Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider. You can also follow her on Twitter @lizzyfit.

Does exercising backwards give you a better butt workout? – Arlene Burger - NY

Photo: surfergirl143, Flickr

When I go to the gym I always see a few people turned around on the stair climbers and elliptical trainers, furiously stepping away. I catch a couple more people attempting to walk and jog backward on the treadmill. And when I go to the park, I occasionally notice people turned around walking and jogging backwards.

Backwards exercising – or "retro" exercising as trendy fitness buffs call it -- has always attracted a small but fun-loving crowd. There's an annual backwards mile in Central Park here in New York every April Fool's Day, and there are several runners from Italy who continually trade the title of World's Fastest Backward Runner um ... back and forth. But in the past decade, exercising in reverse has shifted into high gear thanks to the popularity of machines like elliptical trainers, stair climbers and spinning bikes that allow you to move both backwards and forwards.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider. You can also follow her on Twitter @lizzyfit.

Photo: lockstockb, sxc.hu

Does yo-yo dieting make it harder to lose weight in the long run? - Jackie Gardner, ME

"Hey, I can lose 10 pounds – I've done it a hundred times." That seems to be the mantra of the typical American dieter. Repeatedly losing and regaining weight may be frustrating, but this pattern does not appear to make losing weight more difficult.

In the 1980s, when scientists first began researching weight cycling, better known as yo-yo dieting, they speculated that it would make weight loss tougher by causing a metabolism slowdown. The theory seemed sound enough: When dieters lose weight, they lose (in addition to fat) large amounts of muscle, but when they regain weight, researchers guessed, they primarily put on fat. So, the repeated cycle of losing muscle -- which burns more calories than fat -- and gaining fat would only slow down a dieter's metabolism, making weight loss that much more difficult.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider. You can also follow her on Twitter @lizzyfit.

If I stop exercising, my muscles turn to fat, right? Is this fit or fiction – Margie Semilof, Mass.

Photo: jupiterimages

Fat and muscle are two distinctly different substances. When you look at them under the microscope, fat looks like chicken coop fencing and muscle looks like frayed electrical wiring. If you stop exercising, your muscles will simply "atrophy," a fancy word for shrink. I think the muscle-turns-to-fat myth got started because so many former athletes gain weight after they hang up their athletic shoes. Basically, once they retire they eat too much and don't get enough exercise; they become poster children for the fit-to-fat crowd. If, for some reason, you do stop exercising, your muscles will simply deflate -- and your waistline will likely inflate.

But if your hard-as-steel muscles aren't magically melting down into soft, squishy fat, what does happen to your body when you gain weight? By way of explanation, a short biology lesson:

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

Photo: Rance Costa/Flickr

Do you know what the word metabolism means? Well, the short answer is that it's the chemical changes that take place in a cell or an organism that produce energy and basic materials needed for important life processes. Huh? OK, forget the science nerd answer. For those of us who prefer plain English, metabolism is the rate at which your body uses energy -- a.k.a. burns calories -- at any given moment, whether you're watching "So You Think You Can Dance" or gyrating on the dance floor.

Even when you're sound asleep, your body uses energy to keep your heart beating, your kidneys functioning, your skin cells regenerating, and so on. Typically, your resting metabolism -- the amount of energy you need to keep your bodily functions like digestion, circulation and skin regeneration humming along -- accounts for 60 to 75 percent of your total calorie burn for the day. It varies quite a lot between individuals, depending primarily on body size, genetics, and muscle mass. Your activity level accounts for another 15 to 30 percent, depending on how much you move around; the calorie burn associated with eating and digesting food accounts for about 10 percent of your total daily energy expenditure. Now that you've had a quick education on what metabolism is, I'd like to dispel three common myths about it.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

The majority of Americans are now considered overweight or obese. Did you know this has also had an effect on our furry friends? Considering that the average house dog is now basically a glorified throw rug with a pulse, it's not surprising that more than 50 percent of the 60 million dogs in the U.S. are considered overweight, and 25 percent of them are considered obese.

Our little Snuffle Pumpkins are overweight for the same reasons we are: Too much food and too much time spent curled up on the couch. They're susceptible to many of the same obesity-related diseases as we are too. Fat dogs are more at risk in surgery, more prone to injury and have more stress on their hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys and joints than their slimmer pack mates. A study done at the University of Pennsylvania found that overfed Labradors had a shortened lifespan of 1.8 years and developed chronic conditions such as osteoarthritis at a younger age than normal-weight Labradors.

Source

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

A few weeks ago I debunked the whole net zero carbs charade. This week I thought we should discuss good versus bad carbs, since that's still a source of constant carb confusion for many of you out there in That's Fit Land. So let us set the record straight, enabling you to sally forth to the supermarket, a restaurant or even just your refrigerator a much wiser, less carbophobic eater.

When you hear the term "good" carbs, think unrefined, unprocessed, whole grain, as close to their natural state as possible. Bad carbs are refined, high in processed sugars, often accompanied by loads of fat and packed with way too many calories. Examples of "good" carbs: Apples, oatmeal and carrots. Examples of "bad" carbs: Apple pie, oatmeal cookies and carrot cake.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

I was in the gym yesterday when someone asked a question I have been asked maybe a million times: What cardio activity is the best for putting you in the "fat burning zone?"

I am certainly not putting down the person who asked this question. She genuinely did not know the answer and just wanted to know the best way to work out. But I would be lying if I told you I am not amazed that people still ask me this question. Don't most people know that the so-called "fat burning zone" is somewhat of a myth? And even if you argue that it is not a myth, its existence is totally irrelevant for the purposes of weight loss. Here's why.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

Recently on this blog, I've talked about how you can't always trust food labels. This week, I want to talk about food packaging -- something else you probably shouldn't trust. Food packaging and portions have undergone the same transformation as our national waistline -- they've gradually gotten bigger and bigger and bigger. Foods like cookies, muffins, candy bars, steaks, sodas and countless other foods started blimping out during the 1970s, dramatically inflating in the 1980s, and have continued to swell, to the point where some food products are now Godzilla-sized versions of their original selves.

Food portions weren't always so massive. Back in the 1950s, McDonald's offered just one size of French fries; that size, containing 210 calories, is now the smallest on the menu -- the largest contains a belt-busting 610 calories. The 7-Eleven Double Gulp, a 64-ounce soda (nearly 800 calories) is 10 times the size of a Coca-Cola when it was first introduced in 1886. In fact, beverage sizes have ballooned so much over the past generations, auto manufacturers have had to install larger cup holders to accommodate them.

Source

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

Last week, I referenced a popular energy bar that touted net zero carbs, even though the whole concept of net carbs is a fiction invented by marketing departments to sell more product. While we're on the topic, the real question you need to ask is: "Does that tasty 'engineered food' actually contain the 220 calories it claims on the label?" This isn't a question you might necessarily think to ask. Most of us assume that Nutrition Facts labels -- required by law on all processed, packaged food products and relied on by millions to make healthy food choices -- reflect reality.

Turns out, many of them may not. In a test conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services laboratory, 75 percent of diet products tested -- most of them regional brands -- were shown to have erroneous information on their labels. More than 10 percent of all bakery products and candies tested were mislabeled, as were 25 percent of dressings and condiments. Some of the labels were off-the-charts misleading, like a vanilla éclair said to have 2 grams of fat but actually containing 17 grams. An entire line of "sugar-free" baked goods -- more than 20 products -- from a regional company were found to contain sugar, as many as 16 grams per serving. (The baker admitted he added sugar to give the chocolate products more flavor and to enable the cookie dough to brown better. Well, duh.)

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

Of all the relics of the low-carb craze, the one that bothers me the most is "net carbs." It's a phrase that still appears on food packaging, and I still get questions about it.

What does "net carbs" mean? Actually, it's a classic misdirect cooked up by marketers who want to divert your attention from the unhealthier aspects of their products, sort of like how car dealers now refer to used cars as "pre-owned." This fabricated term arbitrarily subtracts fiber and sugar alcohols from a food's total carb count. These are considered "zero impact carbs" that don't spike blood sugar or add calories to the diet. But of course, this isn't always the case.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

It's so frustrating when you make an effort to lose weight -- an honest-to-goodness, try-your-heart-out effort -- and it goes nowhere. (Of course, who doesn't feel a smidge of impatience right from the get-go? There's always a little part of you that expects to be transformed after just one workout.) My clients often cite lack of results as one of the top reasons for giving up on an exercise. So, for those who have ever felt like they've been left at the starting gate when trying to lose weight by exercising, here are a few tips that may help.

Work Harder. When you first begin an exercise program, even a leisurely stroll can leave you sucking wind. After a few weeks, you'll notice that the same amount of exercise won't leave you quite as breathless, and your heart won't thump quite as loudly. That's a sure sign of progress, but it's also a sure sign you need to kick into a higher gear. In fact, there's some scientific evidence to suggest that doing one or two hard-hitting workout sessions a week can rev up weight loss; when you push yourself, you burn a greater number of calories per hour and can pump up your resting calorie burn rate for several hours -- or even several days -- afterwards. For stalled weight-loss efforts, add one to two weekly "interval training" workouts (that's where you mix speedy, high-intensity intervals lasting one to five minutes with slower recovery intervals lasting an equal amount of time).

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

A client of mine who had just lost a whole bunch of weight asked me the other day what her chances are of gaining all of her hard-fought weight loss back? This is what I told her:

Considering that 65 percent of Americans are overweight or obese and the weight-loss industry isn't exactly in a recession, it's safe to say that most people who lose end up gaining most, or all of it, back. According to obesity researchers and countless surveys of dieters, the number may be 95 percent or greater -- and this includes people who lose weight through diet, exercise or a combination of both.

Source

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

Glycemic index was addressed yesterday in our Daily Fit Tip post, and here, we dig a little deeper on the pros and cons of eating a low GI diet. First, some basics: The glycemic index is a classification of carbohydrates, arranged according to how fast they raise blood glucose levels. Foods are rated on a scale from 1 to 100, indicating the rate at which 50 grams of carbs in a particular food is absorbed into the bloodstream as blood-sugar. Pure sugar is the benchmark at 100; foods that have a "GI" of more than 70 are considered high glycemic; foods that score a 54 GI or less are considered low glycemic. (You can get a comprehensive list of the GI of common foods at glycemicindex.com.)

The GI scale was originally created to help type-2 diabetics manage their blood sugar. Now some experts recommend it for anyone trying to control their weight. On balance, the approach seems promising. Studies show that dieters following a low GI plan experience fewer cravings, have an easier time controlling appetite and do a better job of keeping their eating habits under control, especially compared to dieters who follow a very low-carb diet. This means low GI followers are more likely to stick with the plan.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

A few weeks ago, I blogged about the weight gain associated with marriage. On average, married people tend to weigh more than non-married people, and those extra pounds typically show up shortly after the honeymoon.

A fellow blogger wrote in and asked me whether or not there were other common weight gain traps. Good question, I thought. And the answer is yes. Here are three major traps, plus some advice on how to enjoy the moment without fattening up.

Liz Neporent is a diet and fitness expert and author of 12 fitness bestsellers. She regularly appears on national TV programs and is the president of Wellness 360, a New-York based wellness provider.

If you are what you eat, then you weigh what you drink.

In a study just released this week, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health looked at the relationship between intake of sugary beverages and weight change and found that liquid calories had a stronger impact on weight loss than calories from solid foods. Don't misunderstand -- reducing either food or drink definitely helped the volunteers lighten up, but giving up sugar-sweetened beverages like soda, juice and sports aid drinks made the biggest difference. Even a reduction of just one 12-ounce soft drink serving was associated with a weight loss of 1.1 pounds at six months and 1.5 pounds at 18 months. That may not seem like much of a drop, but I think it's a pretty big payoff for a diet change most people probably wouldn't even notice.

Coincidentally, a similar investigation was also released this week. In this one, Columbia University scientists found that substituting water for sugary drinks would save the average person a total of 235 calories per day. Though the study was done with small children and adolescents, I feel comfortable making the leap that the same rule likely applies to full grown folks as well.