an inconvenience to cook meals at home and breastfeed, but if you care about your kids as much as you claim, that shouldn't matter.
Kids develop a lot of habits from their parents. Get them started on fast food and they'll be more likely to continue eating that garbage into adulthood, leading to more obesity related health problems down the road. This generation of children is the first generation in centuries to have a life expectancy less than their parents. This comes as no surprise.
Just remember, your kids see how you parent, and they'll be more likely to parent in a similar manner.....so they'll be depriving their kids (your grandkids) of a proper diet in the same way you deprived them, and now your grandchildren will very likely have obesity problems as well.
Parents, before taking the easy way out, please think of the well being of your children and future grandchildren. Providing a healthy diet will help your children battle obesity throughout their lives, and their habits will be passed on to future generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)