<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>That's Fit</title>
<link>http://www.thatsfit.com</link>
<description>That's Fit</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title>Food Combining For Weight Loss?</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/04/04/food-combining-for-weight-loss/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/04/04/food-combining-for-weight-loss/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/04/04/food-combining-for-weight-loss/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		AFP, Getty Images

A reader wrote in recently to ask me about food combining. She had heard it was a really healthy way to eat, and also that it could be very useful for weight loss.

Food combining is the theory that certain foods should always be eaten together for better digestion, others should never be eaten together for the same reason, and fruit should always be eaten alone.

"Is there anything to this?" she asked me.

And the answer is....

Not so much.

The whole food combining concept has been around since the 19th century when it first showed up as a basic premise of the movement known as "natural hygiene". The most recent diet book to make use of it was "Fit For Life" in the 1980's, (which continues to sell well, by the way) but the concept still comes around periodically like a bad penny, and is way past its sell-by date.

One of the main ideas of Natural Hygeine (food combining) is that starches and proteins should never be eaten together because they require different digestive environments (acid vs alkaline). According to believers, eating these foods at the same time you stresses your digestive system, causing the carbs (starches) to ferment and the proteins to basically rot.

Unfortunately it's utter nonsense. "Such pronouncements were debunked more than 70 years ago in both scientific and popular literature", writes Stephen Barrett, MD (who is incidentally a doctor whose views I almost never agree with but who happened to get it right this time). While there are indeed enzymes that are specific to protein digestion, fat digestion and carbohydrate digestion respectively, all of these enzymes are produced every time you eat and work just peachily together.

That said, let's recognize that some people have done well on these diets, perhaps because they make people more conscious of what they're eating, perhaps because some of the combinations advocated are less "heavy" than typical American steak and potatoes meals so people feel better eating them.

Still, it's basically voodoo nutrition. There may be some people with sensitive stomachs and very slow digestive times that might feel less bloated when eating fruit alone, but it's a completely individual thing and certainly not necessary for everyone. For most people it's the quality- and the amount- of the food they eat at any meal that counts, not the "combination".

As for weight loss? There's absolutely no evidence at all that "combining" foods according to the principles of Natural Hygiene does anything for your waistline.

But combining foods so as to minimize their impact on your blood sugar is a whole different story. A restaurant portion of high-glycemic food like pasta will send your blood sugar (and your fat-storing hormone, insulin, soaring along with it). You can blunt that effect by using a smaller portion of the pasta and mixing it with some fat, protein and fiber (like olive oil, chicken and vegetables).

That's a very different kind of "food combining", but one that makes a lot of sense.


Dr. Jonny Bowden, AKA the "Rogue Nutritionist", tells truth to power. Read more cutting edge info on weight loss, diet, nutrition and health on his website, or follow him on twitter.


	
		
			Related Stories
	
	
		
			
				Top 10 Deceptively Unhealthy Foods
			
				Healthy Foods Men Will Eat
			
				20 Healthy Foods for Less Than $1
		
	
<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/04/04/food-combining-for-weight-loss/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19899527/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/04/04/food-combining-for-weight-loss/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>diet</category><category>fit for life</category><category>food comining</category><category>harvey diamond</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>The Whey to Weight Loss</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/21/the-whey-to-weight-loss/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/21/the-whey-to-weight-loss/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/21/the-whey-to-weight-loss/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Getty

Whey protein may be one of your best weapons in the fight against the bulge.

A number of studies have shown that a low carbohydrate-to-protein ratio in the diet with at least 100 grams of protein per day increases fat loss and helps maintain muscle during dieting. One analysis of 87 different studies found that diets consisting of between 35 to 41 percent carbs (the average American diet is around 60 percent carbs) were associated with greater loss of body mass, greater loss of percentage body fat and greater loss of fat mass than diets with a higher percentage of carbohydrate.

Whey protein is the perfect protein supplement during weight loss. It's high-leucine content (50 to 75 percent more than other common protein sources) coupled with its fast absorption make it perfect for those wanting to lose fat. And whey protein also influences several hormones, including insulin, that, in turn, have a great impact on body composition. One study done on rats found that whey protein reduced their appetite, as well as visceral and subcutaneous fat. The whey protein also reduced their blood levels of insulin -- the fat-storing hormone -- and increased their insulin sensitivity.

One recent study compared two groups of subjects, both of whom were given ready-to-drink mixes as a supplement and both of whom consumed the same diet for the duration of the study. The control group drank a supplement with no whey protein in it while the experimental group drank a supplement containing 10 grams of protein per serving from whey protein and peptides. Calories in both drinks were identical.

After 12 weeks there were significant differences. Weight loss was consistently higher in the group drinking the whey protein supplement, and DEXA analyses showed that the weight loss was primarily from body fat. The whey protein group also lost significantly less muscle mass compared to the control group.

Remember, whey protein powders are not all alike. A cheap commercial one found at the mall might contain all sorts of artificial ingredients and sweeteners. And since whey is an animal-based product, the conditions under which the animals were raised influences the quality of the final product. One of the whey protein powders I recommend is Whey Cool protein, which comes only from grass-fed cows with absolutely no hormones, steroids or antibiotics. Another of my favorites is Dream Protein, which is also very high quality, processed at very low temperatures, sweetened with stevia and contains less than one gram of sugar.

One of my favorite ways to enjoy whey protein powder is to cut up an apple and throw it in the blender with a scoop of protein powder and a little almond milk or water. You can also use frozen blueberries. For added nutrition, try adding a spoonful of Forti-Flax (for fiber and cancer-fighting lignans) or a scoop of PaleoFiber (for a high-protein and high-fiber drink that will satisfy for hours).

Whey protein drinks make an excellent post-workout mini-meal as well as a terrific breakfast or midday snack.

For more cutting-edge information on nutrition, diet, health and supplements, visit Dr. Jonny "The Rogue Nutritionist" and follow him on twitter.com/jonnybowden


	
		
			Related Stories
	
	
		
			
				How to Pick the Best Whey Protein
			
				Yes, 'Whey' -- an Interview With the CEO of Designer Whey
			
				Designer Whey Protein Blitz
		
	
<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/21/the-whey-to-weight-loss/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19885124/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/21/the-whey-to-weight-loss/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>diet</category><category>jonny bowden</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>weight loss</category><category>whey</category><category>whey protein powder</category><category>WheyProteinPowder</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>America, You're Exercising Wrong</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/07/america-youre-exercising-wrong/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/07/america-youre-exercising-wrong/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/07/america-youre-exercising-wrong/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Getty

Everything we think we know about cardio is just about 100 percent incorrect.

Dr. Al Sears, a medical doctor, nutritionist and leading thinker in the field of integrative health, believes that the key to effective exercise for weight loss and overall health is not duration, but intensity. He thinks the long, slow constant speed aerobics that we've all been trained to believe is so good for us is exactly the wrong thing for us to be doing.

"After 30 years of working with extremely fit athletes, patients with failed, diseased or injured hearts and average people in between, one thing is apparent: Doing continuous cardio exercise is a waste of time," he says.

For many people in the exercise community those are fighting words, but Sears backs them up with some strong scientific arguments. "[Long, slow constant cardio] just doesn't build what your heart needs," Sears says. "It doesn't increase your heart's ability to respond to real demands. In fact, for all your effort, you only reduce your ability to handle lifes' stressful circumstances-the last thing you want!"

Sears points to the Harvard Health Professionals Study, which followed over 7,000 people and found that the key to exercise is not length nor endurance but intensity. According to that highly regarded study, the more intense the exertion, the lower the risk of heart disease. "When you exercise for long periods at a low to medium intensity, you train your heart and lungs to get smaller in order to conserve energy and increase efficiency at low intensity."

Sears is one of the most outspoken critics of long, slow aerobics, but he is hardly the only one. There has been quite a lot of research in the last few years showing the clear advantage of interval training (which is by definition high intensity) over long slow aerobics, not only from the point of view of health measures (like VO2 max) but also in terms of fat loss. And most exercise physiologists I talk to at conferences now believe that interval training- or high-intensity burst training as it's sometimes called- is a far more effective way to use your time in the gym than an hour on the treadmill.

Sears himself has designed a terrific interval training program that we recommend for the exercise portion of our own Diet Boot Camp program. PACE stands for Progressively Accelerating Cardiopulmonary Exertion, but don't let the long words scare you. It's basically interval training, and from everything I hear from clients who are using it, it's phenomenally effective.

Oh, and one more thing...it only takes 12 minutes a day.

In his book, "PACE: The 12-minute Fitness Revolution," Sears outlines three basic PACE programs and tells you how to customize them for your own needs. Here's Basic PACE Workout you can try at home:

Warm-Up: 2 minutes

SET ONE
Exertion: 4 minutes
Recovery: X minutes

SET TWO:
Exertion: 3 minutes
Recovery: X minutes

SET THREE
Exertion: 2 minutes
Recovery: X minutes

SET FOUR
Exertion: 1 minute
Recovery: DONE

Note that this repeating pattern of exertion and recovery is at the core of every interval program on the planet. The idea is you work really hard for a short period then you do what's called "active rest" or "recovery." You're still moving, but you work at a much lower intensity while your heart rate slows back down a bit. Then you do it all again.

The reason the "Recovery" period is defined by X minutes in the PACE program is that how long you need to recover depends on your level of fitness.

In any interval program you can increase the intensity in a number of ways:

1. You can increase the difficulty of the "exertion period" either by going longer, or working at a harder intensity.

2. You can reduce the number of minutes between exertion periods.

3. You can increase the number of sets.

In much the same way, you can make the program easier by extending the recovery period or making the exertion period less of an exertion.

I've been recommending interval training for a long time. You can do intervals walking, running, swimming, jumping rope or using machines.

Try it on for size and see what you think. And once you do, I'd love to hear from you. This kind of training is a way more effective (and streamlined) way to work out, and, coupled with strength training, will give you far better results in far less time than conventional long, slow aerobics.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden. You can also download his free audio course, "7 Supplements You Need Now."

Related Links
How Long Should I Do Cardio For?
Jenna Fischer Shares Her Fitness Secrets
Trampolines: Burn More Fat and Have More Fun<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/07/america-youre-exercising-wrong/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19869027/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/03/07/america-youre-exercising-wrong/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>aerobics</category><category>diet</category><category>exercise</category><category>interval training</category><category>jonny bowden</category><category>jonnys-take</category><category>PACE program Dr. Al Sears</category><category>rogue nutritionist</category><category>weight loss</category><category>weight-loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>When Is the Best Time to Exercise?</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/21/when-is-the-best-time-to-exercise/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/21/when-is-the-best-time-to-exercise/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/21/when-is-the-best-time-to-exercise/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Corbis

For as long as I can remember -- from the first time I set foot in a gym, actually -- I've been listening to folks debate the question: When is the best time to exercise?

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

Researchers in Belgium took 27 healthy young men and fed them all a horrible diet high in sugar and fat and calories. The particular diet was chosen because it was just about guaranteed to create both weight gain and a reduction in insulin sensitivity. Insulin sensitivity is something good -- it's when the cells respond well to insulin, meaning that insulin does an excellent job of removing excess sugar from the bloodstream and getting it into the cells where it can be "burned" for energy. When someone is said to be insulin resistant, on the other hand, the system doesn't work well, and the person winds up with high blood sugar and high insulin -- a path to either metabolic syndrome or diabetes. Most diabetics are insulin resistant, and most people who are insulin resistant are overweight, since insulin "shuts down" the fat-burning process.

In the Belgian study, the researchers divided the men into three groups. One group did nothing but eat the terrible diet. The second and third group exercised and did the exact same workout, but the second group exercised after breakfast and the third group exercised before breakfast.

The results were both surprising and dramatic. The control group gained a lot of weight and also saw their insulin sensitivity plunge (meaning they became much more insulin resistant -- not a good outcome). The group who exercised after eating also gained weight but not nearly as much as the control group. And the group's insulin sensitivity went down, just as with the control group.

But the group who exercised before eating was a whole different story. This group, despite eating a horrible, weight gain-inducing diet, did not gain weight. Not only that, but the group's insulin sensitivity remained high and the bad diet did not make the group insulin resistant. "This study for the first time shows that fasted (empty stomach) training is more potent than fed training to facilitate adaptations in muscle and to improve ... glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity," said the study's authors.

Conventional wisdom holds that it's always best to eat something before working out. Proponents point out that you need energy for working out -- energy that comes from carbohydrates. "Fat burns in a flame of carbohydrate," they say.

The problem is conventional wisdom is wrong.


.relatedLinksR{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:right;margin:10px 0 10px 10px;}.relatedLinksL{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:left;margin:10px 10px 10px 0;}.relatedLinksL a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedLinksR a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedListContainer ul{list-style-type:none;padding:0 10px;white-space:normal !important;}.relatedHeader {padding:10px 10px 0;}.relatedHeader h3{font-size:18px;color:#000000;border-bottom:1px dotted #CCCCCC;padding-bottom:4px;}.relatedHeader{font-size:18px;color:#000000;}.relatedListContainer ul li {background:url("http://o.aolcdn.com/os/sphere/art/blue-icon") no-repeat scroll 0 7px transparent;margin-bottom:3px;padding-left:10px;}

	
		
			Related Stories
	
	
		
			
				The Secret to Breaking Through the Weight Loss Plateau
			
				What the USDA Dietary Guidelines Got Wrong
			
				5 Easy Ways to Reach Your Weight Loss Goal
		
	

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

So should you forgo eating before working out? Not necessarily. "If you're interested in performing better -- like if you're training for an event -- you might want to eat first," said exercise physiologist and That's Fit expert Liz Neporent. "But for weight loss, evidence does seem to be trending towards not eating before working out."

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

Bottom line: It's an individual thing, and no one prescription is going to work for everyone.

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

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden. You can also download his free audio course, "7 Supplements You Need Now."<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/21/when-is-the-best-time-to-exercise/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19849126/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/21/when-is-the-best-time-to-exercise/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>Breakfast</category><category>Diet</category><category>eat before exercise</category><category>Empty Stomach</category><category>Exercise</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>Weight Loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>What the USDA Dietary Guidelines Got Wrong</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/07/what-the-usda-dietary-guidelines-got-wrong/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/07/what-the-usda-dietary-guidelines-got-wrong/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/07/what-the-usda-dietary-guidelines-got-wrong/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Getty

The USDA recently released the new, 2010 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. And while there has been a lot of news about the changes it might mean for our diets, I'm here to tell you, there's not much to write home about.

They did a decent job on sodium (though, predictably the Salt Institute is already spinning the recommendations as unfair, digging up some research showing how important sodium is in the diet. What a shock.)

The new guidelines recognize that for a large percentage of the population -- not all mind you, but enough -- lowering sodium has a good effect on blood pressure. The new guidelines call for 2,300 mg a day of sodium (about the amount in a teaspoon of salt) but mention that certain groups for groups at risk for high blood pressure-- African Americans, individuals with hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease and individuals ages 51 and older-- respond even more dramatically to sodium reduction, and for these groups the guidelines recommend no more than 1,500 mg a day.

Wisely, the guidelines make note of the fact that most of the sodium in our diet does not come from salt added at the dinner table, but from processed foods. Consumers need to pay way more attention to added sodium (in canned foods, processed foods, deli meats) and -- in my opinion -- much less attention to how much fat is listed on the label.

Speaking of fat, there's not much new from here. The demonizing of saturated fat is the same as it's always been. But sharp eyed readers will note that the only reason given to limit saturated fat is that is associated with higher levels of cholesterol. This is important, because it confuses a lab measure (cholesterol score) with an actual health outcome (like heart attacks). Higher cholesterol is not the same as higher risk of heart attacks or dying.


.relatedLinksR{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:right;margin:10px 0 10px 10px;}.relatedLinksL{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:left;margin:10px 10px 10px 0;}.relatedLinksL a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedLinksR a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedListContainer ul{list-style-type:none;padding:0 10px;white-space:normal !important;}.relatedHeader {padding:10px 10px 0;}.relatedHeader h3{font-size:18px;color:#000000;border-bottom:1px dotted #CCCCCC;padding-bottom:4px;}.relatedHeader{font-size:18px;color:#000000;}.relatedListContainer ul li {background:url("http://o.aolcdn.com/os/sphere/art/blue-icon") no-repeat scroll 0 7px transparent;margin-bottom:3px;padding-left:10px;}

	
		
			Related Stories
	
	
		
			
				Should We Really Avoid Saturated Fat?
			
				USDA Promotes Extra Cheese?
			
				The Poor Misunderstood Egg
		
	

Further, the report still uses the old division of "good" and "bad" cholesterol, despite the fact that we now know there are multiple sub-types of both HDL (so called "good" cholesterol) and LDL (so called "bad cholesterol).

Substantial research shows that it is the type of LDL -- not the total amount -- that matters. Small particle LDL is bad; large particle LDL is harmless. Saturated fat may raise LDL but it tends to have a beneficial effect on particle type, meaning it raises the "good" kind of "bad cholesterol" (large fluffy molecules), not the "bad" kind of "bad cholesterol" (small dense bb gun pellets). And in any event, research has shown that cholesterol is a lousy predictor of heart disease. Half of all heart attacks happen to people with normal cholesterol, and half the people with "elevated" cholesterol are fit and healthy as the proverbial fiddle.

The report recommends lowering our dietary intake of cholesterol. This piece of advice is so past its expiration date that I never expected to see it again, even in as conservative a document as the dietary guidelines, but there it is.

Let's repeat: The liver makes most of the cholesterol in your body. Eat less, and your body makes more. Eat more, your body makes less. And for 99 percent of the population, dietary cholesterol has virtually no effect on blood cholesterol. This recommendation is just going to make people continue to fear egg yolks, a big mistake since they are incredibly rich in nutrients (like choline, lutein and zeaxnthin and make the protein of the whites more bio-available.

The report does make mention of the problem of added sugar in our diet, noting that it accounts for an amazing 16 percent of calories in the American diet. These sugars include high fructose corn syrup, white sugar, brown sugar, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, raw sugar, malt syrup, maple syrup, pancake syrup, fructose sweetener, liquid fructose, honey, molasses, anhydrous dextrose and crystal dextrose.

Unsurprisingly, the USDA notes that the major sources of these added sugars are soda, energy drinks, sports drinks, grain-based desserts, sugar-sweetened fruit drinks, dairy-based desserts, and candy. And the guidelines recommend lowering the consumption of these drinks, a brave move given the incredibly lobbying and spin machines of both the Sugar Association and the Beverage Assocation. Look for their "rebuttal" spin, coming soon to a theatre near you. Oh, never mind.. it's already here.

In fact, you could almost hear the committee hedging their bets. Shortly after the recommendation to reduce these added sugars they state that "foods containing solid fats and added sugars are no more likely to contribute to weight gain than any other source of calories in an eating pattern that is within calorie limits."

Sure, there's a lot of research showing that calories overall are what matters but there's also a lot of good science -- and clinical experience -- that shows that high-carb, high-sugar diets produce metabolic reactions that make it fiendishly difficult to lose weight by contributing to cravings and blood sugar fluctuations. Minimizing that effect and concentrating only on calories, rather than the hormonal effects that certain calories have, is a missed opportunity.

There is some good news, however.

For the first time, the dietary guidelines actually suggest limiting refined grains (especially refined grains that contain solid fats, added sugars and sodium). This is a really good idea and one I wholeheartedly support. They also specifically recommend to keep trans fat consumption as low as possible and wisely makes the distinction between man-made trans fats (hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils) and naturally occurring trans fats like the CLA found in the meat of grass-fed cows.

The new dietary guidelines also explicity say that half your plate should be taken up with fruits and vegetables, something even a low-carber like me can totally support. And finally the recommendation to limit alcohol to two drinks a day for men and only one for women is wise and in keeping with the research.

But let's remember that the USDA isn't some impartial, scientific group detached from industry input or economic considerations. For years, investigative reporters have pointed out the very close ties between the agency and the meat and dairy industries, pointing to the USDA's dual and conflicting mandates to both regulate the safety of beef and also to promote its sale. And the influence of industry lobbyists on food policy is undeniable and has been chronicled in loving detail by such experts as Marion Nestle in her excellent book "Food Politics."

But I digress.

All in all, I see the new dietary guidelines as tiny steps in the right direction lost in a sea of "same old, same old" and not likely to make much of a dent in the eating habits of Americans.


Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden. You can also download his free audio course, "7 Supplements You Need Now."<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/07/what-the-usda-dietary-guidelines-got-wrong/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19826371/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/02/07/what-the-usda-dietary-guidelines-got-wrong/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>2010 Dietary Guidelines</category><category>calories</category><category>fat</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>low carb diets</category><category>saturated fat</category><category>sodium</category><category>sugar</category><category>USDA</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Rethinking Six Small Meals a Day</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/24/rethinking-six-small-meals-a-day/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/24/rethinking-six-small-meals-a-day/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/24/rethinking-six-small-meals-a-day/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Getty

Last column I talked about a popular tactic advocated by many personal trainers called "The Cheat Day," which is a "day off" from your weekly diet. Trainers who advocate this are clearly attempting to come up with a real-life weight loss plan that works for their clients, and as I pointed out last week, it may work for some -- but it doesn't for everyone.

The "cheat day" is not alone. In fact, there are dozens of weight loss principles that are often repeated, but won't work for everyone. One of my favorites to debunk is: "Eat six small meals a day."

It comes in various forms, including "eat three big meals and two snacks" or "eat every two to three hours."

Certainly sounds good, doesn't it? Trouble is, it's just not true.

Or at least not always true. And it's not true often enough to make it a questionable golden rule of fitness.

The "eat five (or six) small meals a day" concept came out of the same culture that the "cheat day" did -- the bodybuilding culture of the 1950s. (In fact, many of the things we repeat as gospel today came out of that same culture, including the idea that you have to give each muscle group a couple of days off before training it again.)

The theory here is that since your body actually uses some calories digesting food and digestion is a metabolic process, eating a meal theoretically "raises" your metabolism, so by eating small meals frequently, you constantly keep your metabolism elevated.

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

The constant elevation of blood sugar (and the fat-storing hormone insulin) ensures that the body will never have to reach into its stores of fat to find energy to burn, since there's constant supply of glucose (sugar) from the bloodstream (thanks to that meal you ate a couple hours ago and are about to repeat).


.relatedLinksR{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:right;margin:10px 0 10px 10px;}.relatedLinksL{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:left;margin:10px 10px 10px 0;}.relatedLinksL a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedLinksR a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedListContainer ul{list-style-type:none;padding:0 10px;white-space:normal !important;}.relatedHeader {padding:10px 10px 0;}.relatedHeader h3{font-size:18px;color:#000000;border-bottom:1px dotted #CCCCCC;padding-bottom:4px;}.relatedHeader{font-size:18px;color:#000000;}.relatedListContainer ul li {background:url("http://o.aolcdn.com/os/sphere/art/blue-icon") no-repeat scroll 0 7px transparent;margin-bottom:3px;padding-left:10px;}

	
		
			More Jonny's Take
	
	
		
			
				Should We Really Avoid Saturated Fat?
			
				The Scale: Don't Give It Too Much Power
			
				When It's Important to Buy Organic
		
	

Fact is, as many people can attest to from personal experience, it's perfectly possible to do quite well on three squares a day. Snacking isn't necessary and, in some cases, may be counterproductive. For some people, keeping insulin low for most of the day sets up a favorable metabolic environment and may also keep cravings at bay. (This was the basis of the "Carbohydrate Addicts Diet.")

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

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

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

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

And nothing in between.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden. You can also download his free audio course, "7 Supplements You Need Now."<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/24/rethinking-six-small-meals-a-day/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19812459/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/24/rethinking-six-small-meals-a-day/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>metabolism</category><category>small meals</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Why I Don't Believe in "Cheat Days"</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/10/why-i-dont-believe-in-cheat-days/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/10/why-i-dont-believe-in-cheat-days/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/10/why-i-dont-believe-in-cheat-days/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Getty

There are endless diet programs that suggest you take one day "off" and eat whatever you like. I can't count the number of personal trainers I've worked with who advocate this -- it's even a hallmark of the new best-selling book "The 4-Hour Body."

It sounds good in theory. After all, you're "deprived" all week, and if you know you can satisfy that gnawing urge for a Krispy Kreme on Sunday, it may make it easier to stick with it the rest of the week, knowing that relief is only a few days away.

Oh, if only it were so simple.

If you're perfectly healthy (metabolically speaking) and you simply put on weight because you eat a few too many desserts, allowing yourself a "treat" or two one day a week is probably not going to kill you and may -- as the theory suggests -- even make you more motivated to stick with the program the rest of the time.

And that's fine if you're one of those folks who can take a bite of chocolate and put the rest away for later.

I'm not one of those people. Maybe you're not either. To me, a portion of ice cream is finished when the spoon hits the bottom of the carton.

I'm hardly alone. Many people, if not most, who struggle with weight year after year know exactly what I'm talking about. For us, having a little is like telling an alcoholic to drink moderately. A cheat day would be like telling that same alcoholic to go ahead and get wasted one day a week.

So that's the first reason I'm not a fan of cheat days. The idea simply doesn't work for a lot of people for whom certain foods are addictive. It whets the appetite for more, starts the whole craving cycle going again and generally ends in disaster.

But there's another reason I don't like the concept of cheat days, and it has to do with metabolism.

As much as 25 percent of the population, by conservative estimates, have a condition known as insulin resistance, which is at the root of both Type 2 diabetes as well as metabolic syndrome. These folks simply don't process carbs well. Their blood sugar goes up too high when they eat them, and the pancreas oversecretes insulin -- a fat storage hormone -- in response to the increased levels of blood sugar. Low-carb diets correct this within a few days. One big "cheat day" will undo that good faster than you can say "supersize me."

As many people know all too well, a cheat meal can easily turn into a binge. And that ain't good.

Furthermore, a small study published in Nutrition and Metabolism, in which participants were assigned a high-calorie, high-fat diet of mostly fast food for four weeks, found that even more than two years after the experiment, the participants who ate all of the fast food had the same muscle mass but were heavier overall and had higher increases in body fat compared to the control group. While the study did not look at one-day binges, overeating, even for a few weeks, could potentially have long-term consequences.

Now none of this means you can't have an occasional dessert if you're trying to lose weight. Nor does it mean you should swear off "recreational food" forever. But if your cheat day is not one extra slice of pizza but an all-out binge, it might not be the best strategy to improve your health for years to come.

But in my opinion, there are three very good reasons not to program regular departures from healthy eating into your weight loss program.

One, it can undo a lot of good in a very quick period of time.

Two, it can stir up the cravings you've tried hard to tame. (Think having just one cigarette after you quit for a week. Bye-bye, "nonsmoker.")

Three, it can lead to long-term consequences if you overdo it.

Of course, if you're one of those lucky people who truly understands the word "moderation" and can put the rest of that ice cream back in the freezer after you've had your half-cup portion, then you can disregard my warnings.

If you're not, maybe you should rethink the cheat day concept.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden.<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/10/why-i-dont-believe-in-cheat-days/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19787189/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2011/01/10/why-i-dont-believe-in-cheat-days/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>body composition</category><category>body fat</category><category>calories</category><category>cheat day</category><category>cheat days</category><category>diet</category><category>fast food</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Weight Watchers: What the Change Means</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/27/weight-watchers-what-the-change-means/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/27/weight-watchers-what-the-change-means/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/27/weight-watchers-what-the-change-means/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Getty

For years I've had a love-hate relationship with Weight Watchers.

I love the fact that it's tapped into one of the most potent strategies for behavior change on the planet: group support and accountability.

I hate the fact that its nutritional information is stuck in the dark ages.

But that is changing. Weight Watchers has finally updated its points system, its proprietary (and clever) method of counting calories without actually counting calories.

The old points system, which began in 1997, assigned points based primarily on calorie content, fat and fiber -- and therein lies the rub.

While no intelligent nutritionist would argue that calories don't matter, many would argue -- as I have -- that they are far from the whole picture. You can lose weight by keeping calories (or points) low, but basing the point system primarily on calories ignores the significant body of research showing that different foods have profoundly different effects on hormones that drive fat storage (like insulin).

And the nutritional philosophy of Weight Watchers has always fallen firmly in the camp of the low-fat crowd, with strong recommendations for low-fat or no-fat choices and avoiding saturated fat.


.relatedLinksR{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:right;margin:10px 0 10px 10px;}.relatedLinksL{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:left;margin:10px 10px 10px 0;}.relatedLinksL a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedLinksR a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedListContainer ul{list-style-type:none;padding:0 10px;white-space:normal !important;}.relatedHeader {padding:10px 10px 0;}.relatedHeader h3{font-size:18px;color:#000000;border-bottom:1px dotted #CCCCCC;padding-bottom:4px;}.relatedHeader{font-size:18px;color:#000000;}.relatedListContainer ul li {background:url("http://o.aolcdn.com/os/sphere/art/blue-icon") no-repeat scroll 0 7px transparent;margin-bottom:3px;padding-left:10px;}

	
		
			Related Stories
	
	
		
			
				Is Weight Watchers' New Points System Better?
			
				Should We Really Avoid Saturated Fat?
			
				Jennifer Hudson: the New Face of Weight Watchers
		
	

My beloved niece lost weight on this program, which, of course, I was happy about, but it pained me when she read me the "important" facts about a food, which always included how many grams of fat it contained, a piece of data I've long claimed is utterly irrelevant.

Apparently that claim is gaining some mainstream traction. The conservative chairman of the Harvard School of Public Health's nutrition department, Dr. Walter Willet, recently made this statement at the annual Food and Nutrition Conference of the American Dietetic Association: "The focus on fat in dietary guidelines has been a massive distraction ... We should remove total fat from nutrition facts panels on the back of packs."

Weight Watchers' new system allots points based on a complex algorithm that takes into account the specific mix of protein, fiber, carbs and fat in any food.

"It's a complete overhaul; it doesn't get any bigger than this," Karen Miller-Kovach, the chief scientific officer for Weight Watchers International, told The New York Times. "Fifteen years ago, we said a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you ate 100 calories of butter or 100 calories of chicken, it was all the same. Now we know that is not the case, in terms of how hard the body has to work to make that energy available. And even more important is that where that energy comes from affects feelings of hunger and fullness."

The recognition of the fact that different proportions of protein, fat, fiber and calories matter is truly a revolutionary step for Weight Watchers. So is the recognition that some macronutrients (protein) help you feel fuller.

Maybe it's too much to expect that Weight Watchers will also one day recognize that the proportion of fat in the diet is irrelevant to any major health outcome and that fat is the one macronutrient that has zero effect on the fat storage hormone insulin. But who knows? We can hope.

Weight Watchers may not represent the cutting edge of nutrition, but the new points program is definitely a step in the right direction. Kudos to WW for being willing to reevaluate and evolve.


Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden.<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/27/weight-watchers-what-the-change-means/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19747360/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/27/weight-watchers-what-the-change-means/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>calories</category><category>diet</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>Point System</category><category>pointsplus</category><category>weight loss</category><category>Weight Watchers</category><category>weight watchers diet</category><category>WeightWatchersDiet</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>7 Tips to Control Holiday Eating</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/13/7-tips-to-control-holiday-eating/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/13/7-tips-to-control-holiday-eating/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/13/7-tips-to-control-holiday-eating/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Patrick Norman, Corbis

Wonderful as they may be for everything else, when it comes to sticking to a weight loss plan, holidays can be downright deadly.

Since holiday eating comes in many forms -- family gatherings, company parties, festivities with friends, the inevitable boxes of cookies at the office water cooler -- it's hard to come up with one surefire strategy that will work for everyone in all situations.

There is, however, one strategy you can use that will invariably make a difference no matter what the particulars of the situation. And it can be summed up in one word: Rehearsal.

Most of us know what we're going up against in situations where we've previously encountered trouble. For some, it's virtually everyone in the office bringing in their aunt's special Christmas cookies. Still for others it's the stress eating associated with the mixed emotions of family reunions and juggling even more commitments than the usual overload. Even vacations can be stressful, and if they happen to involve airports at holiday time, fuggedaboutit.

Add it all up and you've got a potential disaster. You're looking at emotional and physical overload -- what that means for your waistline (let alone your sense of well-being) is not good.

Rehearsing a problem situation in your mind before it happens helps you to arm yourself with strategies, visualize yourself doing them and experience the positive results. That way you're not caught unprepared, and you can actually practice reacting to a variety of dangerous situations.

Rehearsal is what coaches do with their athletes; it's what boxing trainers do with their fighters. Studies have shown improvement in sports performance just by doing visualization exercises. Basketball players who mentally rehearse shots perform better than those who don't; pianists who spend 30 minutes mentally rehearsing a passage perform that passage almost as well as if they had actually physically practiced it.


.relatedLinksR{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:right;margin:10px 0 10px 10px;}.relatedLinksL{width:240px;border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;float:left;margin:10px 10px 10px 0;}.relatedLinksL a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedLinksR a{text-decoration:none;font-weight:normal !important;color:#004173;}.relatedListContainer ul{list-style-type:none;padding:0 10px;white-space:normal !important;}.relatedHeader {padding:10px 10px 0;}.relatedHeader h3{font-size:18px;color:#000000;border-bottom:1px dotted #CCCCCC;padding-bottom:4px;}.relatedHeader{font-size:18px;color:#000000;}.relatedListContainer ul li {background:url("http://o.aolcdn.com/os/sphere/art/blue-icon") no-repeat scroll 0 7px transparent;margin-bottom:3px;padding-left:10px;}

	
		
			Related Stories
	
	
		
			
				Dieting During the Holidays? How to Mind Your Manners
			
				Over-40 Tips to Stave Off Holiday Weight Gain
			
				7 Creative Christmas Cookie Recipes
		
	

You can do the same thing this holiday season.

Of course, to do this effectively, you have to be clear on what you want to happen. That's why I like using a tool I call the "proactive food journal." Here's how to do it.

Pick a day, visualize what it's going to be like, where you're going to be and with whom. Think about what food is likely to be available. Think about when you're likely to be hungry. What the circumstances are going to be. (Is your Aunt Tina going to be there insisting you try her special Key lime pie? Are you going to be in a restaurant known for its creme brulee and homemade breads? Are you going to be in a fast-food restaurant taking care of six kids? Is your sister who you hate going to be there watching everything you eat and sitting in silent judgment?)

Now write down what you're going to eat. Decide in advance, and decide early in the day, or the night before. Visualize the situation. If there's temptation or anxiety, close your eyes and picture it. Hear in your mind's ear what people will say. See yourself responding in a way that would make you proud of yourself, whatever that is. It might mean allowing yourself one or two bites of something "off your diet," it might mean being spartan.

The point here is not what you choose, but that you choose it.

And that you stick to it.

As Sondheim wrote, "The choice may have been mistaken. The choosing was not." The point is to put you in charge of what happens, not the circumstances.

If you can accomplish that, you have begun a journey that will not only help you manage your weight, but will empower you in all areas of your life.

Here are seven of my favorite tips on how to use visualization to help you with holiday eating:

1. Close your eyes and really picture the situation clearly.

2. Ask yourself whether what's being offered is going to be something that supports you in what you're doing or takes you off course.

3. Decide what you wish to allow yourself to indulge in, if anything, and when you decide to do it, indulge in it with gusto.

4. Make the choice and take the action.

5. Don't arrive hungry. A cup of soup or vegetable juice before arriving at a big event will help keep you in charge of your own actions.

6. Remember that stress leads to stress eating. Stress management is a critical part of managing weight gain during the holiday season!

7. If you do indulge, for goodness sake enjoy it!


Have a wonderful and healthy holiday season, and I'll see you next year!

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden.

(Don't forget: January is the perfect time to create a new you. My annual Diet Boot Camp Challenge starts January 11th.)<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/13/7-tips-to-control-holiday-eating/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19752958/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/12/13/7-tips-to-control-holiday-eating/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>holiday eating</category><category>holiday weight gain</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>overeating</category><category>visualization</category><category>weight gain</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Lessons From the Twinkie Diet</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/29/lessons-from-the-twinkie-diet/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/29/lessons-from-the-twinkie-diet/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/29/lessons-from-the-twinkie-diet/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Samaruddin Stewart, AOL

I guess it would be irresponsible not to make a comment on a recent news story that has everyone buzzing: The Twinkie Diet.

If you've had your TV off in the past few weeks, here's what happened: An overweight professor of nutrition at Kansas State University went on a junk food diet for two months and lost 27 pounds.

His diet consisted of mostly Twinkies, with a smattering of Little Debbies, Doritos, sugary cereals, Oreo cookies. So as not to set too bad an example in front of his kids, he also ate a small amount of canned vegetables at family dinners and a daily protein shake.

The fact that he lost weight isn't really the part that's puzzling. You can lose weight on any low-calorie diet, and you can also lose weight mainstreaming methamphetamine.

What's surprising is that some of the things your doctor measures and that are considered indicators of good health -- i.e. cholesterol and triglycerides-also improved. His "bad" cholesterol dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol" went up by the same amount.

(And no, let's not have the cholesterol discussion right now.)

So basically, what the guy proved is that you can lose weight eating a diet that consists mainly of sugar, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (trans-fats), more artificial flavoring and coloring than I can list here, and the other 37 ingredients that make up a Twinkie. Plus whatever is in Dorritos and Little Debbies.

The take home point -- at least according to this professor -- is that the most important thing in weight loss is calories.

Well, maybe. (Though a fair amount of compelling evidence exists to show that calories are not the whole picture, even when it comes to weight. But I digress.)

By the way, this isn't the first time that someone went on one of these cockamamie experiments. A few years ago a very interesting fellow I know named Chazz Weaver went on an all-McDonald's all-the-time diet as his way of rebutting the conclusions of the popular film, "Super Size Me."

And it's true, after 30 days, Chazz looked great. But Chazz is a committed bodybuilder who put in about 2 hours a day of incredibly hard training. I'm not sure his being able to look great after eating 30 days of crap really proves much, but you be the judge: he made a film about the experiment called "DownSize Me.")

The point is that you can lose weight (or stay slim) on Twinkies, McDonald's or, like many models in the 90's did, on cocaine, aspirin, coffee and one stalk of asparagus. So what?

When are we going to realize that losing weight isn't the only way we should measure the success of these idiotic diets?

The puzzling part about the Twinkie Diet experiment is that the good professor saw his cholesterol numbers (and triglyceride numbers) change for the better. Putting aside my view that cholesterol is a much-overrated measurement that tells us very little, the fact is that weight loss -- no matter how you do it -- always improves those numbers.

But health is not measured simply by cholesterol numbers or even triglyceride numbers and certainly isn't measured by the number of pounds you lose. (Ask anyone who was in the concentration camps.)

If there's any take-home point to this silly story at all, it's probably to emphasize the fact that calories do count (though they are not the whole story, as the "Twinkie Diet" professor and other mainstream nutritionists would have us believe).

That doesn't mean I want to spend those calories exclusively on Ho Hos.

Long-range health and vitality can't be measured by what your cholesterol numbers did over the course of 30 days. Or by the fact that you are thin (are you listening, Kate Moss?)

In fact, the whole "Twinkie Diet" episode brings to mind one of my favorite old sayings:

"If you run through a dynamite factory with a lighted match and manage to get out the other side, that doesn't mean you're not an idiot."

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on twitter at twitter.com/jonnybowden.
 

 More From Jonny Bowden:
A Weight Loss Program That Really Works
The Power of Don't
Winning the Weight Game

	 <p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/29/lessons-from-the-twinkie-diet/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19716277/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/29/lessons-from-the-twinkie-diet/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>cholesterol</category><category>health</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>Twinkie Diet</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>One Word Makes Weight Loss Easier</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/15/the-power-of-dont/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/15/the-power-of-dont/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/15/the-power-of-dont/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

	
		Corbis

One of the reasons people have so much trouble with restrictive diets is that they're all about what not to eat.

I wonder if we could do better.

A recent experience on the tennis court got me thinking about this. As many readers of this column know, I struggle daily to improve my tennis game. Recently, I began working with master tennis coach Jerry White, head pro at the LA Fitness Tennis Club. Each time I'd miss a ball, or hit a crummy serve, or screw up what ought to be a simple put-away, I'd tell Jerry all the things I thought I was doing wrong. "I didn't follow through," I would say. "I hit the ball too late; I didn't get my racket back in time; my feet were in the wrong position."

Jerry said: "Stop thinking about all the things you shouldn't do. Let's concentrate on the things to do instead."

So instead of filling my already cluttered brain with "don'ts," I started thinking about positive things, like hitting the ball in the center of the racket, or tossing the ball higher.

Bingo.

Which got me thinking about the power of "don't."

When we fill our brains with a bunch of negative thoughts about food -- "Don't eat carbs; don't eat fat; don't eat late at night" -- we put a lot of mind energy into what not to do instead of concentrating on what positive things we can do to manage our diet and weight. What if we started from the premise of a list of "do's" instead of spending all that energy on a list of "don'ts"?

For example: Eat berries and nuts. Drink a lot of water. Eat protein at every meal.

Doesn't that have a different psychic "feel" to it than "Must not eat bagels!!"?

Concentrating on what to do instead of what not to do may seem like a small difference, but it's actually huge. The brain, and the subconscious mind, work in mysterious ways. Brain scans of a person thinking about an orange look the same as brain scans of a person who is actually looking at an orange, demonstrating that what at least at some level, the brain can't tell the difference between what's physically there and what you're imagining.

If you put mental energy into not doing an action (like eating fast food), you are actually giving that action psychic currency and power, putting a lot of attention and focus on the very thing you're trying to stop doing. When you concentrate on an object -- like a food -- the brain isn't all that great at figuring out, "Hey, he really means he doesn't want to eat this food." It just thinks about the food. That's the power of "don't." You wind up doing exactly the thing you're trying not to do.

When we diet we spend a lot of time thinking about what we shouldn't do; I wonder if it might be way more productive to think about the things we should.

For example, what if this week you made a list of foods you know support a healthy weight and simply concentrated on eating them as much as possible? Even if you did nothing else, you'd be making healthier choices at least part of the time.

Personally, I find it a lot easier, and ultimately more productive, to think "I will eat some berries" than to put mental energy and focus on a thought like "I won't eat a pint of Cherry Garcia."

So why not trick your brain by thinking about the foods you want to include in your diet instead of the ones you don't?

That's the power of "do."

And it's just as powerful- if not more so-than the power of "don't."

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more or follow him on twitter at
twitter.com/jonnybowden.
 

 More From Jonny Bowden:
A Weight Loss Program That Really Works
Use the Scale Wisely
Winning the Weight Game<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/15/the-power-of-dont/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19705930/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/15/the-power-of-dont/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>brain</category><category>diet</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>personal power</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>A Weight Loss Program that Really Works</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/01/a-weight-loss-program-that-really-works/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/01/a-weight-loss-program-that-really-works/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/01/a-weight-loss-program-that-really-works/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

Getty

Interested in a program that will help you get your weight under control?

How about one that will do even more? Like, for example, change your whole relationship with food? Or help you to understand why you use food to deal with stress? 

But wait -- there's more!

Suppose I told you that the program I'm talking about was absolutely free. And that you didn't have to follow any special "diet" (though you could if you wanted to). And that there was nothing to buy, no special foods or products, no supplements, no expensive detoxes, not even a membership fee. 

In fact the only thing you need to do for the program to work is show up.

Well, there is such a program, and in my opinion, it's vastly underused. Amidst the vast array of splashy infomercials and celebrity diets, it is often overlooked as an option by the many people who could use it most: people like you, trapped in a perpetual struggle with weight, going from diet to diet, frustrated beyond words at their inability to keep weight off and angry at themselves for being lifetime members of the yo-yo club.

The program? Overeaters Annonymous.

Forget everything you think you know about OA. It's not just for people who are obese. (Many OA members are of normal weight, or even what you might consider enviably thin.) It's also not a religious society -- you don't even have to believe in God to benefit from it, though you do have to trust in something greater than yourself (be it the group or your own inner "higher voice"). You don't even have to give up everything you love to eat (though your ability to be in charge of your own eating may shift significantly).

"OA members have learned how to eat to live rather than live to eat", said OA's managing director Naomi Lippel. "They come to OA to address the issues that are driving them to eat."

They also come because nothing else has worked. "Generally people who come to OA have done the yo-yo diet merry-go-round for many, many years", Lippel said. "We wind up being the last stop."

The thing of it is, OA works. And it works not by "telling" you what to eat (or not to eat) but by addressing -- in a supportive, group atmosphere, with people who share the same struggle -- the very issues that drive your unhealthy relationship with food. It addresses the addictive quality of eating and does so in a gentle, understanding and spiritually nourishing way.

Years ago, in the 1970s, OA actually had a food plan which was printed on gray paper and later became known as the "Grey Sheet." That was discontinued in the mid '80s because OA felt that it was not appropriate to dictate what people should eat. Instead, the group's mission is rather to help you understand your relationship with food. According to OA's Third Tradition, "the only requirement for OA membership is a desire to stop eating compulsively." Nothing else is asked or demanded, and that includes having to follow a special diet.

Nonetheless the Grey Sheet remains. Interestingly, it was a very low-carb diet and it worked quite well. A splinter group, GreySheeters Annonymous, continues to use principles similar to those of OA but in conjunction with the specific Grey Sheet food plan. And OA has itself begun to offer various food plans for those who want it.

But that's not really the point.

The point is that OA isn't just about weight loss, though that's definitely a side effect of the program. The real mission of OA is to offer physical, emotional and spiritual recovery for those who suffer from compulsive eating.

If you've tried everything else, this might be a good time to give OA a shot.

As its current press release puts it: "For individuals struggling with various food addictions, especially during the holidays, Overeaters Anonymous can provide much-needed support and a path to recovery."

There's no "diet" in the world that can offer that.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.


More From Jonny Bowden:
Do DNA Diets Work?
Use the Scale Wisely
Winning the Weight Game<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/01/a-weight-loss-program-that-really-works/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19694264/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/11/01/a-weight-loss-program-that-really-works/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>addiction</category><category>diet</category><category>food addiction</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>jonnys-take</category><category>OA</category><category>Overeaters Annonymous</category><category>weight loss</category><category>weight-loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>The Scale: Don't Give It Too Much Power</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/18/the-bathroom-scale-dont-give-it-too-much-power/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/18/the-bathroom-scale-dont-give-it-too-much-power/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/18/the-bathroom-scale-dont-give-it-too-much-power/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

Getty

One thing I've noticed in 20 years of weight loss coaching and personal training is how afraid many people are of a simple bathroom appliance.

Yes, the ordinary scale strikes terror in the hearts of more than a few weight loss journeyers. And I understand why. Many folks have allowed themselves to be terrorized by the numbers. Those who have battled eating disorders are especially sensitive to how easy it is to become obsessive about their weight and how easily the scale fits right into that scenario. And many folks just don't want to know what the scale says, preferring to go by "how I feel" or "how my clothes fit."

Let me tell you why that's not such a great idea. And I can best illustrate it by telling you what happened recently in my neighborhood.

Where I live in Southern California, there's a road called Canoga Avenue, which I have to travel every day to get to my house. It's a residential street, and the speed limit is 30 mph.

I was pretty sure I kept within the speed limit until they installed an electronic speed meter.

Now whenever I drive on Canoga Avenue past the speed meter, there's a big digital readout telling me how fast I'm actually going. And it's been a revelation, at least to me. I approach that speed meter pretty sure I'm doing 30 or less, but the numbers don't lie -- the readout says 39. I slow down and watch the numbers drop till I actually see the number 30. (I'm always surprised by how slow 30 mph actually is!)

The local police tell me that accidents have dropped considerably since the electronic meter was installed. So have traffic tickets in the area.

Well, that electronic readout is a perfect analogy for the bathroom scale.

Our "feelings" about whether we've gained or lost weight are as notoriously fickle (and inaccurate), as is my "guesstimate" about my speed. The mood we're in, whether we're optimistic or pessimistic that day, all color how we feel about our body. The fit of our clothes is an equally unreliable measure (eat some Chinese takeout with a lot of sodium, and your jeans will be tight the next day).

So why does the scale, which is no more than an objective reality check, strike terror in so many hearts?

Simple. Because we give it too much power.

It's just a plain, stupid digital readout. It's there to help you. Like an air traffic controller, it gives you valuable info about your course, so, if necessary, you can make course corrections. 

If you look at it as nothing more than a simple reality check, it won't terrorize you so much. Try glancing at the number of pounds on the digital readout and saying, "So what?"

After all, the number on that readout is not a judgment on who you are or your personal worth. It's simply a way of knowing if you're moving in the right direction.

I use the scale every single day. Sometimes I like what it tells me. Sometimes I don't. But I don't give it any more power than it deserves. 

It helps me know if I'm on track. It gives me feedback. It never tells me who I am. Just what I weigh that day.

If you approach it that way, you may find that the scale no longer holds power over you. You might even find it's a useful tool.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.


More Stories on That's Fit:
How Often Should I Weigh Myself?
The Best Bathroom Scales
Easy Diet Fixes to Reduce Fat<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/18/the-bathroom-scale-dont-give-it-too-much-power/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19675570/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/18/the-bathroom-scale-dont-give-it-too-much-power/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>bathroom scale</category><category>digital scale</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>losing weight</category><category>scale</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Can Cinnamon Help Manage Blood Sugar?</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/04/can-cinnamon-help-manage-blood-sugar/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/04/can-cinnamon-help-manage-blood-sugar/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/04/can-cinnamon-help-manage-blood-sugar/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

Getty

A new study by Richard Anderson at the U.S. Department of Agriculture has found that cinnamon may help reduce risk factors that are associated with both heart disease and diabetes.

For this study, 22 obese subjects were recruited, all of whom had what's called "impaired blood glucose values," which means their blood sugar wasn't well controlled and they were at a higher risk for diabetes.

When blood sugar levels are too high, the body produces an abundance of insulin, also known as the "fat-storage hormone" or "the hunger hormone." The cells become resistant to this excess insulin, basically ignoring it while it "knocks" on the cell doors so it can get in to dump that extra sugar. You wind up with high blood sugar and high insulin, a condition known as insulin resistance.

While it's possible to have this kind of condition and not be overweight, it's pretty rare. According to the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse, most people with insulin resistance develop full-blown Type 2 diabetes within 10 years unless they lose 5 to 7 percent of their body weight. People with this condition are also much more at risk for developing cardiovascular disease.

In the present study, the volunteers were randomly divided into two groups. One group got a placebo while the other got 250 mg of water-soluble cinnamon extract, which they took twice a day in addition to their usual diet. The researchers collected blood after an overnight fast right at the beginning of the study, then again after six weeks and another time after 12 weeks. 

They were looking for changes in either blood glucose (sugar), antioxidant levels or both.

The results? Those who took the cinnamon extract improved their antioxidant levels by between 13 and 23 percent. 

That part's not surprising, as cinnamon contains a number of antioxidants. The surprising finding of the study was that this improvement in antioxidant status was accompanied by improvements in fasting blood sugar.

Earlier studies -- also by Anderson and his team -- showed that cinnamon was effective in reducing not only blood sugar but also triglycerides and total cholesterol in people with Type 2 diabetes. While weight loss is the most effective means to reduce your risk for diabetes, this small study suggests that adding cinnamon to your favorite healthy dishes could be much more than just a flavor boost. 

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.
<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/04/can-cinnamon-help-manage-blood-sugar/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19606891/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/10/04/can-cinnamon-help-manage-blood-sugar/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>blood glucose</category><category>blood sugar</category><category>cinnamon</category><category>Diabetes</category><category>insulin</category><category>insulin resistance</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>prediabetes</category><category>Type ll Diabetes</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Low-Carb Diets: Digging Through the Myths</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/27/low-carb-digging-through-the-myths-part-2/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/27/low-carb-digging-through-the-myths-part-2/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/27/low-carb-digging-through-the-myths-part-2/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

Getty

Last week, I delved into a study about low-carb diets and mortality, which concluded that animal-based low-carb diets were associated with greater rates of death over time than vegetable-based low-carb diets. 

In the intervening week, I've spoken with Teresa Fung, the lead author of the study, and I've also had a chance to read some of the scathing reviews of the study posted on the blogosphere. 

Because there have been some very careful and detailed discussions of the actual data elsewhere (see links below), I'm going to summarize some of the most important points here and suggest that you read the articles referenced below if you want a more detailed analysis.

1) This was an observational study, not an experiment. The researchers examined food questionnaires that had been collected over the course of a couple of decades and then put people into categories (low-carb/animal sources, low-carb/vegetable sources, high-carb) depending on what their food questionnaires showed they were eating.

2) The researchers ranked the subjects according to the percentage of calories the subjects were getting from protein, fat and carbohydrate. Those who consumed the least amount of carbs were put in the low-carb group and further divided into 10 subgroups, with the low-carbers who ate the highest amount of carbs in the highest group and those who ate the lowest amount of carbs in the 10th group.

3) Those who were considered to have a low-carb diet consumed between 35 percent carbs (the 10th decile) to 60 percent carbs. Many critics have correctly pointed out that this range can hardly be considered a true "low-carb" diet. Barry Sears, whose program is around 40 percent carbs (right near the bottom end of the carb consumption in this study) has frequently pointed out that his diet is not low carb. So it's hard to see how a diet of 35 percent carbs qualifies as low carb, let alone a diet of 60 percent carbs.

There's something else, and it's important. This study -- and many others like it -- talk about protein, carbs and fat in terms of percentage of total calories. This is a common shorthand for characterizing diets, but it's not always adequate.

Let's say you're spending 30 percent of your budget on entertainment. That might sound like a lot, but what if your whole budget is 10 bucks? Then the total amount of entertainment money is $3, not enough to get into a movie even at senior rates during the afternoon. This "total" amount is hidden in the data if you just look at percentages. 

Apply this to protein, fat and carbs: If you're eating 1,500 calories a day and 20 percent comes from protein, you're eating only 75 grams of protein, hardly an "excessive" amount for most people. If you're eating 3,000 calories, that same 20 percent adds up to 150 grams of protein. And if you're a bodybuilder eating 5,000 calories, 20 percent of which come from protein, you're consuming a whopping 250 grams of protein. All programs have the same percentage of protein, but they are hardly identical.

In this study, calories reported overall for the low-carb eaters ranged from 1,641 to 2,034. (I don't know about you, but based on what I know about how people eat and what we all know about the obesity epidemic, these numbers sound awfully low. But let's go with it.) The men who reported eating the least amount of carbs reported eating an average of just 1,881 calories (!) and had an average BMI of 26.5 -- only slightly overweight. 

These same men reported eating about 18 percent of their calories from animal protein. That means they were consuming 84 grams of animal protein a day. It's very hard to see how that constitutes a diet high in animal protein. So if these folks had a higher risk of dying, blaming it on animal protein seems like quite a stretch to me.

And speaking of animal protein, here are a few points that Fung herself made to me when we discussed the study:


    Animal and fish sources were lumped together in this study. I think that's interesting because no one -- let alone the researchers -- jumped to the conclusion that a high fish diet would increase mortality, even though fish was put in the "animal" category.
    No distinction was made for how the "animal" products were prepared. Seven servings a week of fried fish "nuggets" and some charbroiled steaks with few vegetables and fruits would certainly put someone in one of the higher deciles of low-carb, but is it the "low-carbiness" of the diet that is a problem or the fact that they're eating fried food and barbecue? "It's known that when meat is cooked in high heat and the protein is burned, it creates carcinogenic (cancerous) compounds," said Fung.
    Finally, no distinction was made between factory-farmed meat and grass-fed organic meat. People eating grass-fed burgers are lumped together in the "animal" category with people eating high-sodium bologna; blackened steaks from factory-farmed, hormone-laced cows; and fried fish. It doesn't pass the "smell" test that all these foods have the same health impact.


Much has been made of the fact that the people put in the low-carb/animal group were considerably unhealthier -- they smoked more and tended to be more overweight. Researchers try to "correct" for the influence of these variables statistically, but the corrections are usually imperfect. 

When people are smoking and overweight, they tend to do other unhealthy things that the researchers might miss when "correcting" for the known variables like smoking. Perhaps these folks sleep less, get less sun, have more stress or take more meds (prescription and otherwise). We just don't know. 

On this subject, Denise Minger, a blogger who was one of the most vocal critics of the study, had this to conclude:

"Both [groups] ate sucky diets, but the latter had slightly less suckage. You can bet the farm that neither was anything close to low carb. And if you have two farms, you can bet the other one that neither diet group was anything near plant based, so I'm not sure the vegan crowd has much to gloat about here."

As for me, I'm sticking with a controlled carb diet of around 100 to 120 grams a day of carbs mostly from vegetables, fruits, and the occasional oatmeal or slice of Ezekiel bread. I get my protein from grass-fed meat only, plus wild salmon and tuna, free-range chicken, whole eggs, and whey protein. 

As for fat? As long as it's not trans fat, I worry about it not one whit.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.

 Find out more about grass-fed versus corn-fed meat and what it means for your health.<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/27/low-carb-digging-through-the-myths-part-2/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19639724/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/27/low-carb-digging-through-the-myths-part-2/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>Dean ornish</category><category>high-protein</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>low carb</category><category>low carb diet and mortality</category><category>low-carb diets</category><category>mortality</category><category>weight loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Low-Carb and Mortality: Digging Through the Myths (Part 1)</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/20/low-carb-and-mortality-digging-through-the-myths-part-1/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/20/low-carb-and-mortality-digging-through-the-myths-part-1/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/20/low-carb-and-mortality-digging-through-the-myths-part-1/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

Getty

 
Some recent headlines about a new study on low-carb diets include "Low-Carb Diet Has High Risks," "New Study Shows Low-Carb Diets Increase Mortality," and -- the most odious example -- "Atkins Diet Increases All-Cause Mortality," by Dr. Dean Ornish on Huffington Post.

Now let's get to the research -- and to the disgraceful reporting on it by some in the mainstream media.

The study in question, "Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality," was published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine ("all-cause mortality" means death from anything at all, from cancer to a car accident; "cause-specific mortality" refers to death that can be traced to a specific illness or event, like cancer or a heart attack). 

It was not an actual clinical experiment, but rather a statistical analysis of data that's been generated by the Nurses Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, two very long-term studies of diets that have been going on for 30 years and have involved close to 200,000 participants.

For this particular investigation, the researchers looked at about 45,000 men and 85,000 women whose histories were followed from the 1980s through 2006. Their diets were assessed through food questionnaires and rated by the researchers as being either high or low-carbohydrate.

The researchers broke down the low-carbohydrate eaters into two subgroups: those who got most of their protein and fat from vegetable sources and those who got most of their protein and fat from animal sources. 

Next, the researchers looked at how many people had died over the course of the 20-some years that data was collected, a number that turned out to be roughly 21,000 of the 125,000 people in the study. They then looked to see if there was any relationship between low-carb eating and an increased risk of dying.

The "animal" low-carb group had a slightly higher risk of dying; the "vegetable" low-carb group had a slightly smaller risk of dying.

Now, I don't want to completely trash food questionnaires because they are a very useful tool for dietary research. But if you think about it even for a minute, you'll see exactly what some of the problems are, aside from faulty memory. I don't know about you, but I can barely remember what I had for breakfast yesterday.

For example: In one person's mind, "two vegetable servings" may consist of the sliver of lettuce and tomato on a Big Mac. Meanwhile, another person may count large portions of steamed broccoli and cauliflower as his "two vegetable servings." The questionnaire does not distinguish between these people or between people eating high-nitrate, high-sodium bologna and people eating a grass-fed, antibiotic-free burger. 

And if you think this is a small point, think again. A recent study from Harvard actually divided "meat eaters" into two groups. They found that people eating processed meat did indeed have a higher risk of heart disease, but people eating unprocessed meat had zero increased risk. The type of meat you eat, as well as the type of vegetables, makes a profound difference.

It's also interesting to note that the animal low-carb group were more likely to be overweight or smokers and had lower intakes of fruits and vegetables. Of course, these things are "corrected" in the statistical analysis, but it gives you a good sense of the kind of lifestyle people in the animal-based diet group were more likely to have.

Now consider the intellectually dishonest example of spinning this study for the sake of advancing a low-fat agenda: the article by Ornish in the Huffington Post.

Let's start with the headline: "Atkins Diet Increases All-Cause Mortality." The first thing you should know is that nowhere in the entire study -- and I read every word -- is the name "Atkins" mentioned (except when the researchers reference a study done earlier this year that was dubbed the "Eco-Atkins" study). No one was put on an Atkins diet. In fact, as I explained above, no one was put on any diet. 

The researchers themselves specifically caution against making a statement like Ornish did, but apparently Ornish missed that part of the article. "The low-carbohydrate diet scores were not designed to mimic any particular versions of low-carbohydrate diets available in the popular literature," the study authors wrote. "Therefore, the risk estimates do not directly translate to the assessment of benefit or risk associated with the popular versions of the diet."

I'll have a lot more to say about this study after I speak to Teresa Fung, a nutritionist at Simmons College in Boston and lead author of the study. For now, let's just say that this is a perfect "teaching moment," in which we can really explore what research says and doesn't say and how individual agendas (such as Ornish's) and misinformed reporters can completely slant the facts so that what you hear is very different from what actually happened.

Stay tuned!

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/20/low-carb-and-mortality-digging-through-the-myths-part-1/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19632141/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/20/low-carb-and-mortality-digging-through-the-myths-part-1/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>Atkins</category><category>Atkins Diet</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>low carb</category><category>low-carb</category><category>low-carb diets</category><category>mortality</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>DNA Diets: Do They Work? (Part 2)</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/13/dna-diet-do-they-work-part-2/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/13/dna-diet-do-they-work-part-2/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/13/dna-diet-do-they-work-part-2/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

jupiterimages


Last week I told you about Dr. Mehmet Oz's new "diet breakthrough." The idea -- which didn't originate with Oz but is an idea he is apparently excited about -- is that genetic testing can help us determine the right diet for the right person.

According to this theory, genetic testing can help predict which people will respond best to a low-fat diet, a low-carb diet or a diet somewhere in between.

The "DNA diet" that Oz is talking about got a bit of a boost in credibility because of a study done a couple of years ago called "The A-Z Diet Study," in which researchers at Stanford University pitted Atkins, Zone, Ornish and the high-carb LEARN diet against each other.

(There is a great video presentation on the study here. It's an hour long but riveting -- well worth the time. I assign it as required viewing in my course on Weight Loss Coaching.)

But buried in the overall data from that study was some interesting information -- within each group some people did really well, much better than the "averages." In a follow-up, researchers administered genetic tests to the participants after the study was over. They then went back and looked at whether there was a relationship between their weight loss success, the diet they were assigned to and their genes. (Admittedly, the researchers were from the company that sells these tests, Interleukin Genetics.)

Christopher Gardner, lead researcher of the original A-Z diet study and an associate professor of medicine at Stanford, has said that there were subgroups in the study that did particularly well, outperforming the average for their diet group. (For example, those with insulin resistance did much better on low-carb plans and much worse on the low-fat plans, which is hardly surprising.)
According to the press release from Stanford University and Interleukin Genetics, those on "genotype-appropriate diets" lost 5.3 percent of body weight compared to individuals on diets not appropriate to their genotype who lost only 2.3 percent of body weight.

"The differentiation in weight loss observed for individuals who followed a diet matched to their genotype versus one that was not matched to their genotype is highly significant in numerous categories and represents an approach to weight loss that has not been previously reported in the literature," Gardner said in a statement.

So does this mean you should run out and get your DNA tested?

Not necessarily. As mentioned, there's a lot of criticism about gene testing revolving around how woefully incomplete it is. And you may be able to get just as valuable information by taking a simple "nutritional typing" test such as the one by Glen Depke that I reproduced in "The 150 Most Effective Ways to Boost Your Energy."

But the take-home point is one I've been saying for a decade: Everybody's different. If one diet doesn't work for you -- and you've given it a true and honest try -- try something else.

Remember, the best weight loss diet is the one you actually follow and the one you feel best on, no matter what the books say. The plan you can actually live with and that works for you.

You may not need DNA testing to figure that out -- just some good, honest experimentation and self-awareness.

That's a piece of information you can take to the bank.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.
For more cutting edge info on weight loss, diet, and health please visit Dr. Jonny Bowden.
 
<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/13/dna-diet-do-they-work-part-2/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19588827/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/13/dna-diet-do-they-work-part-2/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>A-Z diet study</category><category>DNA diet</category><category>Dr. Oz</category><category>genetic testing</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>weight loss</category><category>weight-loss</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>DNA Diets: Do They Work? (Part I)</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/06/dna-diets-do-they-work-part-i/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/06/dna-diets-do-they-work-part-i/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/06/dna-diets-do-they-work-part-i/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

jupiterimages


OK, I admit it. I'm not a big fan of getting nutrition information from popular magazines. But I am a fan of Dr. Mehmet Oz -- with whom I once spent an hour being interviewed on his "Oprah and Friends" radio show. Which is why a recent magazine headline -- "Dr. Oz's Diet Breakthrough!" -- caught my attention in the supermarket checkout line.

(Note: The magazine article, from Woman's World, isn't available online, but here's an excellent summary.)

Oz said that when you match your diet to your DNA, you get better results. He's probably right. But, as readers of this column know, God is in the details.

The overarching principle -- that people are different metabolically, hormonally and genetically -- is, of course, 100 percent correct, and it certainly stands to reason that individual differences account for a big part of why some people (but not all) thrive on Atkins, some people (but not all) do OK as vegetarians, and even others find Snooki and Justin Bieber endlessly fascinating.

But teasing out exactly what those differences are -- and how to measure them -- has proved very difficult. Bill Wolcott tried it with Metabolic Typing, just as his predecessor William Kelly and the late Harold Kristol did. D'Amato tried it with blood typing. Mercola recently tried it with a system called Nutritional Typing, designed by my colleague Glen Depke. 

None of these systems are perfect, but all are attempts to find information that will let us match the "right" diet to the "right" person. Enter genetic testing.

A bunch of companies have recently sprung up offering relatively inexpensive DNA testing, the purpose of which is to help you find the diet that's right for you based on your genes. Sounds like a good idea, right?

Well, maybe. The big critique here is that these companies test for a handful of genes. You have about 30,000. Who's to say that the particular genes these companies test will tell you anything you couldn't figure out by filling out a good questionnaire?

The jury is far from out on genetic testing for diet. Next week I'll tell you about a very interesting study in which the principles of genetic testing were applied to some real-life data -- the results were interesting to say the least!

Stay tuned!

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach,  cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you  transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.
<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/06/dna-diets-do-they-work-part-i/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19588456/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/09/06/dna-diets-do-they-work-part-i/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>diet breakthrough</category><category>DNA diet</category><category>Dr. Oz</category><category>genetic testing</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>weight loss</category><category>weight-loss diets</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>The 12 Most Dangerous Supplements</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/30/the-12-most-dangerous-supplements/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/30/the-12-most-dangerous-supplements/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/30/the-12-most-dangerous-supplements/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

Getty Images

The September issue of Consumer Reports has a cover story titled "The 12 Most Dangerous Supplements." It deserves a comment or two, first about Consumer Reports in general and second about the specifics of the article.

No one I know who is an expert in a particular field takes Consumer Reports' recommendations in his field seriously. For example, car aficionados scoff at the publication's car ratings, and stereo afficiandos find the publication's recommendations for home stereo equipment laughable. When Consumer Reports talks about vitamins and nutrition, I roll my eyes, but I do turn to it for information on things I know nothing about, like buying a good washing machine.

The current cover on "dangerous" supplements may sell magazines. The issue even contains some reasonable information, but it may also send the message that supplements are dangerous. The text of the article certainly supports Consumer Reports' general belief that supplements are pretty much a waste of time.

So I was surprised to find that there was nothing on the list of supplements to avoid that I really disagree with. The tone and message of the overall article, however, is a different kettle of fish.

First the supplements themselves. The twelve supplements that Consumer Reports warns against are:

Aconite
Bitter orange (this is the ingredient a lot of manufacturers use instead of ephedra)
Chaparral
Colloidal silver
Coltsfoot
Comfrey
Country mallow
Germanium
Greater celandine
Kava
Lobella
Yohimbe

Contrary to the impression left by the cover, there's not a single vitamin or mineral in the bunch (unless you consider colloidal silver a mineral). And contrary to my own expectations, I can't find anything on this list to disagree with (with the possible exception of yohimbe). Of course, a master herbalist who really knows his stuff and is treating a specific patient with a specific herb on this list for a specific purpose is a different story, but by and large, I think the editors are right: These are all products you don't need to be taking.

I was also pleasantly surprised by the accompanying list, "Eleven Supplements to Consider," which I also found no fault with. These include:

Calcium
Cranberry
Fish oil
Glucosamine sulfate
Lactase (an enzyme that helps digest milk)
Lactobacillus (probiotics)
Psyllium (fiber)
Pygeum
SAMe
St. John's wort
Vitamin D

The same issue of Consumer Reports contains an article on multivitamins ("most that we tested were fine"), which contains a bit more troubling information in the form of some not-so-subtle propaganda (as in, "you can get all the nutrition you need from food").

For one thing, CR emphasizes concerns that some of the vitamins tested contained either more or less of an ingredient than was listed on the label. The publication highlighted one case in which a guy got really sick from such a product (it contained two hundred times the amount of selenium on the label!), making it seem that the whole mislabeling issue is a much more common occurrence than it really is.

It also reiterated the tired old party line about not exceeding the "recommended daily value" for nutrients, although not a single nutritionist I know thinks the "recommended doses" are worth the government paper they're printed on. (One exception: Even Consumer Reports agrees that the ridiculous recommendation of 400 IUs daily for vitamin D isn't enough.)

It's worth pointing out that the brands tested are all big-box store brands (Centrum, One-a-Day, Costco, Wal-Mart, Flintstones and the like). One reason I continue to support the companies and formulations you find on my website -- and why I encourage you to purchase "Doctor's Brands" that are generally available only through health professions -- is that these brands are almost never among those found to be wanting in tests like the ones done by Consumer Reports or even the very responsible Consumer Labs.
 
These "professional" brands (like Designs for Health, Crayhon Research, Vital Nutrients, Pure Encapsulations and even the consumer brand Barlean's Organic Oils) are made by much smaller companies with enormous quality control, in much smaller batches, with much more expensive ingredients (magnesium citrate or magnesium glycinate as opposed to magnesium oxide, just to mention one example), and contain doses of nutrients that tend to be clinically meaningful.

I meet the owners and scientific advisors to these companies regularly at conventions and conferences. I talk with them, I hear their passion, I look at their assays (lab tests for impurities and heavy metals) and I can -- and do -- recommend them with confidence.

Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach, cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. Visit his website to learn more.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/30/the-12-most-dangerous-supplements/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19588412/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/30/the-12-most-dangerous-supplements/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>consumer reports</category><category>dangerous vitamins</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>jonnys-take</category><category>supplements</category><category>vitamins</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:00:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title>Is Vitamin D Toxic?</title><link>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/23/is-vitamin-d-toxic/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/23/is-vitamin-d-toxic/</guid><comments>http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/23/is-vitamin-d-toxic/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[

Getty

Given my very bullish recommendation on vitamin D supplementation, it's not surprising that more than a few people have asked me if taking too much vitamin D can be toxic.

The answer is yes. (And please don't stop reading here.) The question became a lot more than theoretical when a case involving well-known health guru Gary Null came to light recently. 

Null reportedly became very, very sick from taking too much vitamin D. This case was even weirder because the source of vitamin D was his own product, Ultimate Power Meal.


Ultimate Power Meal was labeled as containing 2,000 IUs of vitamin D, an amount I personally recommend as the minimum adults should supplement with (but that's just my opinion). Unfortunately, his supplier and formulators made a bit of a mistake and left off a few zeros: Ultimate Power Meal actually contained 2,000,000 -- that's 2 million -- IUs per serving, not 2,000. 

That means in a month, he consumed 60 million IUs (Null consumed and 100 times the amount someone popping a 2,000 IU pill on a daily basis would consume). Null reportedly fully recovered within three months of stopping the defective supplement. Nonetheless, the question remains: Can vitamin D be toxic? 

And the answer is of course, just like water and oxygen and omega-3's can be toxic. But the number of cases in which that happens are about as common as an appearance by Bill Clinton at a fundraiser for Sarah Palin. 
 
The Vitamin D Council did a little digging and found studies going back to the '30s in which patients were treated with 200,000 IUs a day for arthritis at the University of Illinois School of Medicine.

While the vast majority of patients improved substantially, about 10 percent got sick. The doctors in charge simply took the patients off that dose and told them to drink lots of fluids, and ultimately all recovered quite nicely. Other studies going way back show administration of what we would consider insane amounts (ranging from 150,000 IUs to 300,000 IUs a day for extended periods). 

Most showed no ill effects over a short course of treatment (remember, Null took 200,000 IUs daily for more than three months). Now listen carefully. I am not -- I repeat -- not in a million years recommending any dose like that or anything even near it. But I think it's really important to look beneath the inevitable headlines and sound bites about the Null case ("vitamin D is toxic," "health guru Gary Null made terribly ill by vitamin D," etc.) and realize that we are talking about thousands of times the dose I and other health professionals recommend. 

If you are concerned about your level of vitamin D, a blood test is readily available. It's called a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D test, and the majority of people in this country come up low. By even the most outdated and conservative standards, less than 37.5 is generally considered inadequate, although many experts consider the low end to be 75. Consistent levels of greater than 500 are considered toxic, with symptoms including nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness and weight loss. 


Very few foods in nature have a lot of vitamin D, and our national sun phobia hasn't helped the situation. However, a fair-skinned person can produce a daily dose of vitamin D in just 10 to 15 minutes in the sun without sunscreen. 

Vitamin D may help with your running performance too. Find out if you can run faster by getting more of this vitamin.
 
Jonny Bowden, author, nutritionist and weight loss coach cuts through all the misconceptions about diet and fitness to help you transform your body, your health and your life. You can visit his Web site to learn more.

<p style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"> </p><p><a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/23/is-vitamin-d-toxic/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/forward/19587130/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a> | <a href="http://www.thatsfit.com/2010/08/23/is-vitamin-d-toxic/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a></p>]]></description><category>Gary Null</category><category>jonny-bowden</category><category>jonnys-take</category><category>vitamin D toxic</category><category>vitamin D toxicity</category><category>VitaminDToxic</category><dc:creator>Jonny Bowden</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:00:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
