Foods that require more chewing
typically provide more satiety per
calorie than more processed
foods.
2 very easy ways to promote
calorie control include:
1) Choose foods that are high in
fiber and low in calories that
require more chewing. This
means more salads, cooked
whole grains, fresh fruits,
cooked beans, baked potatoes
- in other words, whole
foods that are high in fiber and
low in fat.
These foods make it easier to
enjoy a healthy diet that is
lower in calories and higher in
fiber and nutrients.
Examples of foods to avoid or
limit include: processed baked
goods, candies, cheese, fatty
fried foods, desserts, processed
meats, packaged snack
foods and fatty entrees that
are low in fiber.
2) Avoid beverages with calories.
Studies are showing that beverages
with calories go down
quite easily and without your
body registering them as calories.
So you will consume a lot
of calories quickly but you
won’t feel like you consumed
them so you are likely to consume
too many calories during
the day.
Examples of these include
large shakes, smoothies, juice,
punch, creamy coffee drinks,
sweetened teas, alcoholic
beverages and soda.
Switch to water or unsweetened
tea or coffee. Skip the
sugar and cream. Add a little
flavor with fresh lemon, lime or
orange. Buy whole fruit instead
of fruit juice. Experiment
with herbal teas and brew
them yourself so you can control
what goes in them. These
are all better for your pocketbook,
too!
Here are a few common foods
that are good sources of fiber
and take time to chew:
✦Apples
✦Pears
✦Oranges and grapefruit
✦Grapes
✦Brown rice
✦Corn on the cob
✦Baked potatoes
✦Carrots
✦Yams
✦Cooked beans/legumes
✦Broccoli
✦Greens - collards, lettuce,
spinach, kale, cabbage
Use smaller utensils and plates
so you can take longer to chew
and consume food more slowly.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Plan Your Own Healthcare
Quiz:
How much does the U.S. spend
on healthcare per year?
• $10 Million
• $500 Million
• $850 Million
• More than $1 Trillion
Answer:
More than $1 Trillion is spent on
healthcare each year.
Quiz:
Treatment for chronic diseases
such as heart disease, cancer,
stroke, high blood pressure, and
diabetes accounts for ____% of
our healthcare spending?
• 25%
• 50%
• 65%
• 75%
Answer: 75%!!
The sad truth is that the healthcare
dollars spent in the US do
not equate to better health. Our
country is in trouble because
diabetes is on the rise and the
rate of overweight adults is well
over 50% of the population.
Did you know that you can save
$2000 per year by maintaining a
healthy body weight? You can
also avoid a much higher risk for
heart disease, diabetes and many
cancers.
If you can avoid getting diabetes
you can save almost $6000 per
year!
Actually, a sustained 10% weight
loss will reduce an overweight
person’s lifetime medical costs
by $2,200-$5,300.
By Hollis Bass, MEd, RD.
How much does the U.S. spend
on healthcare per year?
• $10 Million
• $500 Million
• $850 Million
• More than $1 Trillion
Answer:
More than $1 Trillion is spent on
healthcare each year.
Quiz:
Treatment for chronic diseases
such as heart disease, cancer,
stroke, high blood pressure, and
diabetes accounts for ____% of
our healthcare spending?
• 25%
• 50%
• 65%
• 75%
Answer: 75%!!
The sad truth is that the healthcare
dollars spent in the US do
not equate to better health. Our
country is in trouble because
diabetes is on the rise and the
rate of overweight adults is well
over 50% of the population.
Did you know that you can save
$2000 per year by maintaining a
healthy body weight? You can
also avoid a much higher risk for
heart disease, diabetes and many
cancers.
If you can avoid getting diabetes
you can save almost $6000 per
year!
Actually, a sustained 10% weight
loss will reduce an overweight
person’s lifetime medical costs
by $2,200-$5,300.
By Hollis Bass, MEd, RD.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Less Sodium
May is National Blood
Pressure education
month.
Here are 4 things you
can do each week of May
to learn to eat less sodium.
1. Can the canned sodium
- start watching
the sodium content on
all canned goods. Look
for items that are low-no
sodium. They contain 5%
or less for the daily value
for sodium or they say,
“no salt added”.
2. Read the label on frozen
meals and avoid the
ones which contain more
than 5% of the daily
value for sodium. This
will leave you with
mostly frozen veggies.
3. Start watching the
bread and grain items
that you bring home and
use the 5% rule.
4. Last but not least,
skip the deli and processed
meat and cheese.
These items are high in
sodium and saturated fat.
Pressure education
month.
Here are 4 things you
can do each week of May
to learn to eat less sodium.
1. Can the canned sodium
- start watching
the sodium content on
all canned goods. Look
for items that are low-no
sodium. They contain 5%
or less for the daily value
for sodium or they say,
“no salt added”.
2. Read the label on frozen
meals and avoid the
ones which contain more
than 5% of the daily
value for sodium. This
will leave you with
mostly frozen veggies.
3. Start watching the
bread and grain items
that you bring home and
use the 5% rule.
4. Last but not least,
skip the deli and processed
meat and cheese.
These items are high in
sodium and saturated fat.
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Fattening of Americans
The Fattening of Americans
There is widespread agreement that normal weight Americans have a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, gallstones, and numerous other ills than those who are overweight or obese.
Recent data suggests that overweight and obese Americans appear to be aging faster than those who remain in the normal weight range (shorter telomeres). Not surprisingly, overweight and particularly obese Americans have a significantly shorter life expectancy than normal weight Americans.
Studies of human population groups following a hunter-gatherer lifestyle have observed that overweight and obesity are very uncommon. In addition, people living in hunter-gatherer cultures, presumably similar in many ways to that of ancient human ancestors, tend to hit their peak body weight when they are in their early to mid-20s. By contrast, in modern America, body weight tends to increase in the majority of Americans at least into their 50s and 60s, and sometimes even into their 70s. Today, about 65% of American adults are above normal weight. This cross-cultural data does not mean 35% of Americans will never have a weight problem.
An important question for which we have little data is what is the risk of normal weight American adults becoming overweight or obese? The fate of the minority of middle-aged, yet still normal weight, Americans is unclear. Are they somehow immune to the fattening of Americans? Or, are most of them destined to become overweight or obese in the future?
Study Follows Normal Weight Americans
Researchers examined data from the Framingham Heart Study to determine the future risk of 4,117 normal weight people in their 30s, 40s and 50s, becoming overweight or obese over 30 years of follow-up.
• For both men and women who were normal weight in their 30s and 40s, the calculated risk of becoming overweight or obese over the next 30 years was more than 60%.
• For that shrinking minority of men and women who made it into their 50s having remained normal weight, still 55.5% of the women and 48% of the men became overweight or obese over the next 30 years.
• About one-third of women who were not overweight in their 30s, 40s and 50s became obese. For men, the risk of obesity was similar, except for those in their 50s who had a slightly lower risk of becoming obese (25.9%).
• Overall, the researchers found more than 90% of men and more than 80% of women became overweight or obese during their lifetime.1
This study examined only those of European ancestry. It is known that Native Americans, along with African and Hispanic Americans, are even more prone to become overweight and obese than White Americans. Some of the data was collected back in the 1970s and 1980s when Americans were less likely to become overweight or obese.
Weight Gain in Adulthood Unnatural
Among those human cultures where modern foods and energy-saving devices are largely unavailable (like rural China) or shunned (like the Amish in Pennsylvania) less than 5% of adults are overweight and less than 1% are obese. Average body weight is steady or declines slightly with age. It is increasingly clear that modern foods are fattening because they are high in fat and/or refined carbohydrates, calorie-dense and low in fiber. Certainly inactivity, aided and abetted by TVs, computers and numerous energy-saving devices in the home and at work have diminished our need for calories, while modern foods promote increased calorie intake. Unless Americans are willing to exercise regularly and eat more low-fat, high-fiber foods, it is likely that most Americans will become overweight or obese.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
Reference: 1. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:473-80
There is widespread agreement that normal weight Americans have a reduced risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, gallstones, and numerous other ills than those who are overweight or obese.
Recent data suggests that overweight and obese Americans appear to be aging faster than those who remain in the normal weight range (shorter telomeres). Not surprisingly, overweight and particularly obese Americans have a significantly shorter life expectancy than normal weight Americans.
Studies of human population groups following a hunter-gatherer lifestyle have observed that overweight and obesity are very uncommon. In addition, people living in hunter-gatherer cultures, presumably similar in many ways to that of ancient human ancestors, tend to hit their peak body weight when they are in their early to mid-20s. By contrast, in modern America, body weight tends to increase in the majority of Americans at least into their 50s and 60s, and sometimes even into their 70s. Today, about 65% of American adults are above normal weight. This cross-cultural data does not mean 35% of Americans will never have a weight problem.
An important question for which we have little data is what is the risk of normal weight American adults becoming overweight or obese? The fate of the minority of middle-aged, yet still normal weight, Americans is unclear. Are they somehow immune to the fattening of Americans? Or, are most of them destined to become overweight or obese in the future?
Study Follows Normal Weight Americans
Researchers examined data from the Framingham Heart Study to determine the future risk of 4,117 normal weight people in their 30s, 40s and 50s, becoming overweight or obese over 30 years of follow-up.
• For both men and women who were normal weight in their 30s and 40s, the calculated risk of becoming overweight or obese over the next 30 years was more than 60%.
• For that shrinking minority of men and women who made it into their 50s having remained normal weight, still 55.5% of the women and 48% of the men became overweight or obese over the next 30 years.
• About one-third of women who were not overweight in their 30s, 40s and 50s became obese. For men, the risk of obesity was similar, except for those in their 50s who had a slightly lower risk of becoming obese (25.9%).
• Overall, the researchers found more than 90% of men and more than 80% of women became overweight or obese during their lifetime.1
This study examined only those of European ancestry. It is known that Native Americans, along with African and Hispanic Americans, are even more prone to become overweight and obese than White Americans. Some of the data was collected back in the 1970s and 1980s when Americans were less likely to become overweight or obese.
Weight Gain in Adulthood Unnatural
Among those human cultures where modern foods and energy-saving devices are largely unavailable (like rural China) or shunned (like the Amish in Pennsylvania) less than 5% of adults are overweight and less than 1% are obese. Average body weight is steady or declines slightly with age. It is increasingly clear that modern foods are fattening because they are high in fat and/or refined carbohydrates, calorie-dense and low in fiber. Certainly inactivity, aided and abetted by TVs, computers and numerous energy-saving devices in the home and at work have diminished our need for calories, while modern foods promote increased calorie intake. Unless Americans are willing to exercise regularly and eat more low-fat, high-fiber foods, it is likely that most Americans will become overweight or obese.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
Reference: 1. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:473-80
Saturday, April 24, 2010
30 Day Fat Shred
One of my favorite exercise videos is "30 day fat shred" by Jilian Micheals. It cost 10 bucks, and all you need is a set of 3 pound dumbbells. It will really challenge your body.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Try this for breakfast
WAFFLE WITH YOGURT, BERRIES, AND ALMONDS
Ingredients
• 1 waffle, whole-grain, frozen, such as Kashi Heart to Heart
• 6 ounce(s) yogurt, fat-free plain
• 1/2 cup(s) blueberries
• 3 teaspoon nuts, almonds, slivers
Preparation
Heat waffle in toaster according to package directions.
When cooked, place on plate. Top with yogurt, berries, and slivered almonds.
Contains Nuts
Contains Wheat/Gluten
Contains Dairy
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 1
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 244
Total Fat: 5 g
Saturated Fat: 0 g
Cholesterol: 0 mg
Sodium: 266 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 40 g
Dietary Fiber: 4 g
Protein: 13 g
Ingredients
• 1 waffle, whole-grain, frozen, such as Kashi Heart to Heart
• 6 ounce(s) yogurt, fat-free plain
• 1/2 cup(s) blueberries
• 3 teaspoon nuts, almonds, slivers
Preparation
Heat waffle in toaster according to package directions.
When cooked, place on plate. Top with yogurt, berries, and slivered almonds.
Contains Nuts
Contains Wheat/Gluten
Contains Dairy
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 1
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 244
Total Fat: 5 g
Saturated Fat: 0 g
Cholesterol: 0 mg
Sodium: 266 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 40 g
Dietary Fiber: 4 g
Protein: 13 g
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Asian Chicken Wrap
ASIAN CHICKEN WRAP
Ingredients
• 2 tablespoon nuts, almonds, slivers
• 1 tortilla(s), whole-wheat, low carb, 6-inch
• 3 ounce(s) chicken, breast, skinless, cooked
• 1/2 cup(s) sprouts, bean
• 1/2 cup(s) snow pea pods
• 1/2 cup(s) pepper(s), red, bell, chopped
• 1 teaspoon dressing, sesame seed
Preparation
Heat a pan over medium heat. Add almonds to pan, turning every couple minutes until toasted (approximately 4-5 minutes). In the tortilla, place all of the ingredients and fold into a wrap.
Cook Time: 5 mins
Total Time: 5 mins
Quick Meal
Contains Nuts
Contains Wheat/Gluten
Most Popular
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 1
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 359
Total Fat: 14 g
Saturated Fat: 2 g
Cholesterol: 72 mg
Sodium: 361 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 25 g
Dietary Fiber: 13 g
Protein: 35 g
Ingredients
• 2 tablespoon nuts, almonds, slivers
• 1 tortilla(s), whole-wheat, low carb, 6-inch
• 3 ounce(s) chicken, breast, skinless, cooked
• 1/2 cup(s) sprouts, bean
• 1/2 cup(s) snow pea pods
• 1/2 cup(s) pepper(s), red, bell, chopped
• 1 teaspoon dressing, sesame seed
Preparation
Heat a pan over medium heat. Add almonds to pan, turning every couple minutes until toasted (approximately 4-5 minutes). In the tortilla, place all of the ingredients and fold into a wrap.
Cook Time: 5 mins
Total Time: 5 mins
Quick Meal
Contains Nuts
Contains Wheat/Gluten
Most Popular
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 1
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 359
Total Fat: 14 g
Saturated Fat: 2 g
Cholesterol: 72 mg
Sodium: 361 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 25 g
Dietary Fiber: 13 g
Protein: 35 g
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Mexican Pizza
MEXICAN PIZZA
Ingredients
• 1 tortilla(s), whole-wheat, low carb, 6 1/2-inch
• 3 ounce(s) chicken, breast, oven roasted, skinless
• 1/4 cup(s) salsa, mild
• 1/2 cup(s) pepper(s), red, bell, chopped
• 2 tablespoon pepper(s), green chile, diced
• 1 cup(s) spinach
• 2 tablespoon cheese, mozzarella, shredded, low sodium
• 1/4 cup(s) avocado, sliced
Preparation
Preheat oven to 425 degrees. Spray pan with non-stick spray. Heat over medium heat. Add bell pepper, green chiles and spinach to pan. Cook until spinach is wilted.
Spread salsa on tortilla and top with chicken and spinach mixture. Sprinkle with cheese and bake until cheese melts. Top with avocado slices.
Cook Time: 10 mins
Total Time: 10 mins
Quick Meal
Contains Wheat/Gluten
Contains Dairy
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 1
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 364
Total Fat: 12 g
Saturated Fat: 3 g
Cholesterol: 80 mg
Sodium: 714 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 35 g
Dietary Fiber: 8 g
Protein: 37 g
Ingredients
• 1 tortilla(s), whole-wheat, low carb, 6 1/2-inch
• 3 ounce(s) chicken, breast, oven roasted, skinless
• 1/4 cup(s) salsa, mild
• 1/2 cup(s) pepper(s), red, bell, chopped
• 2 tablespoon pepper(s), green chile, diced
• 1 cup(s) spinach
• 2 tablespoon cheese, mozzarella, shredded, low sodium
• 1/4 cup(s) avocado, sliced
Preparation
Preheat oven to 425 degrees. Spray pan with non-stick spray. Heat over medium heat. Add bell pepper, green chiles and spinach to pan. Cook until spinach is wilted.
Spread salsa on tortilla and top with chicken and spinach mixture. Sprinkle with cheese and bake until cheese melts. Top with avocado slices.
Cook Time: 10 mins
Total Time: 10 mins
Quick Meal
Contains Wheat/Gluten
Contains Dairy
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 1
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 364
Total Fat: 12 g
Saturated Fat: 3 g
Cholesterol: 80 mg
Sodium: 714 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 35 g
Dietary Fiber: 8 g
Protein: 37 g
Monday, April 19, 2010
Eat all of this you want
It will only make you lose weight.
MEXICAN COLESLAW
Ingredients
• 6 cup(s) cabbage, very thinly sliced
• 1 1/2 cup(s) carrot(s), peeled and grated
• 1/3 cup(s) cilantro, chopped
• 1/4 cup(s) vinegar, rice
• 2 tablespoon oil, olive, extra virgin
• 1/4 teaspoon salt
Preparation
Place cabbage and carrots in a colander; rinse thoroughly with cold water to crisp. Let drain for 5 minutes.
Meanwhile, whisk cilantro, vinegar, oil and salt in a large bowl. Add cabbage and carrots; toss well to coat.
Once prepared, serve immediately or cover and refrigerate for up to 1 day. Toss again to refresh just before serving.
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 8
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 53
Total Fat: 4 g
Saturated Fat: 1 g
Cholesterol: 0 mg
Sodium: 97 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 5 g
Dietary Fiber: 2 g
Protein: 1 g
To make this coleslaw even faster, use a coleslaw mix containing cabbage and carrots from the produce section of the supermarket.
MEXICAN COLESLAW
Ingredients
• 6 cup(s) cabbage, very thinly sliced
• 1 1/2 cup(s) carrot(s), peeled and grated
• 1/3 cup(s) cilantro, chopped
• 1/4 cup(s) vinegar, rice
• 2 tablespoon oil, olive, extra virgin
• 1/4 teaspoon salt
Preparation
Place cabbage and carrots in a colander; rinse thoroughly with cold water to crisp. Let drain for 5 minutes.
Meanwhile, whisk cilantro, vinegar, oil and salt in a large bowl. Add cabbage and carrots; toss well to coat.
Once prepared, serve immediately or cover and refrigerate for up to 1 day. Toss again to refresh just before serving.
Nutrition Facts
Number of Servings: 8
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 53
Total Fat: 4 g
Saturated Fat: 1 g
Cholesterol: 0 mg
Sodium: 97 mg
Total Carbohydrate: 5 g
Dietary Fiber: 2 g
Protein: 1 g
To make this coleslaw even faster, use a coleslaw mix containing cabbage and carrots from the produce section of the supermarket.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Jilians Advice on Cardio and Weights
Finding the Right Balance of Cardio and Weight Training
Q: Why does my online workout program consist of just one day of pure cardio and four days of weight training? Although I love weight training, I've always thought it's the cardio that really helps a woman like me lose the weight. Why so little pure cardio?
A: Okay — I love dispelling this myth. Resistance training when done in circuits with cardio intervals is the best way to lose weight for the following reasons:
1. Resistance training will help burn intramuscular fat and create lean muscle tissue, but you can't build muscle mass unless you are lifting extremely heavy weights and eating more calories than you are burning in a day. Additionally, it is VERY difficult for a woman to gain muscle mass because we simply don't have the testosterone needed to build muscle tissue the way men do.
2. Resistance circuit training burns more calories than straight cardio both during the workout and after. This is because you are getting the benefits of a resistance-training workout and a cardio workout all in one. Additionally, you will burn more calories for up to 24 hours after weight lifting than you would with cardio alone because your body has to work hard to return your muscles to a pre-lactate state (the state before training). Here is what cardio is good for: weight-loss extra credit. In other words, you can only train your muscles so many times in a week without overtraining them, which is counterproductive. Your muscles need adequate rest and recovery time for best results, but you can do as much cardio as you want. I mean, you can't run a marathon every day, but you can jog, bike, use the elliptical machine, or swim pretty much as often as you want.
JILLIAN'S TIP OF THE DAY
Hey, It Works for the Losers...
My teams lose huge numbers of pounds on The Biggest Loser because I make them do at least three hours of training a day. I follow the hour of high-intensity strength training with two hours of lower-intensity training in order to burn more calories. In this way, we're able to maximize the contestants' weight-loss results without overtraining. (All this is done as they follow the nutrition program I've created for them — and of course under medical supervision!)
Q: Why does my online workout program consist of just one day of pure cardio and four days of weight training? Although I love weight training, I've always thought it's the cardio that really helps a woman like me lose the weight. Why so little pure cardio?
A: Okay — I love dispelling this myth. Resistance training when done in circuits with cardio intervals is the best way to lose weight for the following reasons:
1. Resistance training will help burn intramuscular fat and create lean muscle tissue, but you can't build muscle mass unless you are lifting extremely heavy weights and eating more calories than you are burning in a day. Additionally, it is VERY difficult for a woman to gain muscle mass because we simply don't have the testosterone needed to build muscle tissue the way men do.
2. Resistance circuit training burns more calories than straight cardio both during the workout and after. This is because you are getting the benefits of a resistance-training workout and a cardio workout all in one. Additionally, you will burn more calories for up to 24 hours after weight lifting than you would with cardio alone because your body has to work hard to return your muscles to a pre-lactate state (the state before training). Here is what cardio is good for: weight-loss extra credit. In other words, you can only train your muscles so many times in a week without overtraining them, which is counterproductive. Your muscles need adequate rest and recovery time for best results, but you can do as much cardio as you want. I mean, you can't run a marathon every day, but you can jog, bike, use the elliptical machine, or swim pretty much as often as you want.
JILLIAN'S TIP OF THE DAY
Hey, It Works for the Losers...
My teams lose huge numbers of pounds on The Biggest Loser because I make them do at least three hours of training a day. I follow the hour of high-intensity strength training with two hours of lower-intensity training in order to burn more calories. In this way, we're able to maximize the contestants' weight-loss results without overtraining. (All this is done as they follow the nutrition program I've created for them — and of course under medical supervision!)
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Avoiding Toxins
The Easiest Way to Avoid Toxins in Food
The nation's food supply has been invaded by an army of hormone-disrupting agents. Take your average tomato, which, as designed by nature, is packed with nutrients and cancer-fighting antioxidants. As grown by today's conventional farming methods, the tomato gets sprayed with a host of pesticides, then picked too early because it has to travel thousands of miles to your grocery store, then sprayed with argon gas to make it ripen (since it didn't get the chance on the vine). Suddenly, our tomato is a lot less healthy for us and for the environment.
So, what's the best way to avoid 90 percent of the chemicals involved in growing food and getting it to market? Eat organic foods instead of conventional ones. The term "organic" applies to farming methods that produce food without pesticides or other chemicals. The idea is that by allowing natural processes and biodiversity to enrich the soil and protect crops from pests, as opposed to relying upon synthetic chemicals or genetically modified seeds, we'll get healthier food and a healthier environment. Here are some of the many benefits of eating organic foods:
Organics help you avoid pesticides and other chemicals. Certified organic foods cannot be grown with synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
Organics help you avoid scary hormones and antibiotics. To be certified organic, meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products must come from animals that have not been given growth hormones or antibiotics.
Organic fruits and veggies can be more nutritious. Because organic fruits and vegetables can't rely on pesticides, they have to fight off bugs with their own "immune systems," naturally raising their antioxidant levels. Also, conventional farming methods can strip nutrients out of soil over time, so there's a good chance your organic fruits and vegetables came from better-quality, nutrient-rich ground.
Make Sure It's Really Organic
You can tell if a fruit or vegetable is organic by looking at the number on the sticker: If it has five digits and starts with 9, the food is organic. If it only has four digits, the food is conventional. (If it has five digits and starts with 8, the food is conventional and genetically modified.) For foods with multiple ingredients, identifying truly organic products becomes trickier, so look for the USDA organic seal. The USDA regulates the claims a food can make about how organic it is. Here's what the label lingo means:
"100 percent organic" — All of the ingredients in the food are certified organic. These products can display the USDA organic seal.
"Organic" — At least 95 percent of the ingredients are organic. These products can display the USDA organic seal.
"Made with organic ingredients" — At least 70 percent of the ingredients are certified organic. The other 30 percent can be anything. These products cannot display the USDA organic seal.
"All natural" — This term is not regulated and can mean anything. Don't rely on it.
The nation's food supply has been invaded by an army of hormone-disrupting agents. Take your average tomato, which, as designed by nature, is packed with nutrients and cancer-fighting antioxidants. As grown by today's conventional farming methods, the tomato gets sprayed with a host of pesticides, then picked too early because it has to travel thousands of miles to your grocery store, then sprayed with argon gas to make it ripen (since it didn't get the chance on the vine). Suddenly, our tomato is a lot less healthy for us and for the environment.
So, what's the best way to avoid 90 percent of the chemicals involved in growing food and getting it to market? Eat organic foods instead of conventional ones. The term "organic" applies to farming methods that produce food without pesticides or other chemicals. The idea is that by allowing natural processes and biodiversity to enrich the soil and protect crops from pests, as opposed to relying upon synthetic chemicals or genetically modified seeds, we'll get healthier food and a healthier environment. Here are some of the many benefits of eating organic foods:
Organics help you avoid pesticides and other chemicals. Certified organic foods cannot be grown with synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
Organics help you avoid scary hormones and antibiotics. To be certified organic, meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products must come from animals that have not been given growth hormones or antibiotics.
Organic fruits and veggies can be more nutritious. Because organic fruits and vegetables can't rely on pesticides, they have to fight off bugs with their own "immune systems," naturally raising their antioxidant levels. Also, conventional farming methods can strip nutrients out of soil over time, so there's a good chance your organic fruits and vegetables came from better-quality, nutrient-rich ground.
Make Sure It's Really Organic
You can tell if a fruit or vegetable is organic by looking at the number on the sticker: If it has five digits and starts with 9, the food is organic. If it only has four digits, the food is conventional. (If it has five digits and starts with 8, the food is conventional and genetically modified.) For foods with multiple ingredients, identifying truly organic products becomes trickier, so look for the USDA organic seal. The USDA regulates the claims a food can make about how organic it is. Here's what the label lingo means:
"100 percent organic" — All of the ingredients in the food are certified organic. These products can display the USDA organic seal.
"Organic" — At least 95 percent of the ingredients are organic. These products can display the USDA organic seal.
"Made with organic ingredients" — At least 70 percent of the ingredients are certified organic. The other 30 percent can be anything. These products cannot display the USDA organic seal.
"All natural" — This term is not regulated and can mean anything. Don't rely on it.
Friday, April 16, 2010
A Study on Controlling Calories
Controlling Calories
At the North American Association for the Study of Obesity annual meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., in October 2003, two interesting weight loss studies from Dr. Barbara Rolls’ (author of Volumetrics) laboratory at Penn State were reported. These studies examined how dietary factors interact to influence people’s calorie intake.
In general, it has been shown that some factors tend to increase ad libitum* calorie intake. These include:
• offering larger portions.
• increasing the calorie density** of the foods offered.
• offering a greater variety of foods.
The food industry in America is offering people an increasing variety of calorie-dense foods and offering these rich foods in larger and larger portions.
Dr. Rolls’ first study examined the impact of starting a meal with or without a salad on how many total calories would be consumed at that meal. In general, offering people a greater variety of things to eat tends to increase their calorie intake. In this study, subjects were offered a small or a large salad 20 minutes before getting a pasta entrée. The salads offered varied in calorie density. One version had a fairly high calorie density due to the addition of extra cheese and a fattier dressing. Another version used a lowfat dressing and had a much lower calorie density. The subjects were required to finish the salad but were then free to eat as much as they wanted of a pasta entrée. Here is what happened:
• Compared to when no salad was offered, the subjects consumed more total calories at the meal when they ate either the small or large calorie-dense salad first.
• However, when the subjects consumed the large but low-calorie-dense salad before the pasta entrée, the average calorie intake for the entire meal (salad plus pasta) was significantly less than when they just ate the pasta with no salad.
The take-home lesson here should be clear. If weight loss is the goal, then eating a large, lowfat salad before a meal will likely cause a reduction in the ad libitum calorie intake for the whole meal. However, if that salad is loaded with cheese, bacon bits, and croutons and has a large amount of a fatty salad dressing, then total calories consumed at the meal will likely be much higher compared to skipping salad.
The second study examined how the portion size offered interacted with the calorie density of the foods. Both portion size and calorie density impacted ad libitum calorie intake. The more-calorie-dense meal had 794 calories per pound and the less-calorie-dense meal had 567 calories per pound. Despite the difference in calorie density, the low- and high-calorie-dense meals had the same ratio of fat, protein and carbohydrate, and both had a similar palatability rating. Both the higher- and lower-calorie-dense meals were offered to subjects in three different portion sizes varying from 1.1 pounds up to nearly 2 pounds. However, the subjects were free to eat as much or as little as they wanted of each meal. The subjects also consumed as much as they wanted of standard meals offered at breakfast and dinner in the same laboratory setting throughout the study.
Here is what they found: When the subjects were offered the largest portion of the entrée, which also had the higher calorie density, they consumed 56 percent more calories on average than when they were offered the smallest portion of the entrée with the lower calorie density. Furthermore, despite consuming considerably more calories at the test meal when offered the largest portion of the more-calorie-dense entrée, the amounts of calories consumed at dinner were not reduced. As a result, calorie intake for the entire day increased when people were offered larger portions of more-calorie-dense foods at lunch.
The bottom line:
The results suggest that the current trend in the U.S. for Americans to be overweight or obese is likely due in part to the growing popularity of calorie-dense, super-sized meals at fast-food restaurants.
Footnotes:
* ad libitum calorie intake – at will; allow people to eat as much as they want
** calorie density – the concentration of calories in a given weight of food. For example, calories per pound.
By James Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
At the North American Association for the Study of Obesity annual meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., in October 2003, two interesting weight loss studies from Dr. Barbara Rolls’ (author of Volumetrics) laboratory at Penn State were reported. These studies examined how dietary factors interact to influence people’s calorie intake.
In general, it has been shown that some factors tend to increase ad libitum* calorie intake. These include:
• offering larger portions.
• increasing the calorie density** of the foods offered.
• offering a greater variety of foods.
The food industry in America is offering people an increasing variety of calorie-dense foods and offering these rich foods in larger and larger portions.
Dr. Rolls’ first study examined the impact of starting a meal with or without a salad on how many total calories would be consumed at that meal. In general, offering people a greater variety of things to eat tends to increase their calorie intake. In this study, subjects were offered a small or a large salad 20 minutes before getting a pasta entrée. The salads offered varied in calorie density. One version had a fairly high calorie density due to the addition of extra cheese and a fattier dressing. Another version used a lowfat dressing and had a much lower calorie density. The subjects were required to finish the salad but were then free to eat as much as they wanted of a pasta entrée. Here is what happened:
• Compared to when no salad was offered, the subjects consumed more total calories at the meal when they ate either the small or large calorie-dense salad first.
• However, when the subjects consumed the large but low-calorie-dense salad before the pasta entrée, the average calorie intake for the entire meal (salad plus pasta) was significantly less than when they just ate the pasta with no salad.
The take-home lesson here should be clear. If weight loss is the goal, then eating a large, lowfat salad before a meal will likely cause a reduction in the ad libitum calorie intake for the whole meal. However, if that salad is loaded with cheese, bacon bits, and croutons and has a large amount of a fatty salad dressing, then total calories consumed at the meal will likely be much higher compared to skipping salad.
The second study examined how the portion size offered interacted with the calorie density of the foods. Both portion size and calorie density impacted ad libitum calorie intake. The more-calorie-dense meal had 794 calories per pound and the less-calorie-dense meal had 567 calories per pound. Despite the difference in calorie density, the low- and high-calorie-dense meals had the same ratio of fat, protein and carbohydrate, and both had a similar palatability rating. Both the higher- and lower-calorie-dense meals were offered to subjects in three different portion sizes varying from 1.1 pounds up to nearly 2 pounds. However, the subjects were free to eat as much or as little as they wanted of each meal. The subjects also consumed as much as they wanted of standard meals offered at breakfast and dinner in the same laboratory setting throughout the study.
Here is what they found: When the subjects were offered the largest portion of the entrée, which also had the higher calorie density, they consumed 56 percent more calories on average than when they were offered the smallest portion of the entrée with the lower calorie density. Furthermore, despite consuming considerably more calories at the test meal when offered the largest portion of the more-calorie-dense entrée, the amounts of calories consumed at dinner were not reduced. As a result, calorie intake for the entire day increased when people were offered larger portions of more-calorie-dense foods at lunch.
The bottom line:
The results suggest that the current trend in the U.S. for Americans to be overweight or obese is likely due in part to the growing popularity of calorie-dense, super-sized meals at fast-food restaurants.
Footnotes:
* ad libitum calorie intake – at will; allow people to eat as much as they want
** calorie density – the concentration of calories in a given weight of food. For example, calories per pound.
By James Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Diet and Breast Cancer
Diet and Breast Cancer
James Kenney
Epidemiological data from the 1960s and 1970s showed a fairly strong correlation between dietary fat intake and the risk of breast cancer.1 Figure 1 shows that the death rate from breast cancer was several fold higher in countries where dietary fat intake was very high compared to countries where the fat intake was much lower.
Calorie Control Important
This epidemiological evidence was supported by earlier research in animals, which also found that animals fed higher fat diets were also more likely to develop breast cancer.2 However, the breast cancer promoting effect of high-fat diets in animals largely disappears when calorie intake is tightly controlled. This suggests that high-fat diets primarily promote breast cancer by increasing calorie intake. Over a lifetime, increased calorie intake leads to earlier menarche, increased body fat stores and higher estrogen levels. Indeed, moderate calorie restriction in animals has been proven to slow the aging process and so dramatically reduce the age-adjusted risk of developing most types of cancer.
In Asian countries, where fat intake and the risk of breast cancer is quite low, the blood levels of estradiol have been shown to be 30-70% lower than in the U.S. which has a high fat diet and high prevalence of breast cancer.3, 4, 5 There is now overwhelming evidence that higher levels of estrogens, like estradiol, increase the risk of developing breast cancer.6, 7
Conflicting Studies Explained
In marked contrast to this earlier evidence, a large prospective study which followed women aged 30-55 years for 14 years found no evidence that a lower fat intake or the type of fat consumed was associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer.8 However, the data from this study was corrected for age of menarche, height, BMI and weight change after 18 years. Increased height, earlier menarche, increased BMI, and greater weight gain after age 18 years, are all well-established risk factors for breast cancer. However, it seems likely that high-fat diets may be promoting breast cancer primarily by increasing calorie intake. This means that correcting for age of menarche, height, BMI, and adult weight gain would largely eliminate the effect of a diet high in fat. This would be like finding a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol does not promote heart disease after correcting for differences in blood lipids. Substantial weight gain in adulthood was recently shown to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women.9 Weight gain may increase the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women because it elevates estradiol levels.
Migration
Migration studies have shown that when adult women migrated from a low-risk country to a high-risk country, their risk of breast cancer rose somewhat but never approached that of women born in the “high-risk” country. However, the daughters and grand-daughters of these women, who grew up in the high-risk country developed breast cancer at almost the same rate as other women in that country.10 This suggests that most of the protective effects of a non-Westernized diet occurs by age 30-35.
It seems likely then that the adoption of a moderate fat diet (25-30%) by middle-aged women is unlikely to markedly reduce the risk of breast cancer, particularly if it does not result in weight loss. A study of women who followed a very-low-fat, high-fiber, near vegetarian diet for several weeks found a 40% drop in estradiol levels.11 Such a drop in estradiol levels, if maintained in the long-run would likely reduce the risk of developing breast cancer in post-menopausal women. Increased alcohol consumption has been repeatedly shown to be associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer.12 Alcohol has been shown to rapidly increase estrogen levels. It is already well established that a diet higher in fruits and vegetables and lower in fatty meats is likely to reduce many types of cancer including breast cancer.13
The bottom line
A low-fat (<20%), high-fiber (>35 g/day), more vegetarian diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables, limited alcohol and regular exercise will likely help prevent breast cancer by promoting weight loss and reducing excessive levels of estradiol, especially if it is adopted early in life. Even better still, this diet will also greatly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, which kills more than 10 times as many women each year as breast cancer.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
References
1. Carroll KK. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1984;61:1889
2. Carroll KK, et al. Prog Biochem Pharmacol 1975;10: 308-53
3. Shimizu H, et al. Br J Cancer 1990;62: 451-3
4. Bernstein L. Cancer Causes Control 1990;1:51-8
5. Key TJ, et al. Br J Cancer 1990;62:631-6
6. Pike MC, et al. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:17-35
7. Bernstein L, et al. Epidemiol Rev 1993:15:48-65
8. Holmes MD, et al. JAMA 1999;281:914-30
9. Huang Z, et al. JAMA 1997;278:1407-11
James Kenney
Epidemiological data from the 1960s and 1970s showed a fairly strong correlation between dietary fat intake and the risk of breast cancer.1 Figure 1 shows that the death rate from breast cancer was several fold higher in countries where dietary fat intake was very high compared to countries where the fat intake was much lower.
Calorie Control Important
This epidemiological evidence was supported by earlier research in animals, which also found that animals fed higher fat diets were also more likely to develop breast cancer.2 However, the breast cancer promoting effect of high-fat diets in animals largely disappears when calorie intake is tightly controlled. This suggests that high-fat diets primarily promote breast cancer by increasing calorie intake. Over a lifetime, increased calorie intake leads to earlier menarche, increased body fat stores and higher estrogen levels. Indeed, moderate calorie restriction in animals has been proven to slow the aging process and so dramatically reduce the age-adjusted risk of developing most types of cancer.
In Asian countries, where fat intake and the risk of breast cancer is quite low, the blood levels of estradiol have been shown to be 30-70% lower than in the U.S. which has a high fat diet and high prevalence of breast cancer.3, 4, 5 There is now overwhelming evidence that higher levels of estrogens, like estradiol, increase the risk of developing breast cancer.6, 7
Conflicting Studies Explained
In marked contrast to this earlier evidence, a large prospective study which followed women aged 30-55 years for 14 years found no evidence that a lower fat intake or the type of fat consumed was associated with a reduced risk of developing breast cancer.8 However, the data from this study was corrected for age of menarche, height, BMI and weight change after 18 years. Increased height, earlier menarche, increased BMI, and greater weight gain after age 18 years, are all well-established risk factors for breast cancer. However, it seems likely that high-fat diets may be promoting breast cancer primarily by increasing calorie intake. This means that correcting for age of menarche, height, BMI, and adult weight gain would largely eliminate the effect of a diet high in fat. This would be like finding a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol does not promote heart disease after correcting for differences in blood lipids. Substantial weight gain in adulthood was recently shown to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women.9 Weight gain may increase the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women because it elevates estradiol levels.
Migration
Migration studies have shown that when adult women migrated from a low-risk country to a high-risk country, their risk of breast cancer rose somewhat but never approached that of women born in the “high-risk” country. However, the daughters and grand-daughters of these women, who grew up in the high-risk country developed breast cancer at almost the same rate as other women in that country.10 This suggests that most of the protective effects of a non-Westernized diet occurs by age 30-35.
It seems likely then that the adoption of a moderate fat diet (25-30%) by middle-aged women is unlikely to markedly reduce the risk of breast cancer, particularly if it does not result in weight loss. A study of women who followed a very-low-fat, high-fiber, near vegetarian diet for several weeks found a 40% drop in estradiol levels.11 Such a drop in estradiol levels, if maintained in the long-run would likely reduce the risk of developing breast cancer in post-menopausal women. Increased alcohol consumption has been repeatedly shown to be associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer.12 Alcohol has been shown to rapidly increase estrogen levels. It is already well established that a diet higher in fruits and vegetables and lower in fatty meats is likely to reduce many types of cancer including breast cancer.13
The bottom line
A low-fat (<20%), high-fiber (>35 g/day), more vegetarian diet with plenty of fruits and vegetables, limited alcohol and regular exercise will likely help prevent breast cancer by promoting weight loss and reducing excessive levels of estradiol, especially if it is adopted early in life. Even better still, this diet will also greatly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, which kills more than 10 times as many women each year as breast cancer.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN
References
1. Carroll KK. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1984;61:1889
2. Carroll KK, et al. Prog Biochem Pharmacol 1975;10: 308-53
3. Shimizu H, et al. Br J Cancer 1990;62: 451-3
4. Bernstein L. Cancer Causes Control 1990;1:51-8
5. Key TJ, et al. Br J Cancer 1990;62:631-6
6. Pike MC, et al. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:17-35
7. Bernstein L, et al. Epidemiol Rev 1993:15:48-65
8. Holmes MD, et al. JAMA 1999;281:914-30
9. Huang Z, et al. JAMA 1997;278:1407-11
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Sugar
Hidden Sources of Sugar
Let's get something straight — I want you to stay far, far away from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Seriously, this stuff really puts the "junk" in junk food! It's the most abundant source of calories in a lot of foods out there and it's terrible for you because it boosts your fat-storing hormones. Look at your labels and you'll find HFCS in so many foods that line the shelves in our grocery stores. But just because high-fructose corn syrup is evil doesn't necessarily mean halos are hovering over other sugars. There's more sweet stuff out there that you need to avoid!
We still have far too much of the noncorn variety of sugar in our diets, and it's definitely not doing anything good for our health or our waistlines. The average American eats more than 30 teaspoons of sugar a day — that's more than 114 pounds of sugar a year!
While sugar is everywhere, you must do your best to eat it in extreme moderation. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 12 to 15 teaspoons a day, or 48 to 60 grams. I prefer that you keep the amount as low as possible. Check your food labels — anything with "sugar" should obviously be avoided. However, sugar has many aliases. I'll give you a hint: Anything that ends in "-ose" is a sugar. See what I mean in the list below, and beware of these sweeteners in the foods you eat!
Dextrose
Evaporated cane juice
Fructose
Fruit juice concentrates
Galactose
Glucose
Honey
Invert corn syrup
Lactose
Malt
Maltose
Malt syrup
Maple syrup
Molasses
Rice syrup
Sucrose
Sugar in Fruit
Want to avoid wild blood sugar spikes? Eat whole fruits instead of fruit juices. Not only will they help your blood sugar stay in check, you'll also get beneficial fiber from the whole fruits as well. Just be aware that some fruits are high in sugar — even though they're nutritious and relatively low in calories. Some of the highest-sugar fruits are mangoes, pineapples, and bananas. I'm not saying to avoid these. (Trust me, you'd have to eat more fruit than you can imagine for it to be deemed unhealthy.) However, if you've been diagnosed with prediabetes or diabetes, it's time to limit your intake. If you want to eat fruits with less sugar, go for berries, tomatoes, and oranges.
Let's get something straight — I want you to stay far, far away from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Seriously, this stuff really puts the "junk" in junk food! It's the most abundant source of calories in a lot of foods out there and it's terrible for you because it boosts your fat-storing hormones. Look at your labels and you'll find HFCS in so many foods that line the shelves in our grocery stores. But just because high-fructose corn syrup is evil doesn't necessarily mean halos are hovering over other sugars. There's more sweet stuff out there that you need to avoid!
We still have far too much of the noncorn variety of sugar in our diets, and it's definitely not doing anything good for our health or our waistlines. The average American eats more than 30 teaspoons of sugar a day — that's more than 114 pounds of sugar a year!
While sugar is everywhere, you must do your best to eat it in extreme moderation. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 12 to 15 teaspoons a day, or 48 to 60 grams. I prefer that you keep the amount as low as possible. Check your food labels — anything with "sugar" should obviously be avoided. However, sugar has many aliases. I'll give you a hint: Anything that ends in "-ose" is a sugar. See what I mean in the list below, and beware of these sweeteners in the foods you eat!
Dextrose
Evaporated cane juice
Fructose
Fruit juice concentrates
Galactose
Glucose
Honey
Invert corn syrup
Lactose
Malt
Maltose
Malt syrup
Maple syrup
Molasses
Rice syrup
Sucrose
Sugar in Fruit
Want to avoid wild blood sugar spikes? Eat whole fruits instead of fruit juices. Not only will they help your blood sugar stay in check, you'll also get beneficial fiber from the whole fruits as well. Just be aware that some fruits are high in sugar — even though they're nutritious and relatively low in calories. Some of the highest-sugar fruits are mangoes, pineapples, and bananas. I'm not saying to avoid these. (Trust me, you'd have to eat more fruit than you can imagine for it to be deemed unhealthy.) However, if you've been diagnosed with prediabetes or diabetes, it's time to limit your intake. If you want to eat fruits with less sugar, go for berries, tomatoes, and oranges.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Cheat Days - From Jilian
Cheat Days: Good or Bad?
Q: What is your opinion on "cheat days"? My friend's trainer says it's okay to have one cheat day during the week (as long as you remain on track the rest of the time). But I've been struggling with my weight for years now, and I'm wondering if it's because of my one day of food sin every week. Am I correct?
A: Great question. I am actually not a big believer in the "cheat day," the reason being that psychologically, it messes with my head when I feel that I've binged. Plus, I don't believe in a free day — I always need some boundaries.
I do believe in higher-calorie days, but I don't call them cheat days — there is always a calorie limit. For example, I let the women on my Biggest Loser teams take one day a week when they can eat 2,000 calories. I just think that a blowout day of taking in 5,000 to 6,000 calories can throw off your entire week's work. Some trainers believe the body will not absorb all those calories at once, but it's been my experience that extremely high calorie days can really throw off a diet.
A regular higher-calorie day, with boundaries, can help a diet, though. I recommend 2,000 calories once a week, and I also recommend adding one "cheat food" to your calorie allowance every day. This helps keep you from feeling deprived and from waiting all week for a weekend binge.
And If You Do Binge...
Don't freak out. Everyone slips up sometimes. The key is to realize what you're doing and stop yourself before you do further damage. Think of healthy eating as a game that's always on — if you draw a foul or get sidelined for a minute, your job is to get right back in the game as soon as you can. If you overdo it at one meal, don't just throw in the towel for the rest of the day (or the rest of the week). And don't beat yourself up, either — instead, learn from the experience and move on. Each mistake is an opportunity to add another strategy to your playbook so you get it right the next time.
Q: What is your opinion on "cheat days"? My friend's trainer says it's okay to have one cheat day during the week (as long as you remain on track the rest of the time). But I've been struggling with my weight for years now, and I'm wondering if it's because of my one day of food sin every week. Am I correct?
A: Great question. I am actually not a big believer in the "cheat day," the reason being that psychologically, it messes with my head when I feel that I've binged. Plus, I don't believe in a free day — I always need some boundaries.
I do believe in higher-calorie days, but I don't call them cheat days — there is always a calorie limit. For example, I let the women on my Biggest Loser teams take one day a week when they can eat 2,000 calories. I just think that a blowout day of taking in 5,000 to 6,000 calories can throw off your entire week's work. Some trainers believe the body will not absorb all those calories at once, but it's been my experience that extremely high calorie days can really throw off a diet.
A regular higher-calorie day, with boundaries, can help a diet, though. I recommend 2,000 calories once a week, and I also recommend adding one "cheat food" to your calorie allowance every day. This helps keep you from feeling deprived and from waiting all week for a weekend binge.
And If You Do Binge...
Don't freak out. Everyone slips up sometimes. The key is to realize what you're doing and stop yourself before you do further damage. Think of healthy eating as a game that's always on — if you draw a foul or get sidelined for a minute, your job is to get right back in the game as soon as you can. If you overdo it at one meal, don't just throw in the towel for the rest of the day (or the rest of the week). And don't beat yourself up, either — instead, learn from the experience and move on. Each mistake is an opportunity to add another strategy to your playbook so you get it right the next time.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Plateaus
Busting Plateaus
There is nothing more discouraging than stepping on the scale after a week of diligent dieting and grueling workouts and not seeing any drop in the number. The plateau is a common problem among dieters and can typically be waited out, but there are measures you can take to keep your metabolism fired up even as you reduce your caloric intake.
The best way to break a plateau is to keep your salt intake below 2,000 milligrams a day and drink lots of water. Make sure you're not eating any processed carbs, period. That's right — no chips, sugar, white flour, and so on. And hit the gym hard! The boost in exercise will make your body swell and hold fluids for a few days, but after a week you should see the benefits on the scale.
You can also try playing around with your caloric intake a bit, varying it from day to day throughout the week while keeping the same weekly total. The body can't slow its metabolism to adjust to a reduced caloric intake if the intake isn't fixed from one day to the next. For instance, to bust my plateau, I might have 1,200 calories on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and then eat 1,500 calories on Tuesday, 1,600 on Thursday, 1,400 on Saturday, and 1,700 on Sunday. Get it?
The plateau effect can sometimes simply be a matter of flagging resolve. If mixing up your caloric intake just isn't working, make sure you're not slipping up on your diet or slacking off in your workouts. I'm serious; it happens.
As with any program, there will be highs and lows, but stay with it. Your body is trying to adjust to the weight loss. Don't get scared or discouraged. Just be patient and know that you are worth it!
Water Weight
When you start a new diet or exercise program, you'll lose a significant amount of water weight at first, and it's likely that in the first month you will lose more weight than you would ordinarily expect because of the caloric deficits you build up from week to week. By the second month, your system will begin to even itself out, and weight loss will continue at whatever rate is compatible with your caloric intake/deficit ratio. Two pounds a week is a reasonable weight-loss goal.
There is nothing more discouraging than stepping on the scale after a week of diligent dieting and grueling workouts and not seeing any drop in the number. The plateau is a common problem among dieters and can typically be waited out, but there are measures you can take to keep your metabolism fired up even as you reduce your caloric intake.
The best way to break a plateau is to keep your salt intake below 2,000 milligrams a day and drink lots of water. Make sure you're not eating any processed carbs, period. That's right — no chips, sugar, white flour, and so on. And hit the gym hard! The boost in exercise will make your body swell and hold fluids for a few days, but after a week you should see the benefits on the scale.
You can also try playing around with your caloric intake a bit, varying it from day to day throughout the week while keeping the same weekly total. The body can't slow its metabolism to adjust to a reduced caloric intake if the intake isn't fixed from one day to the next. For instance, to bust my plateau, I might have 1,200 calories on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and then eat 1,500 calories on Tuesday, 1,600 on Thursday, 1,400 on Saturday, and 1,700 on Sunday. Get it?
The plateau effect can sometimes simply be a matter of flagging resolve. If mixing up your caloric intake just isn't working, make sure you're not slipping up on your diet or slacking off in your workouts. I'm serious; it happens.
As with any program, there will be highs and lows, but stay with it. Your body is trying to adjust to the weight loss. Don't get scared or discouraged. Just be patient and know that you are worth it!
Water Weight
When you start a new diet or exercise program, you'll lose a significant amount of water weight at first, and it's likely that in the first month you will lose more weight than you would ordinarily expect because of the caloric deficits you build up from week to week. By the second month, your system will begin to even itself out, and weight loss will continue at whatever rate is compatible with your caloric intake/deficit ratio. Two pounds a week is a reasonable weight-loss goal.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Challenge
Sometimes I have to challenge myself to go to a place I've never been before. That is how you bust through plateaus and take yourself to new heights. So, I have taken a challenge to run the Marine Corp Marathon this fall. My father ran it back in the day and set the "family record" of 3 hours and 29 min. That is just under 8 minutes a mile for 26.2 miles. My challenge is to beat this. This is a very steep challenge indeed. However, trying to do this will make me better. My training has begun. I will first attempt to get off about 30 pounds to get in ultimate race shape. As the pounds go down, I will focus more on speed. I will keep you updated on my progress.
Dr. Simonds
Dr. Simonds
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Prevention
An Ounce of Prevention
James Kenney
A fairly recent book, The Last Well Person, by Nortin M. Hadler, MD, seeks to help individuals understand the perils of the Western medical system – with its heavy emphasis on drugs and surgery.
Diet and lifestyle intervention can prove to be far superior to drugs and surgery in terms of longevity and quality of life. Why? Logically, the first step in preventing and usually treating a disease is to identify the cause of the disease, and eliminate the causal agents whenever possible. The causes of hypertension, atherosclerosis, obesity, type 2 diabetes and most common cancers have been largely identified. Poor diet, inactivity, smoking and heavy drinking are largely responsible for causing the diseases that kill most Americans.
Throughout the book, Hadler, who is a professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, builds the case that physicians today fail to meet the expectations and needs of their patients by relying on too many tests, procedures and drugs that drive up costs, but provide little health benefit.
Lower Cholesterol Increases Life Expectancy
Data from the Framingham Heart Study followed men in their 30s for 30 years. They found that those in the highest quartile of serum cholesterol levels in their 30s were more than twice as likely to be dead in their 60s compared to those with the lowest cholesterol!
• Treatment of high cholesterol levels with statin drugs only reduces cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality by 20-30%. The drugs have only a negligible impact on total mortality, increasing life expectancy by just a few months after years of treatment.
• Atherosclerosis is not reversed by drugs in most people; whereas a very-low-fat, near-vegetarian diet has been shown to reverse atherosclerosis and dramatically cut the risk of dying.
• The treatment of coronary artery disease with angioplasty and bypass surgery does little or nothing to reduce one’s risk of dying from CVD and has no impact on longevity.
Diabetes Doubles Risk of Dying
People with type 2 diabetes are about twice as likely to die in any given year as those the same age with normal glucose tolerance. The figure below summarizes the best epidemiological data and indicates that at least 90% of all type 2 diabetes cases could probably be prevented with a healthier diet and lifestyle.
Cancers Can Be Prevented
Most of the common cancers (lung, breast, colon, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate) are largely the result of smoking, inactivity, poor diet, weight gain, and/or heavy drinking. In a recent commentary in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Dr. Frank Hu states: “…the current overemphasis on pharmacologic treatment could lead to exaggeration of benefits of drug treatment in primary prevention and deflect attention from diet and lifestyle modifications.” Dr. Hu argues epidemiological and clinical trials strongly suggest that a healthy diet and lifestyle could cut the risk of developing many common cancers by about 70% or more. Dr. Hu also maintains a healthy diet and lifestyle could cut the risk having a heart attack or stroke by at least 70% and probably more.1
Death from Old Age
There is good data showing that the total mortality doubles in humans every 8 years and a large proportion of this increased risk of dying is a result of the aging process itself, something no drug or other medical intervention can impact.
However, a recent study that showed obese women appeared 9 years older biologically than those who were normal weight. This same study showed that women who smoked until they were 60 years old were also about 9 years “older” on average.
Bottom Line:
The benefits of a much healthier diet and lifestyle for reducing type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, many common cancers and many other ills are potentially far greater than drugs and surgeries.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
Reference:
1. JADA, November 2005, page 1718.
James Kenney
A fairly recent book, The Last Well Person, by Nortin M. Hadler, MD, seeks to help individuals understand the perils of the Western medical system – with its heavy emphasis on drugs and surgery.
Diet and lifestyle intervention can prove to be far superior to drugs and surgery in terms of longevity and quality of life. Why? Logically, the first step in preventing and usually treating a disease is to identify the cause of the disease, and eliminate the causal agents whenever possible. The causes of hypertension, atherosclerosis, obesity, type 2 diabetes and most common cancers have been largely identified. Poor diet, inactivity, smoking and heavy drinking are largely responsible for causing the diseases that kill most Americans.
Throughout the book, Hadler, who is a professor of medicine and microbiology/immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, builds the case that physicians today fail to meet the expectations and needs of their patients by relying on too many tests, procedures and drugs that drive up costs, but provide little health benefit.
Lower Cholesterol Increases Life Expectancy
Data from the Framingham Heart Study followed men in their 30s for 30 years. They found that those in the highest quartile of serum cholesterol levels in their 30s were more than twice as likely to be dead in their 60s compared to those with the lowest cholesterol!
• Treatment of high cholesterol levels with statin drugs only reduces cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality by 20-30%. The drugs have only a negligible impact on total mortality, increasing life expectancy by just a few months after years of treatment.
• Atherosclerosis is not reversed by drugs in most people; whereas a very-low-fat, near-vegetarian diet has been shown to reverse atherosclerosis and dramatically cut the risk of dying.
• The treatment of coronary artery disease with angioplasty and bypass surgery does little or nothing to reduce one’s risk of dying from CVD and has no impact on longevity.
Diabetes Doubles Risk of Dying
People with type 2 diabetes are about twice as likely to die in any given year as those the same age with normal glucose tolerance. The figure below summarizes the best epidemiological data and indicates that at least 90% of all type 2 diabetes cases could probably be prevented with a healthier diet and lifestyle.
Cancers Can Be Prevented
Most of the common cancers (lung, breast, colon, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate) are largely the result of smoking, inactivity, poor diet, weight gain, and/or heavy drinking. In a recent commentary in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Dr. Frank Hu states: “…the current overemphasis on pharmacologic treatment could lead to exaggeration of benefits of drug treatment in primary prevention and deflect attention from diet and lifestyle modifications.” Dr. Hu argues epidemiological and clinical trials strongly suggest that a healthy diet and lifestyle could cut the risk of developing many common cancers by about 70% or more. Dr. Hu also maintains a healthy diet and lifestyle could cut the risk having a heart attack or stroke by at least 70% and probably more.1
Death from Old Age
There is good data showing that the total mortality doubles in humans every 8 years and a large proportion of this increased risk of dying is a result of the aging process itself, something no drug or other medical intervention can impact.
However, a recent study that showed obese women appeared 9 years older biologically than those who were normal weight. This same study showed that women who smoked until they were 60 years old were also about 9 years “older” on average.
Bottom Line:
The benefits of a much healthier diet and lifestyle for reducing type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, many common cancers and many other ills are potentially far greater than drugs and surgeries.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, FACN.
Reference:
1. JADA, November 2005, page 1718.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Stress
Stress and Hormones
Stress can actually contribute to your risk of metabolic syndrome by increasing your body fat. When you're under stress, your body produces the hormone cortisol, which encourages the body to pack on fat, particularly around the abdomen. Manage your stress levels by cutting back on your responsibilities where you can, learning relaxation techniques and healthy ways to blow off steam, and making time for yourself to unwind. Getting at least seven hours of sleep a night will also go a long way toward relieving stress
Stress can actually contribute to your risk of metabolic syndrome by increasing your body fat. When you're under stress, your body produces the hormone cortisol, which encourages the body to pack on fat, particularly around the abdomen. Manage your stress levels by cutting back on your responsibilities where you can, learning relaxation techniques and healthy ways to blow off steam, and making time for yourself to unwind. Getting at least seven hours of sleep a night will also go a long way toward relieving stress
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
High Blood Pressure
90% Headed for Hypertension
James Kenney
Many people assume that if they have not been diagnosed with hypertension by the time they are 65 years old, they are out of the woods. Not so, according to a new study. Americans in their 50s, 60s and 70s who still have normal blood pressure should not feel very confident that hypertension is not in their future. What do we know so far? Earlier studies have shown that about 70% of all women age 65-75 have already developed hypertension, and by age 65 almost 80% of black women in the US have hypertension.1
New study shows 90% of Americans destined to develop hypertension
A recent study examined the residual lifetime risk of developing hypertension in men and women with normal blood pressure at age 55 or 65. Table 1 below shows the results of this new study.2 Consider these statistics:
• For people whose blood pressure is still within the normal range at age 55, over half will develop hypertension in the next 10 years and over 90% will develop hypertension in the next 25 years.
• For those lucky enough to make it to age 65 without being diagnosed with hypertension, about two in every three will develop hypertension within the next 10 years.
This data should serve as a wake-up call to many older Americans who have become complacent about their chances of developing hypertension.
What is the source of this false complacency?
Much of the confusion about the lifetime risk of developing hypertension can be traced to distorted information from the Salt Institute. The Salt Institute has claimed for many years that only about 20 to 25% of Americans have hypertension. This is true in a narrow sense, but very misleading since most of those without it today will eventually develop it.
They also claim that people do not need to avoid salt unless they already have hypertension and are also "salt-sensitive.” They maintain that most people with hypertension are not "salt-sensitive." This implies that about 90% of Americans have nothing to worry about when it comes to dietary salt. This is false.
The simple truth is that in every human population studied in which little or no salt was added to their diet, there was a virtual absence of hypertension.3 By contrast, in every human population group ever studied in which salt is customarily added to the diet, hypertension is common. Wherever salt is added to the diet, most people develop hypertension by the time they reach their 60th birthday.4
The rise in blood pressure with age in the US and all other modern societies led most doctors to believe that this was a normal part of the aging process. For many years doctors told their patients that a systolic blood pressure of up to 100 plus one's age was "normal." By contrast, most doctors always suspected that cigarette smoking caused most lung cancer and emphysema because these illnesses were far less common in their non-smoking versus smoking patients. However, nearly all Americans consume far too much salt. This means that doctors in the U.S. never see patients who don’t consume excessive salt. Further, the few doctors that did travel to far away lands were so struck by the absence of hypertension in older people where salt was not used that they came to believe that salt must be the primary causal agent causing hypertension.5
The bottom line
The more added salt from the saltshaker or processed foods is reduced in the diet the healthier Americans will become. Excessive dietary salt has been linked to hypertension, strokes, heart attacks and kidney failure but also to stomach, esophageal and kidney cancer. Osteoporosis, kidney stones, and headaches have also been tied in part to excessive dietary salt. The DASH-2 study proved that reducing sodium to 1500 mg per day reduced blood pressure more than reducing it to only 2400 mg in both normal and hypertensive subjects. The good news is that dramatically reducing salt intake will slow, stop or often reverse the cellular damage leading to these all too common health problems. The reduction in disease risk for those who cut out all salty foods can be as dramatic as the reduced risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease in people who quit smoking.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN
References:
1. Harvard Women's Health Watch. 1996;III:2-3
2. JAMA 2002;287:1003-10
3. Hypertension 1985;7:628-37
4. Am J Clin Nutr 1979;32(suppl):2659-62
5. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1980:489-508
James Kenney
Many people assume that if they have not been diagnosed with hypertension by the time they are 65 years old, they are out of the woods. Not so, according to a new study. Americans in their 50s, 60s and 70s who still have normal blood pressure should not feel very confident that hypertension is not in their future. What do we know so far? Earlier studies have shown that about 70% of all women age 65-75 have already developed hypertension, and by age 65 almost 80% of black women in the US have hypertension.1
New study shows 90% of Americans destined to develop hypertension
A recent study examined the residual lifetime risk of developing hypertension in men and women with normal blood pressure at age 55 or 65. Table 1 below shows the results of this new study.2 Consider these statistics:
• For people whose blood pressure is still within the normal range at age 55, over half will develop hypertension in the next 10 years and over 90% will develop hypertension in the next 25 years.
• For those lucky enough to make it to age 65 without being diagnosed with hypertension, about two in every three will develop hypertension within the next 10 years.
This data should serve as a wake-up call to many older Americans who have become complacent about their chances of developing hypertension.
What is the source of this false complacency?
Much of the confusion about the lifetime risk of developing hypertension can be traced to distorted information from the Salt Institute. The Salt Institute has claimed for many years that only about 20 to 25% of Americans have hypertension. This is true in a narrow sense, but very misleading since most of those without it today will eventually develop it.
They also claim that people do not need to avoid salt unless they already have hypertension and are also "salt-sensitive.” They maintain that most people with hypertension are not "salt-sensitive." This implies that about 90% of Americans have nothing to worry about when it comes to dietary salt. This is false.
The simple truth is that in every human population studied in which little or no salt was added to their diet, there was a virtual absence of hypertension.3 By contrast, in every human population group ever studied in which salt is customarily added to the diet, hypertension is common. Wherever salt is added to the diet, most people develop hypertension by the time they reach their 60th birthday.4
The rise in blood pressure with age in the US and all other modern societies led most doctors to believe that this was a normal part of the aging process. For many years doctors told their patients that a systolic blood pressure of up to 100 plus one's age was "normal." By contrast, most doctors always suspected that cigarette smoking caused most lung cancer and emphysema because these illnesses were far less common in their non-smoking versus smoking patients. However, nearly all Americans consume far too much salt. This means that doctors in the U.S. never see patients who don’t consume excessive salt. Further, the few doctors that did travel to far away lands were so struck by the absence of hypertension in older people where salt was not used that they came to believe that salt must be the primary causal agent causing hypertension.5
The bottom line
The more added salt from the saltshaker or processed foods is reduced in the diet the healthier Americans will become. Excessive dietary salt has been linked to hypertension, strokes, heart attacks and kidney failure but also to stomach, esophageal and kidney cancer. Osteoporosis, kidney stones, and headaches have also been tied in part to excessive dietary salt. The DASH-2 study proved that reducing sodium to 1500 mg per day reduced blood pressure more than reducing it to only 2400 mg in both normal and hypertensive subjects. The good news is that dramatically reducing salt intake will slow, stop or often reverse the cellular damage leading to these all too common health problems. The reduction in disease risk for those who cut out all salty foods can be as dramatic as the reduced risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease in people who quit smoking.
By James J. Kenney, PhD, RD, LD, FACN
References:
1. Harvard Women's Health Watch. 1996;III:2-3
2. JAMA 2002;287:1003-10
3. Hypertension 1985;7:628-37
4. Am J Clin Nutr 1979;32(suppl):2659-62
5. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff 1980:489-508
Monday, April 5, 2010
When To Eat
When to Eat?
Q: Is it better to eat a meal before or after a workout? Why?
A: Both. Here's what I like to do: have my breakfast at 9 a.m., work out from 10:30 to 12, and eat by 1 p.m. Here's why:
Back in the old days, people thought they should train on an empty stomach in order to burn more fat, but that has turned out to be FALSE. In fact, your body needs some glucose (blood sugar) for fuel in addition to what it can use from fat stores when you're working out. If you don't have any blood sugar available, your body will eat the muscles' glycogen, or stored glucose it. Low blood sugar will also make you tired and sluggish during your training session. For these reasons, I suggest you eat something 45 minutes to an hour before training — you'll have more energy and endurance to work harder, burn more calories, and improve your muscle tone.
After training, during a period known as the golden hour (45 to 60 minutes after a workout), muscles absorb the most nutrients, and glycogen is replaced the most efficiently. You don't have to have a huge meal — just a little something that contains both protein and carbs will give the best results.
Throw Out Your Junk Food
That's right — go through your kitchen and get rid of all the junk food and processed garbage immediately. Why? Because you can't eat it if it's not there! And don't go out and buy more of that stuff, either. Just eliminate it from your kitchen entirely. Even if you have to put up with a little whining from the kids or your spouse or whomever, just remember, you're not the only one who's going to be better off not eating that crap. Reacquaint yourself with the local supermarket; find the healthy sections, and try to avoid the snack food, junk food, and ice cream aisles. Avoid any foods that make you feel powerless.
Q: Is it better to eat a meal before or after a workout? Why?
A: Both. Here's what I like to do: have my breakfast at 9 a.m., work out from 10:30 to 12, and eat by 1 p.m. Here's why:
Back in the old days, people thought they should train on an empty stomach in order to burn more fat, but that has turned out to be FALSE. In fact, your body needs some glucose (blood sugar) for fuel in addition to what it can use from fat stores when you're working out. If you don't have any blood sugar available, your body will eat the muscles' glycogen, or stored glucose it. Low blood sugar will also make you tired and sluggish during your training session. For these reasons, I suggest you eat something 45 minutes to an hour before training — you'll have more energy and endurance to work harder, burn more calories, and improve your muscle tone.
After training, during a period known as the golden hour (45 to 60 minutes after a workout), muscles absorb the most nutrients, and glycogen is replaced the most efficiently. You don't have to have a huge meal — just a little something that contains both protein and carbs will give the best results.
Throw Out Your Junk Food
That's right — go through your kitchen and get rid of all the junk food and processed garbage immediately. Why? Because you can't eat it if it's not there! And don't go out and buy more of that stuff, either. Just eliminate it from your kitchen entirely. Even if you have to put up with a little whining from the kids or your spouse or whomever, just remember, you're not the only one who's going to be better off not eating that crap. Reacquaint yourself with the local supermarket; find the healthy sections, and try to avoid the snack food, junk food, and ice cream aisles. Avoid any foods that make you feel powerless.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Sugar
Hidden Sources of Sugar
Let's get something straight — I want you to stay far, far away from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Seriously, this stuff really puts the "junk" in junk food! It's the most abundant source of calories in a lot of foods out there and it's terrible for you because it boosts your fat-storing hormones. Look at your labels and you'll find HFCS in so many foods that line the shelves in our grocery stores. But just because high-fructose corn syrup is evil doesn't necessarily mean halos are hovering over other sugars. There's more sweet stuff out there that you need to avoid!
We still have far too much of the noncorn variety of sugar in our diets, and it's definitely not doing anything good for our health or our waistlines. The average American eats more than 30 teaspoons of sugar a day — that's more than 114 pounds of sugar a year!
While sugar is everywhere, you must do your best to eat it in extreme moderation. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 12 to 15 teaspoons a day, or 48 to 60 grams. I prefer that you keep the amount as low as possible. Check your food labels — anything with "sugar" should obviously be avoided. However, sugar has many aliases. I'll give you a hint: Anything that ends in "-ose" is a sugar. See what I mean in the list below, and beware of these sweeteners in the foods you eat!
Dextrose
Evaporated cane juice
Fructose
Fruit juice concentrates
Galactose
Glucose
Honey
Invert corn syrup
Lactose
Malt
Maltose
Malt syrup
Maple syrup
Molasses
Rice syrup
Sucrose
Sugar in Fruit
Want to avoid wild blood sugar spikes? Eat whole fruits instead of fruit juices. Not only will they help your blood sugar stay in check, you'll also get beneficial fiber from the whole fruits as well. Just be aware that some fruits are high in sugar — even though they're nutritious and relatively low in calories. Some of the highest-sugar fruits are mangoes, pineapples, and bananas. I'm not saying to avoid these. (Trust me, you'd have to eat more fruit than you can imagine for it to be deemed unhealthy.) However, if you've been diagnosed with prediabetes or diabetes, it's time to limit your intake. If you want to eat fruits with less sugar, go for berries, tomatoes, and oranges.
Let's get something straight — I want you to stay far, far away from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Seriously, this stuff really puts the "junk" in junk food! It's the most abundant source of calories in a lot of foods out there and it's terrible for you because it boosts your fat-storing hormones. Look at your labels and you'll find HFCS in so many foods that line the shelves in our grocery stores. But just because high-fructose corn syrup is evil doesn't necessarily mean halos are hovering over other sugars. There's more sweet stuff out there that you need to avoid!
We still have far too much of the noncorn variety of sugar in our diets, and it's definitely not doing anything good for our health or our waistlines. The average American eats more than 30 teaspoons of sugar a day — that's more than 114 pounds of sugar a year!
While sugar is everywhere, you must do your best to eat it in extreme moderation. The World Health Organization recommends no more than 12 to 15 teaspoons a day, or 48 to 60 grams. I prefer that you keep the amount as low as possible. Check your food labels — anything with "sugar" should obviously be avoided. However, sugar has many aliases. I'll give you a hint: Anything that ends in "-ose" is a sugar. See what I mean in the list below, and beware of these sweeteners in the foods you eat!
Dextrose
Evaporated cane juice
Fructose
Fruit juice concentrates
Galactose
Glucose
Honey
Invert corn syrup
Lactose
Malt
Maltose
Malt syrup
Maple syrup
Molasses
Rice syrup
Sucrose
Sugar in Fruit
Want to avoid wild blood sugar spikes? Eat whole fruits instead of fruit juices. Not only will they help your blood sugar stay in check, you'll also get beneficial fiber from the whole fruits as well. Just be aware that some fruits are high in sugar — even though they're nutritious and relatively low in calories. Some of the highest-sugar fruits are mangoes, pineapples, and bananas. I'm not saying to avoid these. (Trust me, you'd have to eat more fruit than you can imagine for it to be deemed unhealthy.) However, if you've been diagnosed with prediabetes or diabetes, it's time to limit your intake. If you want to eat fruits with less sugar, go for berries, tomatoes, and oranges.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Warming Up and Cooling Down
How to Warm Up and Cool Down
Q: What do you suggest for warm-up and cool-down exercises?
A: The best kind of warm up before a tough workout is a few minutes of cardio (such as jumping rope or jumping jacks) followed by dynamic stretching. We were taught years ago to sit or stand and stretch one muscle group at a time. Contrary to popular belief, this kind of static stretching — which helps prevent muscle soreness and improves flexibility — is best performed AFTER a workout, when your muscles are very warm and loose.
In the past several years, fitness experts have discovered that there is a much more effective and healthy way to stretch BEFORE a workout: the dynamic stretch. Dynamic stretching is basically stretching with motion, so your body gets a chance to warm up the muscles slowly and in a functional way. It's a 1-2-3 punch: You warm up your body, get your heart rate up, and stretch all at the same time!
Below are some examples of dynamic stretches. Do them on a level surface for a total of about five minutes before you begin your workout. You will notice that with time the exercises will become easier and they will help improve your coordination, flexibility, and balance. Start by performing the exercises over a distance of about 30 yards; increase to 50 yards as you get more comfortable.
High-Knee Walking
Purpose: To bend your hips and knees, stretch your glutes and hamstrings, and warm up your arms and calves.
The stretch: Take an exaggeratedly high step, driving your knee as high as possible, and simultaneously drive your opposite elbow forward. Make sure that you push up onto your toes so that your calf gets involved. Use a normal running arm motion, with a 90-degree angle at the elbow; elbow goes from chin level to as far back as possible while maintaining forward straight posture.
Key points: Drive your knees up as high as possible; get up as high as you can on your toes; and drive your arms with each step.
Deep Side Lunge
Purpose: To bend your hips and knees, and stretch your glutes and your groin.
The stretch: Keep your torso upright and take a wide step out to the side. Lower your body so you are in the sumo squat position. Recover by bringing your feet together and standing upright. Never cross your feet. Keep your hands on your hips.
Key point: The lower you lunge, the greater stretch you will achieve.
Trunk Rotation
Purpose: To stretch your lower back.
The stretch: Stand with your hands on your hips. Place your feet shoulder-width apart, toes pointing straight in front of you. Rotate from the waist to the right, then left. Go as far as you can while keeping your feet in the same position. Do the rotation about 25 times.
Key point: Start slowly; as you get going, you can go a little faster, with more rotation.
Butt Kicks
Purpose: To stretch your quads.
The stretch: This can be done walking or jogging. As you walk or jog, exaggerate the knee bend so that you are trying to kick yourself in the butt. You want your knee to point straight to the ground as your heel comes toward your butt. Keep your arms pumping in the normal running motion.
Key point: The higher you get your heel and the more you keep your knee toward the ground (instead of coming up in front of you with hip flexion), the more of a quad stretch you'll get.
Arm Swing
Purpose: To stretch your pecs and loosen your upper back.
The stretch: Stand with your feet shoulder-width apart. Raise your arms out to your sides and swing them forward, crossing one over the other, so that you hug yourself, then open them up and out to the sides so you feel a stretch in the front of your shoulders. Keep your stomach tight as you do this exercise and start slowly. Increase your speed and range of motion as you get warmed up. Repeat about 30 times.
Key point: Cross your arms right over left and then left over right so you get equal stretching on both sides.
Attention, Clock-watchers!
When you're working out, how many of you watch the clock? Trust me, I know how it is — I'm one of you. But I want you to try something. Next time you're working out, cover up the clock. Instead of focusing on how you have another 10 minutes to go and you feel like killing yourself, focus on the workout, how your body feels, and how great it is that you're getting fit. Use the time and energy to empower yourself. The worst thing that could happen is you end up running a little over!
Q: What do you suggest for warm-up and cool-down exercises?
A: The best kind of warm up before a tough workout is a few minutes of cardio (such as jumping rope or jumping jacks) followed by dynamic stretching. We were taught years ago to sit or stand and stretch one muscle group at a time. Contrary to popular belief, this kind of static stretching — which helps prevent muscle soreness and improves flexibility — is best performed AFTER a workout, when your muscles are very warm and loose.
In the past several years, fitness experts have discovered that there is a much more effective and healthy way to stretch BEFORE a workout: the dynamic stretch. Dynamic stretching is basically stretching with motion, so your body gets a chance to warm up the muscles slowly and in a functional way. It's a 1-2-3 punch: You warm up your body, get your heart rate up, and stretch all at the same time!
Below are some examples of dynamic stretches. Do them on a level surface for a total of about five minutes before you begin your workout. You will notice that with time the exercises will become easier and they will help improve your coordination, flexibility, and balance. Start by performing the exercises over a distance of about 30 yards; increase to 50 yards as you get more comfortable.
High-Knee Walking
Purpose: To bend your hips and knees, stretch your glutes and hamstrings, and warm up your arms and calves.
The stretch: Take an exaggeratedly high step, driving your knee as high as possible, and simultaneously drive your opposite elbow forward. Make sure that you push up onto your toes so that your calf gets involved. Use a normal running arm motion, with a 90-degree angle at the elbow; elbow goes from chin level to as far back as possible while maintaining forward straight posture.
Key points: Drive your knees up as high as possible; get up as high as you can on your toes; and drive your arms with each step.
Deep Side Lunge
Purpose: To bend your hips and knees, and stretch your glutes and your groin.
The stretch: Keep your torso upright and take a wide step out to the side. Lower your body so you are in the sumo squat position. Recover by bringing your feet together and standing upright. Never cross your feet. Keep your hands on your hips.
Key point: The lower you lunge, the greater stretch you will achieve.
Trunk Rotation
Purpose: To stretch your lower back.
The stretch: Stand with your hands on your hips. Place your feet shoulder-width apart, toes pointing straight in front of you. Rotate from the waist to the right, then left. Go as far as you can while keeping your feet in the same position. Do the rotation about 25 times.
Key point: Start slowly; as you get going, you can go a little faster, with more rotation.
Butt Kicks
Purpose: To stretch your quads.
The stretch: This can be done walking or jogging. As you walk or jog, exaggerate the knee bend so that you are trying to kick yourself in the butt. You want your knee to point straight to the ground as your heel comes toward your butt. Keep your arms pumping in the normal running motion.
Key point: The higher you get your heel and the more you keep your knee toward the ground (instead of coming up in front of you with hip flexion), the more of a quad stretch you'll get.
Arm Swing
Purpose: To stretch your pecs and loosen your upper back.
The stretch: Stand with your feet shoulder-width apart. Raise your arms out to your sides and swing them forward, crossing one over the other, so that you hug yourself, then open them up and out to the sides so you feel a stretch in the front of your shoulders. Keep your stomach tight as you do this exercise and start slowly. Increase your speed and range of motion as you get warmed up. Repeat about 30 times.
Key point: Cross your arms right over left and then left over right so you get equal stretching on both sides.
Attention, Clock-watchers!
When you're working out, how many of you watch the clock? Trust me, I know how it is — I'm one of you. But I want you to try something. Next time you're working out, cover up the clock. Instead of focusing on how you have another 10 minutes to go and you feel like killing yourself, focus on the workout, how your body feels, and how great it is that you're getting fit. Use the time and energy to empower yourself. The worst thing that could happen is you end up running a little over!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Diet, Exercise and Cancer Risk
Diet, Exercise and Cancer Risk
In November 2007, the results of an expert panel reviewing the scientific evidence linking diet and other lifestyle factors to the development of various types of cancer was published. This distinguished panel of experts was put together by the American Institute of Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund to review more than 7,000 published studies. The final report is on line at dietandcancerreport.org and is 537 pages. The report contains no real surprises but does provide a useful summary of the strength of the research linking various dietary and lifestyle factors to the development of all the most common types of cancer.
The panel’s recommendations included:
• Limiting the consumption of salt, alcohol and red and processed meats
• Consuming mostly minimally processed foods of plant origin
• Being as lean as possible within the normal range.
• To avoid excess body fat, the panel recommended people be active daily and avoid sugar-rich drinks and calorie-dense foods, which promote excessive energy intake and weight gain over time.
Research in numerous animal species has consistently shown the most powerful dietary measure for dramatically reducing the risk of most cancers is a reduction in energy intake.
Research in studies with people show that weight gain increases the amount of growth factors, anabolic hormones, and inflammatory substances while reducing the levels of sex-hormone binding proteins (SHBP). All of these risk factors are associated with an increased risk of numerous cancers in people.1
Growing data suggests that one of the most potent promoters of cell growth and cancer development is insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). Weight gain, increased calorie intake, and increased protein intake increase IGF-1 levels in short-term studies.
It is difficult to do long-term studies in people because long-term compliance with diet and exercise recommendations is generally not good.
To get around this problem researchers examined 3 groups of people. The control group followed a typical modern diet and were moderately overweight (mean BMI = 26.70). By contrast, the two other groups of subjects were thin by modern standards either because they were following a low calorie/low protein diet high in fiber or because they were long-term endurance runners (BMI = 21.3 and 21.1, respectively).
Compared to the control subjects both the endurance runners and those consuming a low protein and low calorie diet had levels of numerous plasma components associated with a reduced risk of cancer and longevity in animals.
However, while the IGF-1 levels were somewhat lower in the endurance runners than the control group, IGF-1 levels were not nearly as low in the runners as they were in those following the low calorie, low protein and higher fiber diet.2
Bottom Line:
There is no doubt that remaining thin, regular exercise and a healthful, low-calorie diet all help prevent numerous types of cancer in people. Increasing research in animals and people suggests that a low calorie dense diet consisting mostly of minimally processed plant foods is best for reducing calorie intake. Fewer calories appears to be the single most important way to cut the risk of cancer and increase longevity.
By James J. Kenney, Ph.D., RD, FACN
References
1. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:579-91
2. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:1456-62
In November 2007, the results of an expert panel reviewing the scientific evidence linking diet and other lifestyle factors to the development of various types of cancer was published. This distinguished panel of experts was put together by the American Institute of Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund to review more than 7,000 published studies. The final report is on line at dietandcancerreport.org and is 537 pages. The report contains no real surprises but does provide a useful summary of the strength of the research linking various dietary and lifestyle factors to the development of all the most common types of cancer.
The panel’s recommendations included:
• Limiting the consumption of salt, alcohol and red and processed meats
• Consuming mostly minimally processed foods of plant origin
• Being as lean as possible within the normal range.
• To avoid excess body fat, the panel recommended people be active daily and avoid sugar-rich drinks and calorie-dense foods, which promote excessive energy intake and weight gain over time.
Research in numerous animal species has consistently shown the most powerful dietary measure for dramatically reducing the risk of most cancers is a reduction in energy intake.
Research in studies with people show that weight gain increases the amount of growth factors, anabolic hormones, and inflammatory substances while reducing the levels of sex-hormone binding proteins (SHBP). All of these risk factors are associated with an increased risk of numerous cancers in people.1
Growing data suggests that one of the most potent promoters of cell growth and cancer development is insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1). Weight gain, increased calorie intake, and increased protein intake increase IGF-1 levels in short-term studies.
It is difficult to do long-term studies in people because long-term compliance with diet and exercise recommendations is generally not good.
To get around this problem researchers examined 3 groups of people. The control group followed a typical modern diet and were moderately overweight (mean BMI = 26.70). By contrast, the two other groups of subjects were thin by modern standards either because they were following a low calorie/low protein diet high in fiber or because they were long-term endurance runners (BMI = 21.3 and 21.1, respectively).
Compared to the control subjects both the endurance runners and those consuming a low protein and low calorie diet had levels of numerous plasma components associated with a reduced risk of cancer and longevity in animals.
However, while the IGF-1 levels were somewhat lower in the endurance runners than the control group, IGF-1 levels were not nearly as low in the runners as they were in those following the low calorie, low protein and higher fiber diet.2
Bottom Line:
There is no doubt that remaining thin, regular exercise and a healthful, low-calorie diet all help prevent numerous types of cancer in people. Increasing research in animals and people suggests that a low calorie dense diet consisting mostly of minimally processed plant foods is best for reducing calorie intake. Fewer calories appears to be the single most important way to cut the risk of cancer and increase longevity.
By James J. Kenney, Ph.D., RD, FACN
References
1. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:579-91
2. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:1456-62
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)