Nutrition

News: Food Addiction, Exercise and Colds, Rocker Shoes

Standard

Here are a few of the points on the scale that are used to determine if you have a food addiction. Does any of this sound familiar? If it does, you may be an “industrial food addict.”

Food Addiction

We’ve got several interesting fitness-related things in the news recently.  First, from the Huffington Post comes Food Addiction: Could it Explain Why 79 Percent of Americans Are Obese?  Here the food industry and its products are compared to the tobacco industry and their products.  Turns out our junk food is skillfully crafted and manipulated by the food industry to make it highly palatable possibly to the point of being addictive.  Key to the discussion is the following information from the article:

Researchers from Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity validated a “food addiction” scale.(i) Here are a few of the points on the scale that are used to determine if you have a food addiction. Does any of this sound familiar? If it does, you may be an “industrial food addict.”

I find that when I start eating certain foods, I end up eating much more than I had planned. Not eating certain types of food or cutting down on certain types of food is something I worry about.

  1. I spend a lot of time feeling sluggish or lethargic from overeating.
  2. There have been times when I consumed certain foods so often or in such large quantities that I spent time dealing with negative feelings from overeating instead of working, spending time with my family or friends, or engaging in other important activities or recreational activities that I enjoy.
  3. I kept consuming the same types of food or the same amount of food even though I was having emotional and/or physical problems.
  4. Over time, I have found that I need to eat more and more to get the feeling I want, such as reduced negative emotions or increased pleasure.
  5. I have had withdrawal symptoms when I cut down or stopped eating certain foods, including physical symptoms, agitation, or anxiety. (Please do not include withdrawal symptoms caused by cutting down on caffeinated beverages such as soda pop, coffee, tea, energy drinks, etc.)
  6. My behavior with respect to food and eating causes significant distress.
  7. I experience significant problems in my ability to function effectively (daily routine, job/school, social activities, family activities, health difficulties) because of food and eating.

Based on these criteria and others, many of us, including most obese children, are “addicted” to industrial food.

Here are some of the scientific findings confirming that food can, indeed, be addictive(ii):

  1. Sugar stimulates the brain’s reward centers through the neurotransmitter dopamine, exactly like other addictive drugs.
    Brain imagining (PET scans) shows that high-sugar and high-fat foods work just like heroin, opium, or morphine in the brain.(iii)    Brain imaging (PET scans) shows that obese people and drug addicts have lower numbers of dopamine receptors, making them more likely to crave things that boost dopamine.
  2. Foods high in fat and sweets stimulate the release of the body’s own opioids (chemicals like morphine) in the brain.
  3. Drugs we use to block the brain’s receptors for heroin and morphine (naltrexone) also reduce the consumption and preference for sweet, high-fat foods in both normal weight and obese binge eaters.
  4. People (and rats) develop a tolerance to sugar — they need more and more of the substance to satisfy themselves — just like they do for drugs of abuse like alcohol or heroin.
  5. Obese individuals continue to eat large amounts of unhealthy foods despite severe social and personal negative consequences, just like addicts or alcoholics.
  6. Animals and humans experience “withdrawal” when suddenly cut off from sugar, just like addicts detoxifying from drugs.
  7. Just like drugs, after an initial period of “enjoyment” of the food, the user no longer consumes them to get high but to feel normal.

Exercise & the Common Cold

“The most powerful weapon someone has during cold season “is to go out on a near-daily basis, and put in at least a 30-minute brisk walk.”
– Dr. David Nieman, director of the Human Performance Laboratory at Appalachian State University in North Carolina,

It’s always nice to see research that backs up something that we think is true.  In this case, researchers at Appalachian St. University have evidence that exercise is possibly the best way to avoid colds.  Read more in Regular Workouts Ward Off the Common Cold from MSNBC.  The results of this study are in line with other studies discussed in the article.

There are all sorts of products out there such as Airborne, echinacea and zinc losenges that claim to shorten or prevent colds.  The evidence on that stuff is spotty.  The evidence on exercise and its preventative powers is far more solid.  Exercise!

Rocker Shoes

An article from MSNBC, Do those funky shoes really promote fitness? discusses rocker or toning shoes, the increasingly popular shoes with a curved bottom.  The claim by these shoe manufactures (Sketchers, Reebok, MBT) is that wearers will burn more calories when they walk around in these things.

A study by the American Council on Exercise suggests that these shoes do nothing of the sort.  (Hard to believe?  A magic shoe actually doesn’t lead to weight loss??)  Participants walked all of five minutes on a treadmill while researchers monitored their heart rate, oxygen consumption and muscle usage (abdominals, butt, quadriceps, hamstrings and calves).  (I don’t know that five minutes is an adequate amount of time in these things.  Seems like participants should be monitored over the course of days or weeks).  The article goes on to discuss the possible injurious effects of wearing these weird shoes as well as a a lawsuit brought by a woman who didn’t lose any weight wearing them. On the topic of the biomechanics and rocker shoes, this article by Denver-area chiropractor and gait specialist Dr. Ivo Waerlop, goes into deep detail as to why these shoes are a bad idea.

I see these shoes as the latest fitness fad pushed on people who are hoping and praying for a fitness magic bullet.  (I love the fact that people are looking at their shoes and thinking about their calories!  How about looking at your food???)  This type of thing comes up frequently and the results of such stuff rarely lives up to the hype.  I’ll be interested to see what happens to medium- and long-term wearers of these shoes.  I think they’ll a) be disappointed in the weight they don’t lose and, b) possibly beset by chronic pain.  If nothing else, they’ll be embarrassed that they ever put on those big clunky Frankenstein clodhoppers.

Share
Tweet
Share

The Bad News on Fruits & Vegetables

Standard

It may not be a huge surprise that most of us in this country don’t eat a healthy diet.  Now the data is in and according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2009, 67.5 percent of adults ate fruit less than two times daily and 73.7 percent ate vegetables less than three times per day.  This information comes from an article in Business Week.

These numbers are in contrast to the goals of Healthy People 2010, a comprehensive set of health objectives set by the government.  The goals of Healthy People 2010 were for 75 percent of people to eat at least two servings of fruit and 50 percent to eat at least three servings of vegetables every day.  Despite these noble efforts, over the past decade there has been a two percent decrease in fruit consumption and no change in the vegetable consumption, researchers found.  This program is failing.  Why?

It’s hard to imagine that ignorance is driving our avoidance of produce.  Who among us doesn’t know that fruits and vegetables are good for us?  One issue is that low-income Americans are less likely to have access to fresh fruits and vegetables at affordable prices compared to affluent Americans.  (For more on this issue, read about food deserts.)

Connie Diekman, director of university nutrition at Washington University in St Louis discusses the affordability of fresh produce:

“Another factor that seems to impact purchasing fresh produce that is not clear in this report is the cost of fresh produce,” Diekman said. “With economic changes the last several years, the slight differences in consumption based on household income might be an important factor for health-care providers to address.”

(I find it tragically laughable that fresh produce–food that’s plucked right off a tree or a vine; or pulled right out of the ground–can cost more per calorie than a highly complex, laboratory engineered food such as a Twinkie, frozen pizza, or a sugary soda.  This is what our farm subsidies are doing to us.)

Most interesting to me are the neurological factors behind what we eat, and why even though we know what’s healthy and unhealthy we still make unhealthy choices.  Samantha Heller, a dietitian, nutritionist, exercise physiologist and clinical nutrition coordinator at the Center for Cancer Care at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Connecticut says the following:

“It is easy to fill up on fast food, junk foods, sweets and sugar-sweetened beverages. In addition, by eating these highly palatable foods — those high in fat, sugar and sodium — we alter our taste and mental expectations about how a food is ‘supposed’ to taste.”

“We end up craving these foods and the healthier fare is ignored. Thus, a sweet ripe peach does not taste very sweet to someone who just chugged a 20-ounce soda or ate a bowl of ice cream. The same with vegetables. The delicious taste of many vegetable pales in comparison with high-fat, high-sodium cheese burgers and french fries.”

This is a tremendous uphill battle we face as a nation.  It’s this very issue that’s at the heart and core of our health care system.  We’ve had heated debate on what form of health care we’ll have and how to fund the system.  Yet we avoid the most significant factor in our health care, that is what we chose to eat or not eat.  It’s too tough an issue for politicians to discuss as pointing out our failings at personal responsibility tend to anger voters.  (In contrast, Michelle Obama has done a very admirable job of bringing attention to the issue of nutrition and obesity.)  No number of doctors, drugs, or high-tech medical devices can offset our personal habits.  I’m not sure that there’s a light at the end of this tunnel.

Share
Tweet
Share

Product Review: Gatorade G Natural and G2 Natural

Standard

I’ll admit I’m a little bit excited in that someone at Gatorade reads my blog and sent me a couple of their new products to test.  (I almost feel like a real journalist!)  Gatorade G Natural and G2 Natural are two sports drinks that Gatorade is marketing as a natural alternative to their regular sports drinks.  Both drinks are part of Gatorade’s Perform line of drinks.  This means they’re designed to be drunk during a workout or competition.  (Pre-competition/workout and post-competition/workout drinks are also available.)  G Natural is a full-calorie drink with 50 calories per serving while G2 Natural is a low-calorie drink with 2o calories per serving.  The G Natural I got was orange flavored.  G2 Natural was berry flavored.

I drank the G Natural on a tough, quick bike ride up Lookout Mountain in Golden, CO.  It was warm and the road was steep.  A sports drink was definitely in order.  I drank the G2 Natural after a five mile run.  I found it refreshing and adequate to the task.

Flavor is probably the most important factor as to whether or not someone likes a sports drink.  (Research has shown people will drink more if a drink is flavored as opposed to an unflavored drink like water.)  My personal preference is for a light-flavored drink but this is a rare find among sports drinks.  I found the G Natural flavor to be a bit strong, but it was nothing severe.  I’d be perfectly happy to find this drink at rest stops during a bike tour or a running event.

Overall, I think this new Gatorade product is just fine and if you’re a fan of Gatorade then you’ll probably like these drinks.  What has me thinking though is to what degree is this new product actually “natural?”  To me, calling something natural implies that it is a minimally processed product.  In my mind, natural foods should contain no engineered chemicals or food additives that I can’t pronounce or produce in my kitchen.  So what’s in Gatorade Natural?  (Specifically, we’ll look at what’s in the orange flavored drink.)

First is water.  Nothing remarkable there.  Second is sucrose.  What is that?  A sugar naturally found in plants but it can also be manufactured in a factory or lab.  I don’t know where Gatorade gets its sucrose.  Second is dextrose, AKA glucose.  Glucose occurs naturally but commercial glucose is derived from plants, most commonly from corn–but this isn’t corn syrup.

Erythritol is next.  (Ever cook up a batch of erythritol?)  This is a sugar alcohol.  It’s sweet but has almost no calories, therefore it’s often used as a sweetener in nutritional supplements and soft drinks like Gatorade.  It’s derived via fermentation of glucose.  This sugar alcohol tends to be easier on the digestive tract than other sugar alcohols like maltitol, sorbitol and xylitol.  Erythritol also doesn’t affect blood-sugar levels thus making it fairly safe for diabetics.  In my view, this is not a natural substance.  That said, it sounds like good stuff to me.  From the way it’s described, erythritol is a fairly benign sweetener and I have no problem using it on a consistent basis.

Next is citric acid.  That’s in a lot of things.  It’s used as a food flavoring and preservative.  It’s also found naturally, often in citrus fruits.  (Guess what else.  If you buy a large enough quantity of it, the authorities may suspect you of terrorist activity because of citric acid’s role in the production of HMTD, a very powerful explosive.)

The always popular natural flavor is next on the list.  The Code of Federal Regulations defines as natural flavoring as such:

“The term natural flavor or natural flavoring means the essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional. Natural flavors include the natural essence or extractives obtained from plants listed in §§182.10, 182.20, 182.40, and 182.50 and part 184 of this chapter, and the substances listed in §172.510 of this chapter.”

So is natural flavor natural?  You be the judge.

Sea salt follows natural flavor on the ingredient list.  I’d call this some fairly natural stuff.  It comes by way of evaporating sea water thus leaving sea salt.

Sodium citrate is next on the list.  (One of three types of sodium citrate, trisodium citrate is the only food additive.)  This is a tart flavoring and preservative used in various drinks as well as an anticoagulant in order to help preserve blood in blood banks..  It’s a relative of citric acid.  How is it produced?  If you’ve got a chemistry background, it shouldn’t be too tough.  Can you find it in what most of us would call “nature?”  Unlikely.

Finally we’ve got beta carotene (for color).  (Can’t have a natural drink without color right?)  Well, it’s fairly natural stuff.  It’s what gives carrots and other orange veggies and fruits their orange color.  (Wouldn’t it be ironic if the beta carotene in orange flavored Gatorade Natural came from carrots instead of oranges?)  Beta carotene is quite possibly very healthy for you so long as it’s consumed in it’s natural state; that is as a whole food along with the thousands of other compounds found in carrots, oranges, pumpkins, sweet potato, orange peppers, etc.  In contrast, if you’re a smoker and you consume enough beta carotene in isolation, your chances of lung cancer go up.

What’s my point here?  The term “natural” can be applied to almost any food.  There are no specific regulations concerning its use.  We’re starting to learn that highly processed foods are unhealthy for us.  Organic foods are becoming more popular and many of us recognize the health benefits of eating non-processed or minimally processed foods (i.e. stuff that’s simply pulled out of the ground or yanked off a tree branch.)  Thus there is profit to be made by way of foods we might generally consider natural.  Is Gatorade Natural actually natural?  It depends on your definition.  Almost anything on earth or in the universe might be considered natural.  (Supernatural probably isn’t the correct term for  Gatorade Natural either.)  Does it contain some naturally found substances?  Yes.  Does it also contain some highly processed substances?  Also yes.

Am I calling Gatorade Natural a bad or unhealthy product?  No.  I truly have no idea of the overall health effects of Gatorade Natural.  I personally have no fear of consuming the product.  It may well be the ideal thirst quenching fuel for many athletes.  At the same time, it’s not quite what I consider to be a natural product.

Share
Tweet
Share

The Role of Exercise in Weight Loss

Standard

Want to lose weight?  The tried and true advice has always been “Exercise and eat right.”  Hard to argue with that.  Burn calories via exercise and eat less and/or eat better quality food.  Done and done.  Recently however, the role of exercise in this process has been questioned.  Time magazine went so far as to tell us Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin.  Other research has suggested that the eating part of the equation is more powerful than the exercise part.  Further, from experience as a personal trainer, I’ve seen many a gym member tell themselves “Hey, I’m exercising.  I can eat whatever I want!”  I have yet to see anyone succeed following that route.  So what if any role does exercise play in shaping our physique?

The New York Times has weighed in with a very interesting, nuanced and informative article on the topic.  Weighing the Evidence on Exercise tells us among other things that exercise alone may not make you lean, but that it will likely help keep you thin if and when you get there.  Further, it seems exercise has a different effect on the appetites of men vs. women.

“When you look at the results in the National Weight Control Registry,” Harvard researcher Barry Braun says, “you see over and over that exercise is one constant among people who’ve maintained their weight loss.”

The article cites two studies to this effect  One by the American College of Sports Medicine demonstrated that appetite was blunted in men who ran on a treadmill for 1.5 hrs.  In another study by Harvard researchers reported in the American Journal of Physiology, men and women walked on treadmills and their appetites were monitored.  The men showed similar results to the ACSM study.  The women however showed increased appetite.  It seems that female physiology is very favorably given over to storing energy (as fat–eeeeeeech!!!)

The Harvard study found other very valuable information which I’ll get to in a moment but first, more about who was studied.  The weight-change history of 34,000 women was tracked for 13 years.  (The large sample size and length of the study are two strengths.)  The average age of the women at the start of the study was 54 years.  Now the important information as reported by the Times:

“During that time, the women gained, on average, six pounds. Some packed on considerably more. But a small subset gained far less, coming close to maintaining the body size with which they started the study. Those were the women who reported exercising almost every day for an hour or so. (emphasis is mine) The exercise involved was not strenuous.”

Finally, the Times article discusses a study from the University of Colorado.  In this study, rats were fattened and allowed to be sedentary for a time.  The rats’ diets were then switched to low-calorie fare and half of them were made to run on treadmills for about 30 minutes a day.  (Strangely, Jillian Michaels was not involved.)  The results of the study as reported by the Times are as follows:

“Then the fun began. For the final eight weeks of the experiment, the rats were allowed to relapse, to eat as much food as they wanted. The rats that had not been running on the treadmill fell upon the food eagerly. Most regained the weight they lost and then some.”

But the exercising rats metabolized calories differently. They tended to burn fat immediately after their meals, while the sedentary rats’ bodies preferentially burned carbohydrates and sent the fat off to be stored in fat cells. The running rats’ bodies, meanwhile, also produced signals suggesting that they were satiated and didn’t need more kibble. Although the treadmill exercisers regained some weight, their relapses were not as extreme. Exercise ‘re-established the homeostatic steady state between intake and expenditure to defend a lower body weight,’ the study authors concluded. Running had remade the rats’ bodies so that they ate less. (emphasis is mine)

To reinforce the message from all this, Science Daily reports on another study not mentioned in the Times article: Diet Alone Will Not Likely Lead to Significant Weight Loss, Study Suggests.  Here,  Oregon Health & Science University studied monkeys that were fed a high-fat diet for several years.  They then were placed on a low-fat diet for a month.  The important information is this:

“Surprisingly, there was no significant weight loss at the end of the month,” explained OHSU post-doctoral fellow Elinor Sullivan, Ph.D. “However, there was a significant change in the activity levels for these monkeys. Naturally occurring levels of physical activity for the animals began to diminish soon after the reduced-calorie diet began. When caloric intake was further reduced in a second month, physical activity in the monkeys diminished even further.”

So what’s the take-home message from all this?  First, as a personal trainer, I find it highly interesting  the actual role that exercise seems to play in weight loss.  It’s not so much a direct influence as it is something that changes our bodies over the long haul, and sets the stage for us to stay trim.  Beyond that, think of this evidence in light of research (here, and here for instance) showing that exercise alone won’t do the trick when it comes to weight loss and we have a very familiar message: To lose weight we must eat right and exercise.

Share
Tweet
Share

Cherries Aid Marathon Recovery

Standard

Try cherries before and after your next long ride, run or grueling workout.

Here’s another weapon to add to your endurance training recovery arsenal: cherries.  Marathon Runners Should Pick Cherries for a Speedy Recovery comes from Science Daily and it profiles a recent study out of Northumbria University in England.  Marathoners who ran the London Marathon were split into two groups.  Twenty marathon runners drank either a tart cherry blend juice or a placebo drink twice a day for five days before taking part in the London Marathon and for two days afterward.  The story summarizes the research findings as follows:

“The findings indicated that the group who drank the cherry juice recovered their strength more rapidly than the control group over the 48-hour period following the marathon. Inflammation was also reduced in the cherry juice group, as was oxidative stress, a potentially damaging response that can be caused by strenuous physical activity, particularly long distance endurance exercise.”

It might be reasonable to conclude that cherries could aid cyclists, swimmers, cross-country skiers and maybe strength & power athletes as well.  More research will be needed to confirm this guess.  In any event, adding cherries to any or all of your recovery strategies may be a simple and tasty idea.  (For more recovery methods, check out recovery nutrition, cold water immersion, and caffeine.)

Sounds like good news!  However I can see it now… Sports nutrition stores will soon be stocking and promoting cherry juice extract–in a pill!!  The stuff will cost more than cherries and probably won’t work.  Warm weather is coming and cherries will soon be in the grocery stores.  Buy ’em and eat ’em.

Share
Tweet
Share

More Magical Fitness Nonsense: Part II

Standard

The first post of this series looked at a new weight loss pill being developed by General Nutrition Centers.  It’s something containing caffeine, black pepper and an ingredient in hot peppers.  Who knows?  Maybe this thing actually is weight-loss in a pill.  I doubt it though.  Most likely this is just the latest version of fitness snake oil–and there’s plenty more out there.

If you’re any sort of follower of popular culture then you may know of the TV show the Biggest Loser. If so, then you know of Jillian Michaels, one of the show’s trainers.  Michaels was sued in February by a fan of the show.  The woman claims she bought a fat loss supplement sold by Michaels–and guess what!!  It didn’t work.  The suit further claims the product contains a tasty item called citrus aurantium (aka bitter orange).  This substance contains amphetamine compounds which are similar to those found in ephedrine.  These compounds are stimulants and they act to restrict blood vessels and to increase blood pressure and heart rate.  This bitter orange stuff has been used to replace ephedra in many fat-loss products.  Ephedra was linked to the 2003 death of Baltimore Orioles pitcher David Bechler.

More news on this topic came out in January of this year when the Abbott Laboratories’ weight-loss drug sibutramine was cited by European offiicials as being potentially harmful to heart disease patients.  The F. D. A. added a warning to the drug, known as the products Reductil, Meridia and Sibutrex.  (Wow, take a look at the contraindications and side effects of this stuff!  Doesn’t look fun.) 

What other kooky chemicals are in the news?  The article F. D. A. Finds ‘Natural’ Diet Pills Laced With Drugs appeared in the New York Times Business section back in February of 2009.  The story discusses a product called StarCaps.  StarCaps were promoted by celebrities and touted as a “natural” weight loss product that used papaya as an active ingredient.  Seems perhaps the true active ingredient was something called bumetanide, a diuretic that can cause all sorts of ugly side effects.  The article further states:

“In a continuing investigation that has prompted consumer warnings and recalls by some distributors, the F.D.A. has determined that dozens of weight-loss supplements, most of them imported from China, contain hidden and potentially harmful drugs.”

These stories remind me of the Fen-phen episode of several years ago.  Fen-phen was a combination of two weight-loss drugs marketed and sold by Wyeth.  The drug combination was very popular and seemingly effective.  Problem was Fen-phen caused heart conditions such as valvular heart disease, severe hypertension and even death in some users.  The product is no longer available and as of 2005, there were about 50,000 liability cases still to be resolved with an estimated  total of $14 billion in liability.  Seems that we may be eager to repeat history.

So what is the big picture?  Americans want to lose weight and there’s big money in that concept.  We’re not too good at exercising and eating right though.  If weight loss can come in a pill then a lot of us are very likely to spend plenty of cash on the product–nevermind the idea of “too-good-to-be-true” plays prominently in the background.  Thanks to the supplement industry-friendly DSHEA act of 1994  these supplements live in a gray area between food and drugs, and they don’t undergo the same scrutiny.  (Quackwatch gives a good commentary.)  Therefore some supplements may be just as powerful and potentially dangerous to many users as any other prescription drug.  (In fact, the risks posed by these weight-loss formulas may be more dangerous than simply being overweight!)  As in the case of StarCaps, the ingredient label may not tell us everything that’s in a supplement.  These are murky waters for the consumer.

Should these products be banned outright?  I’m not sure.  Can these products be used safely?  Maybe.  Clearly for some people these products are dangerous and possibly deadly.  This stuff must be seen through the same lens as any other medication.  Don’t let a label like “all-natural” fool you (BTW, black widow venom is all-natural too) and don’t let a celebrity face make you a sucker.  A healthy lifestyle has yet to come in a pill and it never will.  Get up, go walk around, and eat something that grew in the ground.

Share
Tweet
Share

More Magic Fitness Nonsense: Part I

Standard

I love this stuff!  From somewhat questionable vitamins, to goofy “health” food, to the out-and-out fantasy Cookie Diet, we continue to search for a way around eating right and exercising.  The latest magic potion to come out of Fantasy Fitness Land is a pill which has been developed by General Nutrition Centers (GNC) and tested by Oklahoma University.  (I’m glad the Sooners took on this strange project instead of the University of Texas.)  You can read all about it at Science Daily in an article titled Weight-loss supplement has potential to burn fair amount of calories. 

It seems this substance contains three things: black pepper, caffeine, and capsaicin–the stuff that makes hot peppers hot. 

(Now, as it turns out, I actually created this combination some years ago and I’ve been consuming it roughly once a week in the form of a morning meal known as breakfast.  I eat an omlette, sprinkle on some black pepper, splash on some hot sauce, and drink two cups of coffee.  Too bad I didn’t patent the whole process. )

The article is fairly brief and doesn’t give much information but I can forsee this new weight loss pill flying off the shelves into the hands of people who desperately want to lose weight but who refuse to take on the tried-and-true guaranteed methods to healthy weight loss–that is eating right most of the time and working hard often.  I’ll post more information on this type of snake oil.

Share
Tweet
Share

Lots of Stuff to Read: Sports drinks with protein, Negative phys. ed teachers, Running shoes and knee damage, Why crunches don’t work, Science of weight loss

Standard

Wow!  There’s a lot of good reading out there on the health & fitness front.  I can’t comment on all of it but I’ll refer you to several articles that may pique your interest.  I’ll get back to recovery strategies for endurance athletes later.

Share
Tweet
Share

Vitamin Supplementation: Good? Bad? Or Ugly?

Standard

As a personal trainer, I’m often asked about dietary supplements and vitamins.  My position has long been that most dietary supplements are not needed by most people.  Rather, I advise clients to eat a common sense healthy diet full of real food: fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, and some lean animal products if they like.  Still, I’ve figured that a multi-vitamin probably doesn’t do any harm and may do some good.  On this topic, I may be wrong.

Tasty...

Tasty...

Vita Myth: Do supplements really do any good?, an article from Slate, offers several references to research suggesting that A) there is almost no link between multi-vitamin consumption and decreased mortality, and B) consumption of individual antioxidants like vitamins A, C, and E; beta carotene, selenium, and folate may actually increase mortality risk by speeding the growth of cancers.

“But not only do antioxidant supplements fail to protect against heart disease, stroke, and cancer; they actually increase the risk of death, according to a 2007 analysis of research on more than 232,000 people, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, as well as other studies.”

These antioxidants are often taken in order to cleanse our bodies of free-radicals, substances which are implicated in a range of ailments including cancer.   Researchers have found that “certain kinds of antioxidant pills can feed latent cancers growing in the body, for instance, and reduce the effectiveness of chemotherapy.”  Apparently these good-for-us substances in some cases are also good for replication of cancer cells.  Researchers also suggest that perhaps free-radicals are actually necessary to our good health, and that among other functions they may help kill cancer cells.

Who knew!?

The article explains among other things, the placebo effect of taking vitamins to cure colds, and why we ever took vitamins in the first place (nutritional deficiencies which resulted in diseases such as scurvy).  There also seems to be some evidence that some consumption of vitamin supplements by some populations–folate for pregnant women for example–seems prudent.  The overall message though is that these various vitamins which are found in food simply aren’t all that beneficial once they’re extracted and put into a pill.

Beyond this article, there are a few other factors regarding vitamin consumption worth discussing.  Let’s consider Total cereal which famously tells us that one bowl has 100% of various vitamins and minerals.  Sounds great right?  Sounds convenient.  One bowl of this stuff and we’re set for the day!  Not so fast.  Our bodies can only use or absorb so much of a particular vitamin or mineral at a time.  That one bowl may indeed have all the vitamins you need for that day but your body will only use what it needs at that time.  The rest is digested and excreted.

fruits-and-vegetables

Hey now!!!

Further, we’ve learned that in many cases, in order for vitamins to work the way we want them to, they must be consumed in the presence of any number of other substances.  Food is remarkably complex.  There are literally thousands of molecules in any individual food.  The vitamins in the food need the rest of the food to do their work.  The big picture is very clear: Vitamins in isolation won’t do the trick.  Food is required.

Should we be surprised by any of this?  Once again the American quest for convenience has led us away from good health.  Again, science has tried to out think Mother Nature, and again the results are of questionable use.  Common sense often turns out to be an amazingly accurate guide.  To anyone seeking weight loss, better health and a longer life, I offer this advice: Eat right most of the time.  Work hard often.

Share
Tweet
Share

NEAT and the Benefits of Hunger: Part III

Standard

In Part I discussed Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis (NEAT).  The biochemistry of hunger and the possible benefits of hunger were the issues in Part II.  I ended by posing the question of whether or not consuming several small meals per day was more or less conducive to losing weight than the popular admonition to eat up to six small meals per day.  It seems the verdict is very much out.  The answer is: It depends…

To start with, here’s an article by registered dietitian Kristine Clark writing for the IDEA Health & Fitness Association.  Clark first offers wise observations on the exact nature of hunger and satiety.  Hunger being the main reason we should eat at all and satiety being the signal to stop.  She writes,

“‘Unfortunately, many people are out of touch with the feeling of satiety.”  Marion Nestle—researcher, author and professor of nutrition at New York University—says, ‘You can’t teach satiety.  People have to learn it themselves.’  The bottom line is that recognition of both hunger and satiety is key to appropriate eating.

Anyone seeking weight loss must take that statement to heart.

Clark then refers to the research from the 1960s and ’70s that associated several small meals with a leaner physique.  I won’t go into the details of the studies (references are found at the end of Clark’s article) but both studies show weaknesses worth considering.  The small sample sizes and the use of a 24-hr diet recall interview in one study make me question to what degree we should hold to the implications of these studies.  I’m not the only one thinking this.  For further reading on the strength or lack thereof of nutritional studies, look here and here.  (And remember these sorts of weaknesses the next time a news anchor tells you that some study shows This causes That. Odds are the cause and effect aren’t that strongly linked.)

Most importantly, Clark interviews Dr. Barbara Rolls of the Penn St. Nutritional Science Department.  Essentially she says that meal frequency isn’t the key issue–It’s how much you eat!

“As long as people hold their calorie intake constant—as long as they eat less than what they normally eat, whether in six or three increments —they will lose weight, regardless of the frequency.”
– Barbara Rolls, PhD

So it should be obvious.  The key issue is energy intake vs. energy expenditure.  This is no revelation.  Whether it’s three, four, five or six meals per day, if we eat too much then we get fat.  (I’ll add my own opinion to this equation and say that the quality and the nature of our food–real food vs. food-like substances–is of tremendous importance to physique goals as well.)

I’m surprised by the fairly weak correlation between the several-small-meals strategy and successful weight loss.  I’ve been saying this to clients as if it were a settled subject.  I will say though I believe the first time I ever heard the suggestion to eat many times throughout the day was as advice to bodybuilders who were trying to gain weight, not lose it.  Bodybuilders need the raw materials to add body mass so loading up on food several times a day is about the only way to do it.  In contrast, the general public doesn’t have that need, and it stands to reason that by many among us may easily eat too much if we’re eating up to six times a day.

No second helping for me, thanks.

No second helping for me, thanks.

Finally, I didn’t know exactly where to put this, but General Stanley McChrystal, the current commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, eats one meal per day!  This man is a dedicated runner with a Special Forces background.  One meal per day…

Share
Tweet
Share