That's Fit

Food Combining For Weight Loss?

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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.

The Whey to Weight Loss

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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

America, You're Exercising Wrong

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Fitness

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

Permalink | Email this | Comments

When Is the Best Time to Exercise?

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Fitness

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.

What the USDA Dietary Guidelines Got Wrong

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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.

Rethinking Six Small Meals a Day

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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).

More Jonny's Take

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."

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Weight Watchers: What the Change Means

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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.

7 Tips to Control Holiday Eating

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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.

Lessons From the Twinkie Diet

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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

Permalink | Email this | Comments

One Word Makes Weight Loss Easier

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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

Permalink | Email this | Comments

A Weight Loss Program that Really Works

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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

Permalink | Email this | Comments

The Scale: Don't Give It Too Much Power

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Can Cinnamon Help Manage Blood Sugar?

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Low-Carb and Mortality: Digging Through the Myths (Part 1)

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

DNA Diets: Do They Work? (Part I)

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

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.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

The 12 Most Dangerous Supplements

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Nutrition & Supplements

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.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Heart Health

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

Getty Images

For many people, losing weight is about getting healthy and not just about slipping into a smaller size. When it comes to heart health, a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine tested a low-carb diet against a low-fat one, and found that one diet was more effective in reducing some risk factors for heart disease.

Here's what happened.

Researchers took 307 participants and randomly divided them into two groups. One went on a very low-carb diet, which was right out of the Atkins playbook. For three months these folks consumed no more than 20 grams a day of carbs from fibrous, low-glycemic vegetables (exactly what the first, and rather strict, "induction" phase of the Atkins four-stage approach calls for).

For each week after the initial three months, this group then added back in 5 grams per day of carbs. In other words, the first week (after the initial three months) they consumed 25 grams of carbs, the second week 30 grams, and so forth.

Other than carbs, this group had no restrictions and could eat all the protein and fat they wanted. They kept this up till they reached a desirable weight and were able to stay there. In other words, standard, textbook Atkins.

The second group went on a standard low-fat diet between 1200 to 1800 calories a day. The only "restriction" was to keep fat to 30 percent or less of calories (standard advice).

The researchers were primarily interested in weight loss and they found there was no difference in weight loss between the two groups. But don't think for a minute that's all there is to this story.

You may recall that the traditional rap on low-carb diets is that they may work in the short term for weight loss, but some people claimed they are dangerous.

So the researchers had a secondary outcome, meaning there was something else besides weight loss that they wanted to look at -- risk factors for heart disease. Many people claimed that low-carb diets like Atkins may actually raise the risk of heart disease for the dieters who replaced bread with bacon. But in this study, that was not the case.

Six months into the study, the low-carb group had a greater reduction in diastolic blood pressure, a triglycerides and a particularly bad form of "bad" cholesterol called VLDL (very low-density lipoproteins).

And -- hold on to your hats - at all time points throughout the two-year study, including at the finish line, the low-carb group had a significant increase in HDL ("good") cholesterol.

Overall, the weight lost by both groups wasn't enormous -- 22 pounds in the first year (average for both groups), with both groups regaining some during the second year and averaging about 15 pounds after the two-year study.

This isn't surprising. Virtually every study I've ever seen has found that people start reverting to their old habits to some extent, which is why they gain some weight back. The more they slip back into their old ways, the more they gain back. No surprise there. The individuals who were able to stick with their program gained back the least amount of weight, or even continued to lose weight-- - the averages don't tell us that.

It took six months for the low-carb group to see improved cardiovascular risk factors, but that after that, there was no difference between the two groups in those risk factors -- both had improvements.

That's not surprising either, and I would consider that likely evidence that the low-carb group started drifting more towards "conventional" eating after six months, thus wiping out the differences between the low-carb and the low-fat group.

"Averages" often conceal real differences, for example within the low-carb group there were some folks who really stuck to the program, and I'm willing to bet that there were a number of individuals who not only maintained their weight (or kept losing) but also maintained the significant gains in cardiovascular risk factors that were dramatically seen after six months.

If you had your choice between two diets, both of which produced weight loss, but one of which did it with less hunger and better cardiovascular outcomes, which would you choose?

Don't buy for a minute that this study shows "no difference" between low-fat and low-carb. It doesn't. It showed no difference between groups in the weight loss department, but a greater improvement in cardio risk factors for the low-carb group.

That ain't chopped liver!

Finally there's one more thing. All the participants received counseling and support for "behavioral change". The researchers believe that may be the single most important thing in successful weight loss, even more than which particular diet was followed. It's important that both groups incorporated exercise into their weight loss program and made lifestyle changes instead of only focusing on dietary changes.

Looking for motivation to lose weight? Maybe Tony Robbins can help.

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.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Can Tony Robbins Help You Lose Weight?

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

Jeff Christensen, AP

I've always been a fan of Tony Robbins.

I think his work has a great deal to teach us about life in general, but I also think it has a great deal to teach us about weight loss. I've used a lot of Robbins' concepts in my own teaching and writing, particularly as it pertains to breaking nonempowering habits and addictions and forming new, empowering ones. (This is especially useful when you're trying to change your relationship to food.)

Recently, Robbins teamed up with Arianna Huffington to create a program called "Breakthrough: the Power of Crisis." Both Robbins and Huffington felt that the difficult times that many of us have been going through -- the financial crisis, unemployment, foreclosures, natural disasters and more -- present a unique opportunity to really look within, dig deep and understand how we deal with difficult challenges.

I think weight loss is just that kind of difficult challenge for many of us. The techniques Robbins uses to help people discover their own hidden strength and power can be used very effectively in dealing with health in general and weight specifically.

"We've all experienced multiple crises in our lives -- be it health, career, financial, family -- and most of us have found ways to eventually break through," writes Robbins.

He suggests we start by asking five general questions about crisis in general and how we deal with it. And I suggest that answering these questions -- specifically as they apply to your own weight loss journey -- is a fabulous way to begin the process of breakthrough in your own life.

What exactly do I mean by "breakthrough"? Here's how Robbins defines it: "... a moment in time, an opening when what seemed to be impossible becomes possible."

So if you've felt that losing weight is an impossible task, if weight is a challenge that you've never been able to successfully solve, why not take a moment and answer for yourself the five questions Robbins poses about how you've dealt with other crises in the past?

Here are the five questions:

1. What was your life like right before the challenge or crisis hit?

2. What was the crisis you faced? What happened -- what did you feel and experience?

3. What pulled you through this difficult, unjust or impossible time? What was the trigger or catalyst for change? Was it a belief, a strategy, a faith, a person, a tool? What made the change possible?

4. Once you turned the corner mentally or emotionally, what did you do to turn your life around?

5. How is your life better today because you lived through the crisis? How have you transformed? How are you stronger emotionally, physically, spiritually? What gifts do you have to give because of this?

Put your answers aside for a moment, take a fresh sheet of paper and answer these questions:

1. What was my life like before I gained the weight?

2. What changed? What did I feel and experience?

3. What's keeping me stuck? What's standing in the way of my moving forward? What's stopping me?

4. What tools or strategies could I use to break through some of those "stops"?

5. What steps could I take today that would make a difference in my own health?

If there's one thing I believe about weight loss, it's this: Weight loss is never just about weight loss. It's about breakthrough and transformation. It's about meeting challenges. It's about telling the truth. It's about scrupulous honesty. It's about looking in the mirror. It's about finding strengths you never knew you had. It's about persevering. It's about never giving up. It's about a vision for the long haul.

Your weight loss journey is about a lot more than reducing the number on your scale. It's a chance to practice playing bigger and bolder, a chance to step up to the plate, a chance to give up being a victim and a chance to practice being the author of your own life.

It's a place to practice how you deal with challenge, frustration, opportunity and self-definition. Weight loss is just a place to practice the game of mastery. Mastery of your body, your health and your life.

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.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

More Calls to Stop Demonizing Saturated Fats

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

Pornchai Mittongtare, jupiterimages

You know Dr. Andrew Weil, right? The grandfatherly, kindly guy with the big beard who is the "face" of integrative medicine in America? The Harvard trained doctor, author of "Spontaneous Healing," editor-in-chief of the journal Integrative Medicine and the founder of the program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona among dozens of other accomplishments.

Well, guess what? Dr. Weil has had an epiphany.

Or at least that's what it seems like based on a wonderful -- yet completely surprising -- article he recently wrote for the Huffington Post.

Before I tell you what he said, let me tell you why it's startling, and also why it's so important.

Weil has long been the champion of low-fat, vegetarian, soy-based diets -- as close as you can get to "conventional" wisdom when it comes to diet. Avoid meat, avoid saturated fat, lower your cholesterol, all the usual stuff.

So when I began reading the article, which begins with a discussion of a famous Arizona restaurant called Heart Attack Grill, where waitresses in nurses' uniforms serve up single, double, triple and quadruple "bypass burgers" stuffed with meat and dripping with cheese, and where the the motto "Taste Worth Dying For!" hangs prominently in the restaurant -- I expected the usual condemnation of meat, saturated fat and cholesterol.

What I, and the readers, got was something quite different.

The Heart Attack Grill's concept is that saturated fat in beef clogs arteries and hamburger meat is among the most heart-damaging foods we can consume. That, it appears, is a given. There's only one problem. And I'll let Weil tell it to you in his own words: "It's not true."

"The saturated fat ... in this menu won't kill you," he writes in the article. "It may even be the safest element of the meal."

It gets better.

"If you visit [the Grill]," Weil wrote, "I implore you to steer clear of the white-flour buns, the sugary sodas and the piles of 'Flatliner Fries' that accompany the burgers in the restaurants signature plates. This is precisely the sort of processed-carbohydate-intensive meal that ... is propelling the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in America."

Wow. Let that sit for a minute. America's most trusted doc, Mr. Vegetarian, Mr. High-Carb Low-Fat diet, is saying what? That we've been demonizing meat and saturated fat all this time and really, what's making us fat and sick is carbs? (Or at least the wrong kind of carbs?) Yup.

This is literally a "Nixon in China" moment. For those of you too young to remember, President Nixon was a rabid anti-communist with impeccable credentials in that area. Whatever people thought of him, no one on the planet ever accused him of being a tree-loving liberal or a friend of the communists. Yet Nixon was the man who opened the door to diplomatic relations with China.

Many people who lived through that time -- myself included -- believed that no one else could have done that. It was precisely because of Nixon's impeccable credentials as a patriot and American that he was able to reach out to "Red China" and pave the way to the resumption of diplomatic relations.

Dr. Andrew Weil coming to the realization that we've been wrongly demonizing saturated fat all this time, and that diets high in processed carbs are the real culprit in the health and obesity crisis, is a similar revelation.

Let me be clear -- Weil still has his problems with eating factory-farmed meat, as do I. These problems have to do not only with ethics and compassion, but also with health. It's hard to recommend mystery meat that's been shot full of antibiotics, steroids and hormones, and is loaded with inflammatory omega-6 fats.

Weil understands that factory-farmed meat and grass-fed meat are two completely different "animals," and that there may be a way to eat meat in an ethical way, and that in any case, it's not saturated fat and meat that's the problem in our diet.

Let me also be clear that Weil hasn't for a moment abandoned his belief, which I share, that we should be eating tons more vegetables and fruits. But really, has that ever been in question, even among the most partisan low-carb advocates? I don't think so.

I commend Dr. Weil. He may have come to this realization a bit later than some of my other colleagues, but the fact that he did -- and that he publicly proclaimed it in a widely-circulated article -- is worth shouting about.

Call me a wide-eyed optimist, but I'd like to think this terrific article is just one more nail in the coffin of the "saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease" idiocy that has consumed America and driven our eating habits since the '70s. Welcome aboard, Dr. Weil!

The USDA is also considering a new food pyramid that will call for a whole lot more of fruits, veggies and legumes, but what is it missing?

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 Web site to learn more.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

When It's Important to Buy Organic

Jonny Bowden — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:00:00 EST

Filed under: Jonny's Take, Diet & Weight Loss

Getty Images

Want to know when it's most important to buy organic fruits and vegetables?

The Environmental Working Group -- a consumer health non-profit organization -- has published its latest edition of the famous "Dirty Dozen." These are the foods most contaminated by pesticides, and the ones you should probably buy organic.

The media is full of articles about why organically food isn't any more nutritious than conventionally grown food, but these articles are kind of missing the point. Many people don't buy organic simply because it has more vitamins or minerals, we buy it because of what it doesn't have -- chemicals and pesticides.

Remember, there are some 80,000 chemicals in existence, and the EPA has only identified a few hundred of them. The true cost to our health of daily exposure to this chemical cocktail has never been determined, so it just makes sense to be prudent and try to limit our exposure if we can. Buying organic is one way to do that.

But organic food tends to be expensive. That's why the Environmental Working Group's list is so important. It helps to know which foods are most likely to be contaminated so you can prioritize and spend your "organic food" dollars wisely. (The EWG also has a list of the "Clean Fifteen" -- foods least likely to be contaminated.)

Here's the updated list of the "Dirty Dozen" as well as the updated list for the "Clean Fifteen."

The new Environmental Working Group "Dirty Dozen":

Celery. Since celery has no protective skin, you can't wash off the chemicals. (Sixty-four chemicals have been identified in celery)
Peaches. Sixty-two pesticides have been identified on these fruits.
Strawberries. Strawberries have long been on the list as they are one of the most sprayed crops on the planet. The EWG identified 59 pesticides on strawberries.
Apples. While most of the 42 different pesticides found in apples are concentrated on the skin, the skin is also the source of an awful lot of the beneficial nutrients in apples, so you really don't want to peel them. Just buy organic.
Blueberries. Unfortunately, this wonderful berry made the list for the first time. They're treated with up to 52 different pesticides.
Nectarines. They now rank with apples and peaches as the "dirtiest" of the tree fruits.
Bell peppers. These guys are heavily sprayed with insecticides (as many as 49 on sweet bell peppers).
Spinach. Another new addition to the list for 2010, spinach can contain as many as 48 different chemicals, giving it the dubious honor of being the dirtiest green leafy vegetable around.
Kale. One of the healthiest vegetables, kale also tested as one of the highest in pesticide residue.
Cherries. Government testing found 42 different pesticides on cherries, and, sadly, the ones grown in the U.S. seem to have three times more pesticide residue than imported ones.
Potatoes. Back on the list after a year's absence, the popular potato can have as many as 37 different pesticides.
Grapes. Imported seem to be the worst, and only imported grapes made the 2010 list. Sorry, but no amount of washing will get rid of the residue. Stick with organic.

The "Clean 15" are those foods with the lowest pesticide residue. The 2010 winners are:

Onions
Avocado
Sweet Corn
Pineapple
Mangos
Sweet Peas
Asparagus
Kiwi
Cabbage
Eggplant
Cantaloupe
Watermelon
Grapefruit
Sweet Potato
Honeydew Melon

You can download the shoppers guide to pesticides. There's also an iPhone app called the Shopper's Guide to Pesticides.

"It's critical people know what they are consuming," the Environmental Working Group's Amy Rosenthal told CNN. "The list is based on pesticide tests conducted after the produce was washed with USDA high-power pressure water system. The numbers reflect the closest thing to what consumers are buying at the store."

"You can reduce your exposure to pesticides by up to 80 percent by buying the organic version of the Dirty Dozen," she added.

Just like produce, not all meat is created equal.

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 Web site to learn more.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

That's Fit

Food Combining For Weight Loss?

Related Stories

The Whey to Weight Loss

Related Stories

America, You're Exercising Wrong

When Is the Best Time to Exercise?

Related Stories

What the USDA Dietary Guidelines Got Wrong

Related Stories

Rethinking Six Small Meals a Day

More Jonny's Take

Weight Watchers: What the Change Means

Related Stories

7 Tips to Control Holiday Eating

Related Stories

Lessons From the Twinkie Diet

One Word Makes Weight Loss Easier

A Weight Loss Program that Really Works

The Scale: Don't Give It Too Much Power

Can Cinnamon Help Manage Blood Sugar?

Low-Carb and Mortality: Digging Through the Myths (Part 1)

DNA Diets: Do They Work? (Part I)

The 12 Most Dangerous Supplements

Low-Carb Beats Low-Fat for Heart Health

Can Tony Robbins Help You Lose Weight?

More Calls to Stop Demonizing Saturated Fats

When It's Important to Buy Organic