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.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)