Today’s Re-Powering Information – with so many people away and busy this summer, I am not going to do a grocery shopping tour this camp. But I still want to you to be savvy shoppers. Summer is an easier time to eat healthy – at least I think so. The freshest fruits and veggies are readily available, there is usually less baking than in the winter, at times you are too hot to even think about food and because of the heat you may drink more water helping you to feel full and reducing the calories from food.
This article also mentions Food Inc – the new documentary about our food supply. http://www.foodincmovie.com I had mentioned it in an earlier e-mail. It’s playing in theaters in The Legacy Shops in Plano. I was thinking of taking a trip to see it next Friday if it’s still playing. Yoshie saw it and said it truly make her re-think what she was eating. Angelika Film Center & Cafe (15.2 mi)
7205 Bishop Road, Plano, TX 75024
(800)326-3264
Directions
Below are some tips on being a savvy shopper!
How much do we really know about the food we buy at our local supermarkets and serve to our families?
In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA. Our nation's food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, herbicide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad, but we also have new strains of E. coli—the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.
Also from their website:
10 Simple Tips for making positive changes in your eating habits.
Learn more about these issues and how you can take action on Takepart.com
1. Stop drinking sodas and other sweetened beverages.
You can lose 25 lbs in a year by replacing one 20 oz soda a day with a no calorie beverage (preferably water).
2. Eat at home instead of eating out.
Children consume almost twice (1.8 times) as many calories when eating food prepared outside the home.
3. Support the passage of laws requiring chain restaurants to post calorie information on menus and menu boards.
Half of the leading chain restaurants provide no nutritional information to their customers.
4. Tell schools to stop selling sodas, junk food, and sports drinks.
Over the last two decades, rates of obesity have tripled in children and adolescents aged 6 to 19 years.
5. Meatless Mondays—Go without meat one day a week.
An estimated 70% of all antibiotics used in the United States are given to farm animals.
6. Buy organic or sustainable food with little or no pesticides.
According to the EPA, over 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used each year in the U.S.
7. Protect family farms; visit your local farmer's market.
Farmer's markets allow farmers to keep 80 to 90 cents of each dollar spent by the consumer.
8. Make a point to know where your food comes from—READ LABELS.
The average meal travels 1500 miles from the farm to your dinner plate.
9. Tell Congress that food safety is important to you.
Each year, contaminated food causes millions of illnesses and thousands of deaths in the U.S.
10. Demand job protections for farm workers and food processors, ensuring fair wages and other protections.
Poverty among farm workers is more than twice that of all wage and salary employees.
End
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Energy Drinks and Bars- Best and Worst
Today’s Re-Powering Information - The following is from an article about the best and worst Energy Drinks and Bars. I usually get asked which bars or drinks I recommend and I also see them on the food logs so I wanted to arm you with ammunition to make the best choices – w which is always real food first! Notice there is a drink called cocaine – scary!!!
XS Gold
According to company partner Scott Coon, XS Blast was the first to focus on energy drink flavors, and first to create a sugar-free category. This drink has low calories, low carbs and the caffeine-free version has more vitamin C per ounce than a serving of orange juice. (8.4 oz.)
Electrifire
Using agave nectar as a sweetener, Electrifire has a large selection of natural juices for flavor, including cranberry, pomegranate, passion fruit, lime, orange and aronia berry. Designed to energize your entire body, this two-ounce energy drink also has water-soluble plant nutrients for cell repair. (2 oz.)
On Go
Although this one comes in a two-ounce shot bottle, it easily has the same effect as a full-sized energy drink, On Go has no carbs, only 8 calories and tons of vitamins B6 and B12. Vitamin B6 is a key building block of proteins and extra B12 has been shown to increase energy levels. (2 oz.)
Steaz Energy
This drink needs no frills because the product speaks for itself. With ingredients like Ceylon green tea, which has a fuller and stronger taste, and yerba mate, a refreshing alternative to coffee, it’s no wonder Steaz has organic and fair trade labels. Steaz is also sweetened with evaporated cane juice and stevia in their diet line. (12 oz.)
Active Ingredient: Guarana
More than 4,000 miles south of here, a Brazilian miner is taking a break to sip the most important beverage of the day. Guarana, specifically the fruit’s seeds of this climbing plant, is highly regarded as both a medicinal tonic and potent stimulant. Although the former claim lacks evidence, South Americans obtain the majority of their caffeine from guarana.
In Brazil, workers carry lumps of guarana in their pockets and grate it with a fish bone into water for a quick pick-me-up. You can easily find soft drinks, energy shots, herbal tea and supplements with ample amounts of the revitalizing supplement.
Guarana seeds contain more than twice the amount of caffeine found in coffee beans: Up to 7.5 percent of the seed contains the stimulant compared to the 1 to 2 percent concentration found in a bean of your house blend. In addition to keeping you awake, the tannins in guarana have been known to support weight-loss and enhance cognition. Although clinical research is still in its infancy, a Journal of Psychopharmacology study found that guarana likely improves memory, mood and alertness at lower doses.
Unlike coffee, the amount of caffeine doesn’t have to be listed on potentially potent guarana drinks making it easier to get to that danger zone of caffeine intoxication. Anecdotal reports, including a review in the Journal of Herbal Pharmacotherapy, have linked guarana to anxiety, heart rhythm abnormalities and even chest pain.
Hi Ball
As the self-proclaimed “World’s First Sparkling Energy Drink,” HiBall certainly lives up to the title with no sugar, artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners or preservatives. The taste is crisp and the energy is simple, with 75 milligrams of natural caffeine. (10 oz.)
Enviga
Past hype surrounding this energy drink has given it the image of a magical calorie burner. Although evidence on this remains sketchy, Enviga Green Tea is still a good choice for boosting energy and antioxidant levels. It has virtually no calories and contains 20 percent of your calcium RDA. (12 oz.)
Eiro
This Dallas-based company, dedicated to researching nutritional products, wanted to create a drink with natural caffeine sources. Eiro has guarana, green tea, ginko biloba and ginseng. It has no taurine, refined sugars or preservatives, giving it a leg up in providing sustainable energy. (8.4 oz.)
Wheyup
With 22 grams of whey protein in every can, This is a choice drink for bodybuilders. Low carbs (9 grams) and no sugar also make it ideal for losing weight. Whey protein increases lean muscle mass and has tons of daily amino acids. (16 oz.)
Vida Tea
This sparkling tea has a combination of three green teas and is sweetened with agave nectar. Agave is absorbed into the body without an insulin spike, so it’s a safer option for diabetics. At the World Tea Expo, VidaTea was named “Best Tea” in the Sweetened Green Tea category. (12 oz.)
Sea2O
As the title claims, this drink is totally organic and contains no caffeine. Sea2o gives you energy with agave nectar, a natural organic sugar with low impact on blood sugar and an exceptionally low glycemic index. It’s an ideal energy drink for diabetics. (10.5 oz.)
Verve
Verve has a combination of green tea, aloe and mangosteen fruit, giving it a distinct flavor. Like most of these healthier options, Verve has antioxidants like Xanthones that help fight fatigue and depression. (8.3 oz.)
LIVE
It’s pretty hard to find reasons not to LIVE with this energy drink. Featuring flavors like green tea and acai berry, LIVE is naturally sweetened with evaporated organic sugar cane juice, rather than artificial sugars, colors and preservatives. The company even donates 50 percent of your purchase to a handful of charities. (12 oz.)
FRS
(Elissa gave me this stuff and it is pretty good)
FRS stands for Free Radical Scavenger which is a term for antioxidant. The special patented formula of quercetin is designed to give you a more sustainable source of energy. Quercetin is difficult to find as a single ingredient, unless you eat 40 apples. FRS is also endorsed by Lance Armstrong. (11.5 oz.)
Active Ingredient: Caffeine
It’s in your morning latte, your afternoon tea and even your chocolately midnight snack. Consumed daily by more than 80 percent of people in America, caffeine is the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world. Caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, the heart and the respiratory system within an hour or less of consumption.
This stimulant acts just as it sounds and mimics the effect of epinephrine — yep, that’s adrenaline. Your heart rate will jump up, your systolic blood pressure will increase and you’ll temporarily rev up your metabolism. Thank the molecular breakdown of caffeine for this revitalization and other welcomed effects such as the breakdown of fat storage, blood vessel dilation and bronchi relaxation. In fact, this metabolic product — theophylline — is often used in asthma medication.
Medical evidence has continued to affirm caffeine’s high-octane effects: A recent study from the University of Chicago indicates that your Starbucks fix might be the reason you have become that cheerful morning person. The research shows that caffeine not only wakes you up but also positively influences mood and cognition. They also found it improves subjective well-being and behavioral performance, so you’re better able to deal with obnoxious drivers on your morning commute.
Caffeine is the real deal when it comes to boosting your energy but daily consumption, even at low doses, can quickly produce dependence and withdrawal symptoms including pounding headaches and insomnia. Never consume more than 300 milligrams a day as you quickly enter into the dangerous territory of caffeine intoxication.
Sobe No Fear
Ignore the name and be very afraid of this high fructose corn syrup-laden drink. The high levels of sugar (66 grams) and caffeine (174 milligrams) are unsettling enough, but at 260 calories per can, a few too many and you’ll be fearing the size of your thighs. (20 oz.)
Gatorade
If you’re looking for electrolytes, don’t reach for a Gatorade. Instead you’ll get 200 calories per 32 fluid ounces. It’s also packed with high fructose corn syrup. Try the leaner version of Gatorade (G2), SmartWater or a glass of good old H2O and a banana for electrolytes. (32 oz.)
AMP
One 16-ounce can contains 11 percent of your day’s calories and more sugar than four scoops of peanut butter cup ice cream. Amp also contains aspartame, the non-nutritive sweetener that has brought more than 30 years of health controversy. Aspartame dissolves into solution, and can therefore travel throughout the body and deposit within any tissue. (16 oz.)
Starbucks Coffee Frappuccino
Anyone who has read “Eat This, Not That: Supermarket Survival Guide” knows that one 13.7-ounce bottle is the sugar equivalent of a three-scoop bowl of double fudge brownie ice cream. With that much sugar, expect an afternoon crash and burn. (9.5 oz.)
Sobe Energy (Power)
One bottle has more than 250 calories, 35 milligrams of sodium and 70 grams of sugar. When you add it up, that’s nearly double the sugar found in a can of Coke. Sobe is so not worth the extra pounds of fat you could gain. (20 oz.)
Full Throttle
This Coca-Cola product has 220 calories and more than 50 grams of high fructose corn syrup. It’s basically Coke on steroids. Today we consume twice as many calories as we did 30 years ago. If you just cut down to water, seltzer, unsweetened coffee or tea one day a week, you could lose around seven pounds a year. (8 oz.)
Cocaine
This drink has three and a half times more caffeine than a can of Red Bull. And it only holds 8.4 fluid ounces. Small amounts of caffeine can go a long way, but having too much can pose a whole slew of threats to your body. Sometimes less is more. (8.4 oz.)
Red Bull
Not only was Sugar-Free Red Bull shown to give a healthy person the same blood consistency as someone with heart disease, but traces of cocaine were found in some cans of the newer Red Bull Cola. Believe it or not, Red Bull is still not the worst on our list, but these qualities definitely don’t give it five stars. (12 oz.)
Rockstar Original
With 62 grams of sugar in the popular double-size can, you might as well be drinking chocolate Rice Krispies. Americans should only consume about 40 grams of sugar a day. Combined with the 160 milligrams of caffeine, it may be a quick fix, but it won’t sustain you through the day. (16 oz.)
Monster Energy
Though Monster has a few desirable ingredients, such as ginseng root and guarana seed extract, it still gives you a clockwork crash. If you read the label carefully, it says “Serving Size 2” on one can. A total of 54 grams of carbs, sugar and 200 calories means a lot of extra time on the stationary bike. (8.3 oz.)
Active Ingredient: Taurine
The 1,000 milligrams found in one serving of Red Bull has been touted to combat mental and physical fatigue but it appears the energy drink does little to give you wings. Outside of its role as a sham energy supplement, the amino acid taurine is found naturally in meat and fish. The manufacturers of Red Bull claim that the body’s taurine production declines with extreme physical exertion but no research has yet indicated that this can be remedied by chugging a can of the drink.
What we do know about the role of taurine in the body is that it is found in skeletal muscle, the heart and the nervous system. It’s a bonafide multi-tasker: Taurine is important for efficient metabolism, stabilizing cell membranes, generating nerve impulses and it even appears to work as an antioxidant.
And while it may not zap you out of your 4 o’clock drowsiness, taurine supplementation appears to not only be safe in moderation but also medicinal. It has been used to treat epilepsy via its anti-convulsant role as a nerve cell membrane stabilizer. In Japan, taurine is often administered to treat ischemic heart disease and certain heart arrhythmias.
Although up to 3,000 milligrams of taurine (that’s three servings of Red Bull) are considered safe, little is known about the effects of heavy or long-term use — except of course that it won’t give you wings.
Luna (Clif) Caramel Nut Brownie
At a mere 180 calories, Luna — the Clif bar for women — boasts the highest amount of calcium (35 percent of your Recommended Daily Allowance or RDA) and iron (30 percent RDA) compared to all the bars we examined. It’s also chock full of antioxidants including vitamins C and E, green tea extract and selenium. (per 48g bar)
Kashi GoLean Roll Caramel Peanut
With nearly 25 percent of your fiber RDA, this whole grain bar is far from tasting like cardboard. This Kashi GoLean snack also contains 12 grams of protein from natural sources like peanuts and soy to keep your stomach growls at bay. (per 55g bar)
Zone Perfect Peanut Toffee
No need to take a multivitamin when you have a yummy Zone Perfect on hand. With more than 12 vitamins and minerals, a great taste and 14 grams of protein on board, this one will be sure to keep you fuller and more glycemically-balanced than most other bars. (per 50g bar)
Larabar Ginger Snap
Comforting just like the ginger snaps you grew up on; this ginger-filled Larabar is both tasty and soothing on the stomach. Since it contains no sodium, gluten, dairy or soy, you’ll be able to enjoy this fiber-packed treat without any worries. (per 51g bar)
Pure Bar Cranberry Orange Bar
This organic snack contains the shortest ingredient list by far and is sweetened 100 percent naturally by fruit and agave nectar. The Pure Bar’s exotic flavor is combined with walnuts, cashews and almonds to keep you full while fighting free radicals and heart disease. (per 48g bar)
Boundless Oatmega Dark Chocolate Mint
This tasty number — 190 calories to be exact — is an organic, protein-packed snack created here in Austin. Not only is it low in sugar, but all Boundless Oatmega bars contain heart-healthy ingredients such as green tea, omega-3 fatty acids and sea salt. (per 50g bar)
Powerbar: Energize Blast Berry Smoothie
The full flavor of this Powerbar comes at the expense of more than 200 calories, 24 grams of sugar and 180 milligrams of sodium. And with less than one gram of fiber, you’ll be lacking an extra movement beyond your morning jog. (per 56g bar)
Apex
This Apex bar truly is the pinnacle of a poor ingredient list. Among the first four are corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar. The 20 grams of sugar are therefore no surprise, but the 18 percent of your RDA for saturated fat and the mere one percent of potassium is sadly unexpected. (per 55g bar)
SlimFast
Your mom’s old diet fad is thankfully becoming a thing of the past. Despite the small serving size, this Slim-Fast bar includes 15 percent of your saturated fat RDA and is one of the few bars to contain cholesterol. Interestingly, despite the less than one gram of fiber, the safety information reads “excessive consumption may have a laxative effect.” (per 28g bar)
Balance Original Almond Brownie
Never judge a book, or a bar, by its cover. Although this Balance Original bar looks and sounds healthy, its specs (200 calories, 17 grams of sugar and 18 percent of your RDA for saturated fat) prove otherwise. It almost gets points for the addition of 19 vitamins and minerals, but returns to zero with its second ingredient: High-fructose corn syrup. (per 50g bar)
Snickers Marathon® Energy Bar Multi Grain Crunch
Although delicious, the Snickers Marathon takes the cake for unhealthiest bar. Consuming this one snack puts you at 10 percent of your RDA for sodium and total fat. The ingredients also read as a science experiment with corn syrup and quadratein heading up this laundry list. (per 55g bar)
Active Ingredient: Ginseng
Stimulants and amino acids are not the only ingredients in your late night energy drink. Ancient Chinese remedies like ginseng and cordyceps (see page 30) are now popping up as the new fatigue fighters. And according to William Wood and Aaron Winning, both Licensed Acupuncturists & Herbalists (L.Ac) at SoCo Clinic, not only do they work but side effects are minimal especially when compared to caffeine.
“Though these are herbs, they still have side effects and should be taken in moderation to get the best effect,” Winning emphasizes.
The third top-selling herb in the United States is also 2,000 years old in China. Herbal remedies known as ginseng are derived from the roots of either the American (Panax quinquefolius) or Asian (Panax ginseng) perennial plant. Only these two of the 11 different ginseng species are used for medicinal purposes. Their botanical name, Panax, is translated from Greek to mean “all heal” or, if you like, “panacea.”
You won’t get far at any grocery store without coming across either form of ginseng. But don’t just reach for the cheapest price tag. “You need to look for a high grade of ginseng to ensure effectiveness,” says Wood, “This is difficult to do from simply walking down the aisles of a health food store. Your best bet is to go to a Chinese herbalist who obtains their ginseng from a trusted source.”
The herb is often advertised as everything from an immunity enhancer to an aphrodisiac. Despite all the propaganda, many of these claims have not been seriously researched in the United States including those that promote ginseng as an efficient energy enhancer.
But if either were to promote vigor, Asian ginseng — particularly the red form — is thought to have stronger effects than its American counterpart possibly due to the longer harvesting period and a steaming process that locks in the active ingredients including ginsenoside.
Studies conducted in Japan and published in the Journal of Pharmacological Sciences have demonstrated that ginsenosides dilate blood vessels and help increase blood flow. Improved circulation results in better oxygen delivery and potentially enhanced stamina. In fact, these same researchers have found that red Asian ginseng helps the body resist the damaging effects of everyday stress. Ginesenoside, along with ginseng’s other active components, are thought to reduce the pituitary gland’s secretion of the ACTH hormone which stimulates the release of the stress hormone cortisol. Less cortisol means less stress-related complaints like headaches, stomach ulcers and insomnia.
End
Enjoy a beautiful day!
XS Gold
According to company partner Scott Coon, XS Blast was the first to focus on energy drink flavors, and first to create a sugar-free category. This drink has low calories, low carbs and the caffeine-free version has more vitamin C per ounce than a serving of orange juice. (8.4 oz.)
Electrifire
Using agave nectar as a sweetener, Electrifire has a large selection of natural juices for flavor, including cranberry, pomegranate, passion fruit, lime, orange and aronia berry. Designed to energize your entire body, this two-ounce energy drink also has water-soluble plant nutrients for cell repair. (2 oz.)
On Go
Although this one comes in a two-ounce shot bottle, it easily has the same effect as a full-sized energy drink, On Go has no carbs, only 8 calories and tons of vitamins B6 and B12. Vitamin B6 is a key building block of proteins and extra B12 has been shown to increase energy levels. (2 oz.)
Steaz Energy
This drink needs no frills because the product speaks for itself. With ingredients like Ceylon green tea, which has a fuller and stronger taste, and yerba mate, a refreshing alternative to coffee, it’s no wonder Steaz has organic and fair trade labels. Steaz is also sweetened with evaporated cane juice and stevia in their diet line. (12 oz.)
Active Ingredient: Guarana
More than 4,000 miles south of here, a Brazilian miner is taking a break to sip the most important beverage of the day. Guarana, specifically the fruit’s seeds of this climbing plant, is highly regarded as both a medicinal tonic and potent stimulant. Although the former claim lacks evidence, South Americans obtain the majority of their caffeine from guarana.
In Brazil, workers carry lumps of guarana in their pockets and grate it with a fish bone into water for a quick pick-me-up. You can easily find soft drinks, energy shots, herbal tea and supplements with ample amounts of the revitalizing supplement.
Guarana seeds contain more than twice the amount of caffeine found in coffee beans: Up to 7.5 percent of the seed contains the stimulant compared to the 1 to 2 percent concentration found in a bean of your house blend. In addition to keeping you awake, the tannins in guarana have been known to support weight-loss and enhance cognition. Although clinical research is still in its infancy, a Journal of Psychopharmacology study found that guarana likely improves memory, mood and alertness at lower doses.
Unlike coffee, the amount of caffeine doesn’t have to be listed on potentially potent guarana drinks making it easier to get to that danger zone of caffeine intoxication. Anecdotal reports, including a review in the Journal of Herbal Pharmacotherapy, have linked guarana to anxiety, heart rhythm abnormalities and even chest pain.
Hi Ball
As the self-proclaimed “World’s First Sparkling Energy Drink,” HiBall certainly lives up to the title with no sugar, artificial colors, flavors, sweeteners or preservatives. The taste is crisp and the energy is simple, with 75 milligrams of natural caffeine. (10 oz.)
Enviga
Past hype surrounding this energy drink has given it the image of a magical calorie burner. Although evidence on this remains sketchy, Enviga Green Tea is still a good choice for boosting energy and antioxidant levels. It has virtually no calories and contains 20 percent of your calcium RDA. (12 oz.)
Eiro
This Dallas-based company, dedicated to researching nutritional products, wanted to create a drink with natural caffeine sources. Eiro has guarana, green tea, ginko biloba and ginseng. It has no taurine, refined sugars or preservatives, giving it a leg up in providing sustainable energy. (8.4 oz.)
Wheyup
With 22 grams of whey protein in every can, This is a choice drink for bodybuilders. Low carbs (9 grams) and no sugar also make it ideal for losing weight. Whey protein increases lean muscle mass and has tons of daily amino acids. (16 oz.)
Vida Tea
This sparkling tea has a combination of three green teas and is sweetened with agave nectar. Agave is absorbed into the body without an insulin spike, so it’s a safer option for diabetics. At the World Tea Expo, VidaTea was named “Best Tea” in the Sweetened Green Tea category. (12 oz.)
Sea2O
As the title claims, this drink is totally organic and contains no caffeine. Sea2o gives you energy with agave nectar, a natural organic sugar with low impact on blood sugar and an exceptionally low glycemic index. It’s an ideal energy drink for diabetics. (10.5 oz.)
Verve
Verve has a combination of green tea, aloe and mangosteen fruit, giving it a distinct flavor. Like most of these healthier options, Verve has antioxidants like Xanthones that help fight fatigue and depression. (8.3 oz.)
LIVE
It’s pretty hard to find reasons not to LIVE with this energy drink. Featuring flavors like green tea and acai berry, LIVE is naturally sweetened with evaporated organic sugar cane juice, rather than artificial sugars, colors and preservatives. The company even donates 50 percent of your purchase to a handful of charities. (12 oz.)
FRS
(Elissa gave me this stuff and it is pretty good)
FRS stands for Free Radical Scavenger which is a term for antioxidant. The special patented formula of quercetin is designed to give you a more sustainable source of energy. Quercetin is difficult to find as a single ingredient, unless you eat 40 apples. FRS is also endorsed by Lance Armstrong. (11.5 oz.)
Active Ingredient: Caffeine
It’s in your morning latte, your afternoon tea and even your chocolately midnight snack. Consumed daily by more than 80 percent of people in America, caffeine is the most widely used psychoactive substance in the world. Caffeine stimulates the central nervous system, the heart and the respiratory system within an hour or less of consumption.
This stimulant acts just as it sounds and mimics the effect of epinephrine — yep, that’s adrenaline. Your heart rate will jump up, your systolic blood pressure will increase and you’ll temporarily rev up your metabolism. Thank the molecular breakdown of caffeine for this revitalization and other welcomed effects such as the breakdown of fat storage, blood vessel dilation and bronchi relaxation. In fact, this metabolic product — theophylline — is often used in asthma medication.
Medical evidence has continued to affirm caffeine’s high-octane effects: A recent study from the University of Chicago indicates that your Starbucks fix might be the reason you have become that cheerful morning person. The research shows that caffeine not only wakes you up but also positively influences mood and cognition. They also found it improves subjective well-being and behavioral performance, so you’re better able to deal with obnoxious drivers on your morning commute.
Caffeine is the real deal when it comes to boosting your energy but daily consumption, even at low doses, can quickly produce dependence and withdrawal symptoms including pounding headaches and insomnia. Never consume more than 300 milligrams a day as you quickly enter into the dangerous territory of caffeine intoxication.
Sobe No Fear
Ignore the name and be very afraid of this high fructose corn syrup-laden drink. The high levels of sugar (66 grams) and caffeine (174 milligrams) are unsettling enough, but at 260 calories per can, a few too many and you’ll be fearing the size of your thighs. (20 oz.)
Gatorade
If you’re looking for electrolytes, don’t reach for a Gatorade. Instead you’ll get 200 calories per 32 fluid ounces. It’s also packed with high fructose corn syrup. Try the leaner version of Gatorade (G2), SmartWater or a glass of good old H2O and a banana for electrolytes. (32 oz.)
AMP
One 16-ounce can contains 11 percent of your day’s calories and more sugar than four scoops of peanut butter cup ice cream. Amp also contains aspartame, the non-nutritive sweetener that has brought more than 30 years of health controversy. Aspartame dissolves into solution, and can therefore travel throughout the body and deposit within any tissue. (16 oz.)
Starbucks Coffee Frappuccino
Anyone who has read “Eat This, Not That: Supermarket Survival Guide” knows that one 13.7-ounce bottle is the sugar equivalent of a three-scoop bowl of double fudge brownie ice cream. With that much sugar, expect an afternoon crash and burn. (9.5 oz.)
Sobe Energy (Power)
One bottle has more than 250 calories, 35 milligrams of sodium and 70 grams of sugar. When you add it up, that’s nearly double the sugar found in a can of Coke. Sobe is so not worth the extra pounds of fat you could gain. (20 oz.)
Full Throttle
This Coca-Cola product has 220 calories and more than 50 grams of high fructose corn syrup. It’s basically Coke on steroids. Today we consume twice as many calories as we did 30 years ago. If you just cut down to water, seltzer, unsweetened coffee or tea one day a week, you could lose around seven pounds a year. (8 oz.)
Cocaine
This drink has three and a half times more caffeine than a can of Red Bull. And it only holds 8.4 fluid ounces. Small amounts of caffeine can go a long way, but having too much can pose a whole slew of threats to your body. Sometimes less is more. (8.4 oz.)
Red Bull
Not only was Sugar-Free Red Bull shown to give a healthy person the same blood consistency as someone with heart disease, but traces of cocaine were found in some cans of the newer Red Bull Cola. Believe it or not, Red Bull is still not the worst on our list, but these qualities definitely don’t give it five stars. (12 oz.)
Rockstar Original
With 62 grams of sugar in the popular double-size can, you might as well be drinking chocolate Rice Krispies. Americans should only consume about 40 grams of sugar a day. Combined with the 160 milligrams of caffeine, it may be a quick fix, but it won’t sustain you through the day. (16 oz.)
Monster Energy
Though Monster has a few desirable ingredients, such as ginseng root and guarana seed extract, it still gives you a clockwork crash. If you read the label carefully, it says “Serving Size 2” on one can. A total of 54 grams of carbs, sugar and 200 calories means a lot of extra time on the stationary bike. (8.3 oz.)
Active Ingredient: Taurine
The 1,000 milligrams found in one serving of Red Bull has been touted to combat mental and physical fatigue but it appears the energy drink does little to give you wings. Outside of its role as a sham energy supplement, the amino acid taurine is found naturally in meat and fish. The manufacturers of Red Bull claim that the body’s taurine production declines with extreme physical exertion but no research has yet indicated that this can be remedied by chugging a can of the drink.
What we do know about the role of taurine in the body is that it is found in skeletal muscle, the heart and the nervous system. It’s a bonafide multi-tasker: Taurine is important for efficient metabolism, stabilizing cell membranes, generating nerve impulses and it even appears to work as an antioxidant.
And while it may not zap you out of your 4 o’clock drowsiness, taurine supplementation appears to not only be safe in moderation but also medicinal. It has been used to treat epilepsy via its anti-convulsant role as a nerve cell membrane stabilizer. In Japan, taurine is often administered to treat ischemic heart disease and certain heart arrhythmias.
Although up to 3,000 milligrams of taurine (that’s three servings of Red Bull) are considered safe, little is known about the effects of heavy or long-term use — except of course that it won’t give you wings.
Luna (Clif) Caramel Nut Brownie
At a mere 180 calories, Luna — the Clif bar for women — boasts the highest amount of calcium (35 percent of your Recommended Daily Allowance or RDA) and iron (30 percent RDA) compared to all the bars we examined. It’s also chock full of antioxidants including vitamins C and E, green tea extract and selenium. (per 48g bar)
Kashi GoLean Roll Caramel Peanut
With nearly 25 percent of your fiber RDA, this whole grain bar is far from tasting like cardboard. This Kashi GoLean snack also contains 12 grams of protein from natural sources like peanuts and soy to keep your stomach growls at bay. (per 55g bar)
Zone Perfect Peanut Toffee
No need to take a multivitamin when you have a yummy Zone Perfect on hand. With more than 12 vitamins and minerals, a great taste and 14 grams of protein on board, this one will be sure to keep you fuller and more glycemically-balanced than most other bars. (per 50g bar)
Larabar Ginger Snap
Comforting just like the ginger snaps you grew up on; this ginger-filled Larabar is both tasty and soothing on the stomach. Since it contains no sodium, gluten, dairy or soy, you’ll be able to enjoy this fiber-packed treat without any worries. (per 51g bar)
Pure Bar Cranberry Orange Bar
This organic snack contains the shortest ingredient list by far and is sweetened 100 percent naturally by fruit and agave nectar. The Pure Bar’s exotic flavor is combined with walnuts, cashews and almonds to keep you full while fighting free radicals and heart disease. (per 48g bar)
Boundless Oatmega Dark Chocolate Mint
This tasty number — 190 calories to be exact — is an organic, protein-packed snack created here in Austin. Not only is it low in sugar, but all Boundless Oatmega bars contain heart-healthy ingredients such as green tea, omega-3 fatty acids and sea salt. (per 50g bar)
Powerbar: Energize Blast Berry Smoothie
The full flavor of this Powerbar comes at the expense of more than 200 calories, 24 grams of sugar and 180 milligrams of sodium. And with less than one gram of fiber, you’ll be lacking an extra movement beyond your morning jog. (per 56g bar)
Apex
This Apex bar truly is the pinnacle of a poor ingredient list. Among the first four are corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar. The 20 grams of sugar are therefore no surprise, but the 18 percent of your RDA for saturated fat and the mere one percent of potassium is sadly unexpected. (per 55g bar)
SlimFast
Your mom’s old diet fad is thankfully becoming a thing of the past. Despite the small serving size, this Slim-Fast bar includes 15 percent of your saturated fat RDA and is one of the few bars to contain cholesterol. Interestingly, despite the less than one gram of fiber, the safety information reads “excessive consumption may have a laxative effect.” (per 28g bar)
Balance Original Almond Brownie
Never judge a book, or a bar, by its cover. Although this Balance Original bar looks and sounds healthy, its specs (200 calories, 17 grams of sugar and 18 percent of your RDA for saturated fat) prove otherwise. It almost gets points for the addition of 19 vitamins and minerals, but returns to zero with its second ingredient: High-fructose corn syrup. (per 50g bar)
Snickers Marathon® Energy Bar Multi Grain Crunch
Although delicious, the Snickers Marathon takes the cake for unhealthiest bar. Consuming this one snack puts you at 10 percent of your RDA for sodium and total fat. The ingredients also read as a science experiment with corn syrup and quadratein heading up this laundry list. (per 55g bar)
Active Ingredient: Ginseng
Stimulants and amino acids are not the only ingredients in your late night energy drink. Ancient Chinese remedies like ginseng and cordyceps (see page 30) are now popping up as the new fatigue fighters. And according to William Wood and Aaron Winning, both Licensed Acupuncturists & Herbalists (L.Ac) at SoCo Clinic, not only do they work but side effects are minimal especially when compared to caffeine.
“Though these are herbs, they still have side effects and should be taken in moderation to get the best effect,” Winning emphasizes.
The third top-selling herb in the United States is also 2,000 years old in China. Herbal remedies known as ginseng are derived from the roots of either the American (Panax quinquefolius) or Asian (Panax ginseng) perennial plant. Only these two of the 11 different ginseng species are used for medicinal purposes. Their botanical name, Panax, is translated from Greek to mean “all heal” or, if you like, “panacea.”
You won’t get far at any grocery store without coming across either form of ginseng. But don’t just reach for the cheapest price tag. “You need to look for a high grade of ginseng to ensure effectiveness,” says Wood, “This is difficult to do from simply walking down the aisles of a health food store. Your best bet is to go to a Chinese herbalist who obtains their ginseng from a trusted source.”
The herb is often advertised as everything from an immunity enhancer to an aphrodisiac. Despite all the propaganda, many of these claims have not been seriously researched in the United States including those that promote ginseng as an efficient energy enhancer.
But if either were to promote vigor, Asian ginseng — particularly the red form — is thought to have stronger effects than its American counterpart possibly due to the longer harvesting period and a steaming process that locks in the active ingredients including ginsenoside.
Studies conducted in Japan and published in the Journal of Pharmacological Sciences have demonstrated that ginsenosides dilate blood vessels and help increase blood flow. Improved circulation results in better oxygen delivery and potentially enhanced stamina. In fact, these same researchers have found that red Asian ginseng helps the body resist the damaging effects of everyday stress. Ginesenoside, along with ginseng’s other active components, are thought to reduce the pituitary gland’s secretion of the ACTH hormone which stimulates the release of the stress hormone cortisol. Less cortisol means less stress-related complaints like headaches, stomach ulcers and insomnia.
End
Enjoy a beautiful day!
Friday, July 3, 2009
2009 Obesity Rankings
Today’s Re-Powering Information. The obesity rankings were just posted this week. They statistics are NOT improving. Obesity did NOT decrease in a single state – including Texas. Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of obese adults are in the South. Lori you will be happy to hear that Colorado has the lowest percentage of obesity. I believe that part of the high obesity in the south has to do with the fast food chains. I was in shock when we moved here and saw so many fast food options. My town in NJ had a burger king (almost 50 years old) and a Duncan donuts. That was it! 2 choices. Flower Mound has over 50 options for fast food.
I am thankful that you have not chosen to be part of the statics!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
State by state obesity rankings are out
Washington, D.C. - Adult obesity rates increased in 23 states and did not decrease in a single state in the past year, according to F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America 2009, a report released today by the Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). In addition, the percentage of obese or overweight children is at or above 30 percent in 30 states.
"Our health care costs have grown along with our waist lines," said Jeff Levi, Ph.D., executive director of TFAH. "The obesity epidemic is a big contributor to the skyrocketing health care costs in the United States. How are we going to compete with the rest of the world if our economy and workforce are weighed down by bad health?"
Mississippi had the highest rate of adult obesity at 32.5 percent, making it the fifth year in a row that the state topped the list. Four states now have rates above 30 percent, including Mississippi, Alabama (31.2 percent), West Virginia (31.1 percent) and Tennessee (30.2 percent). Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of obese adults are in the South. Colorado continued to have the lowest percentage of obese adults at 18.9 percent.
Adult obesity rates now exceed 25 percent in 31 states and exceed 20 percent in 49 states and Washington, D.C. Two-thirds of American adults are either obese or overweight. In 1991, no state had an obesity rate above 20 percent. In 1980, the national average for adult obesity was 15 percent. Sixteen states experienced an increase for the second year in a row, and 11 states experienced an increase for the third straight year.
Mississippi also had the highest rate of obese and overweight children (ages 10 to 17) at 44.4 percent. Minnesota and Utah had the lowest rate at 23.1 percent. Eight of the 10 states with the highest rates of obese and overweight children are in the South. Childhood obesity rates have more than tripled since 1980.
"Reversing the childhood obesity epidemic is a critical ingredient for delivering a healthier population and making health reform work," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., RWJF president and CEO. "If we can prevent the current generation of young people from developing the serious and costly chronic conditions related to obesity, we can not only improve health and quality of life, but we can also save billions of dollars and make our health care systems more efficient and sustainable."
The F as in Fat report contains rankings of state obesity rates and a review of federal and state government policies aimed at reducing or preventing obesity. Some additional key findings from F as in Fat 2009 include:
* The current economic crisis could exacerbate the obesity epidemic. Food prices, particularly for more nutritious foods, are expected to rise, making it more difficult for families to eat healthy foods. At the same time, safety-net programs and services are becoming increasingly overextended as the numbers of unemployed, uninsured and underinsured continue to grow. In addition, due to the strain of the recession, rates of depression, anxiety and stress, which are linked to obesity for many individuals, also are increasing.
* Nineteen states now have nutritional standards for school lunches, breakfasts and snacks that are stricter than current USDA requirements. Five years ago, only four states had legislation requiring stricter standards.
* Twenty-seven states have nutritional standards for competitive foods sold a la carte, in vending machines, in school stores or in school bake sales. Five years ago, only six states had nutritional standards for competitive foods.
* Twenty states have passed requirements for body mass index (BMI) screenings of children and adolescents or have passed legislation requiring other forms of weight-related assessments in schools. Five years ago, only four states had passed screening requirements.
* A recent analysis commissioned by TFAH found that the Baby Boomer generation has a higher rate of obesity compared with previous generations. As the Baby Boomer generation ages, obesity-related costs to Medicare and Medicaid are likely to grow significantly because of the large number of people in this population and its high rate of obesity. And, as Baby Boomers become Medicare-eligible, the percentage of obese adults age 65 and older could increase significantly. Estimates of the increase in percentage of obese adults range from 5.2 percent in New York to 16.3 percent in Alabama.
Key report recommendations for addressing obesity within health reform include:
* Ensuring every adult and child has access to coverage for preventive medical services, including nutrition and obesity counseling and screening for obesity-related diseases, such as type 2 diabetes;
* Increasing the number of programs available in communities, schools, and childcare settings that help make nutritious foods more affordable and accessible and provide safe and healthy places for people to engage in physical activity; and
* Reducing Medicare expenditures by promoting proven programs that improve nutrition and increase physical activity among adults ages 55 to 64.
The report also calls for a National Strategy to Combat Obesity that would define roles and responsibilities for federal, state and local governments and promote collaboration among businesses, communities, schools and families. It would seek to advance policies that
* Provide healthy foods and beverages to students at schools;
* Increase the availability of affordable healthy foods in all communities;
* Increase the frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity at school;
* Improve access to safe and healthy places to live, work, learn, and play;
* Limit screen time; and
* Encourage employers to provide workplace wellness programs.
The report was supported by a grant from RWJF.
State-by-State Adult Obesity Rankings
Note: 1 = Highest rate of adult obesity, 51 = lowest rate of adult obesity. Rankings are based on combining three years of data (2006-2008) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to "stabilize" data for comparison purposes. This methodology, recommended by the CDC, compensates for any potential anomalies or usual changes due to the specific sample in any given year in any given state. States with a statistically significant (p<0.05) increase for one year are noted with an asterisk (*), states with statistically significant increases for two years in a row are noted with two asterisks (**), states with statistically significant increases for three years in a row are noted with three asterisks (***). Additional information about methodologies and confidence interval is available in the report. Adults with a body mass index, a calculation based on weight and height ratios, of 30 or higher are considered obese. 1. Mississippi*** (32.5%); 2. Alabama* (31.2%); 3. West Virginia (31.1%); 4. Tennessee*** (30.2%); 5. South Carolina (29.7%); 6. Oklahoma*** (29.5%); 7. Kentucky (29.0%); 8. Louisiana (28.9%); 9. Michigan*** (28.8%) 10. (tie) Arkansas (28.6%) and Ohio* (28.6%); 12. North Carolina*** (28.3%); 13. Missouri (28.1%); 14. (tie) Georgia (27.9%) and Texas (27.9%); 16. Indiana (27.4%); 17. Delaware*** (27.3%); 18. (tie) Alaska (27.2%) and Kansas*** (27.2%) 20. (tie) Nebraska (26.9%) and South Dakota*** (26.9%); 22. (tie) Iowa (26.7%) and North Dakota* (26.7%) and Pennsylvania** 26.7%; 25. (tie) Maryland*** (26.0%) and Wisconsin (26.0%); 27. Illinois 25.9%; 28. (tie) Oregon (25.4%) and Virginia (25.4) and Washington*** (25.4%); 31. Minnesota (25.3%); 32. Nevada* 25.1%; 33. (tie) Arizona** (24.8%) and Idaho (24.8%); 35. Maine* (24.7%); 36. New Mexico*** (24.6%); 37. New York** (24.5%) 38. Wyoming (24.3%); 39. (tie) Florida* (24.1%) and New Hampshire (24.1%); 41. California (23.6%); 42. New Jersey (23.4%); 43. Montana** (22.7%); 44. Utah (22.5%); 45. District of Columbia (22.3%); 46. Vermont** (22.1%); 47. Hawaii* (21.8%); 48. Rhode Island (21.7%); 49. Connecticut (21.3%); 50. Massachusetts (21.2%); 51. Colorado (18.9%)
State-by-State Obese and Overweight Children Ages 10-17 Rankings
Note: 1 = Highest rate of childhood overweight, 51 = lowest. Rankings are based on the National Survey of Children's Health, a phone survey of parents with children ages 10-17 conducted in 2007 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additional information about methodologies and confidence intervals is available in the report. Children with a body mass index, a calculation based on weight and height ratios, at or above the 95th percentile for their age are considered obese and children at or above the 85th percentile are considered overweight. States with statistically significant (p<0.05) increases in combined obesity and overweight since the NSCH was last issued in 2003 are noted with an asterisk (*).
1. Mississippi* (44.4%); 2. Arkansas (37.5%); 3. Georgia (37.3%); 4. Kentucky (37.1%) 5. Tennessee (36.5%) 6. Alabama (36.1%); 7. Louisiana (35.9%); 8. West Virginia (35.5%); 9. District of Columbia (35.4%); 10. Illinois (34.9%); 11. Nevada* (34.2%); 12. Alaska (33.9%); 13. South Carolina (33.7%); 14. North Carolina (33.5%); 15. Ohio (33.3%); 16. Delaware (33.2%); 17. Florida (33.1%); 18. New York (32.9%); 19. New Mexico (32.7%) 20. Texas (32.2%) 21. Nebraska (31.5%); 22. Kansas (31.1%); 23. (tie) Missouri (31.0%) and New Jersey (31.0%) and Virginia (31.0%); 26. (tie) Arizona (30.6%) and Michigan (30.6%); 28. California (30.5%); 29. Rhode Island (30.1%); 30. Massachusetts (30.0%) 31. Indiana (29.9%) 32. Pennsylvania (29.7%); 33. (tie) Oklahoma (29.5%) and Washington (29.5%); 35. New Hampshire (29.4%); 36. Maryland (28.8%); 37. Hawaii (28.5%); 38. South Dakota (28.4%); 39. Maine (28.2%); 40. Wisconsin (27.9%); 41. Idaho (27.5%); 42. Colorado (27.2%); 43. Vermont (26.7%); 44. Iowa (26.5%); 45. (tie) Connecticut (25.7%) and North Dakota (25.7%) and Wyoming (25.7%); 48. Montana (25.6%); 49. Oregon (24.3%); 50. (tie) Minnesota (23.1%) and Utah (23.1%)
Trust for America's Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.
I am thankful that you have not chosen to be part of the statics!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
State by state obesity rankings are out
Washington, D.C. - Adult obesity rates increased in 23 states and did not decrease in a single state in the past year, according to F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America 2009, a report released today by the Trust for America's Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). In addition, the percentage of obese or overweight children is at or above 30 percent in 30 states.
"Our health care costs have grown along with our waist lines," said Jeff Levi, Ph.D., executive director of TFAH. "The obesity epidemic is a big contributor to the skyrocketing health care costs in the United States. How are we going to compete with the rest of the world if our economy and workforce are weighed down by bad health?"
Mississippi had the highest rate of adult obesity at 32.5 percent, making it the fifth year in a row that the state topped the list. Four states now have rates above 30 percent, including Mississippi, Alabama (31.2 percent), West Virginia (31.1 percent) and Tennessee (30.2 percent). Eight of the 10 states with the highest percentage of obese adults are in the South. Colorado continued to have the lowest percentage of obese adults at 18.9 percent.
Adult obesity rates now exceed 25 percent in 31 states and exceed 20 percent in 49 states and Washington, D.C. Two-thirds of American adults are either obese or overweight. In 1991, no state had an obesity rate above 20 percent. In 1980, the national average for adult obesity was 15 percent. Sixteen states experienced an increase for the second year in a row, and 11 states experienced an increase for the third straight year.
Mississippi also had the highest rate of obese and overweight children (ages 10 to 17) at 44.4 percent. Minnesota and Utah had the lowest rate at 23.1 percent. Eight of the 10 states with the highest rates of obese and overweight children are in the South. Childhood obesity rates have more than tripled since 1980.
"Reversing the childhood obesity epidemic is a critical ingredient for delivering a healthier population and making health reform work," said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., RWJF president and CEO. "If we can prevent the current generation of young people from developing the serious and costly chronic conditions related to obesity, we can not only improve health and quality of life, but we can also save billions of dollars and make our health care systems more efficient and sustainable."
The F as in Fat report contains rankings of state obesity rates and a review of federal and state government policies aimed at reducing or preventing obesity. Some additional key findings from F as in Fat 2009 include:
* The current economic crisis could exacerbate the obesity epidemic. Food prices, particularly for more nutritious foods, are expected to rise, making it more difficult for families to eat healthy foods. At the same time, safety-net programs and services are becoming increasingly overextended as the numbers of unemployed, uninsured and underinsured continue to grow. In addition, due to the strain of the recession, rates of depression, anxiety and stress, which are linked to obesity for many individuals, also are increasing.
* Nineteen states now have nutritional standards for school lunches, breakfasts and snacks that are stricter than current USDA requirements. Five years ago, only four states had legislation requiring stricter standards.
* Twenty-seven states have nutritional standards for competitive foods sold a la carte, in vending machines, in school stores or in school bake sales. Five years ago, only six states had nutritional standards for competitive foods.
* Twenty states have passed requirements for body mass index (BMI) screenings of children and adolescents or have passed legislation requiring other forms of weight-related assessments in schools. Five years ago, only four states had passed screening requirements.
* A recent analysis commissioned by TFAH found that the Baby Boomer generation has a higher rate of obesity compared with previous generations. As the Baby Boomer generation ages, obesity-related costs to Medicare and Medicaid are likely to grow significantly because of the large number of people in this population and its high rate of obesity. And, as Baby Boomers become Medicare-eligible, the percentage of obese adults age 65 and older could increase significantly. Estimates of the increase in percentage of obese adults range from 5.2 percent in New York to 16.3 percent in Alabama.
Key report recommendations for addressing obesity within health reform include:
* Ensuring every adult and child has access to coverage for preventive medical services, including nutrition and obesity counseling and screening for obesity-related diseases, such as type 2 diabetes;
* Increasing the number of programs available in communities, schools, and childcare settings that help make nutritious foods more affordable and accessible and provide safe and healthy places for people to engage in physical activity; and
* Reducing Medicare expenditures by promoting proven programs that improve nutrition and increase physical activity among adults ages 55 to 64.
The report also calls for a National Strategy to Combat Obesity that would define roles and responsibilities for federal, state and local governments and promote collaboration among businesses, communities, schools and families. It would seek to advance policies that
* Provide healthy foods and beverages to students at schools;
* Increase the availability of affordable healthy foods in all communities;
* Increase the frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity at school;
* Improve access to safe and healthy places to live, work, learn, and play;
* Limit screen time; and
* Encourage employers to provide workplace wellness programs.
The report was supported by a grant from RWJF.
State-by-State Adult Obesity Rankings
Note: 1 = Highest rate of adult obesity, 51 = lowest rate of adult obesity. Rankings are based on combining three years of data (2006-2008) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to "stabilize" data for comparison purposes. This methodology, recommended by the CDC, compensates for any potential anomalies or usual changes due to the specific sample in any given year in any given state. States with a statistically significant (p<0.05) increase for one year are noted with an asterisk (*), states with statistically significant increases for two years in a row are noted with two asterisks (**), states with statistically significant increases for three years in a row are noted with three asterisks (***). Additional information about methodologies and confidence interval is available in the report. Adults with a body mass index, a calculation based on weight and height ratios, of 30 or higher are considered obese. 1. Mississippi*** (32.5%); 2. Alabama* (31.2%); 3. West Virginia (31.1%); 4. Tennessee*** (30.2%); 5. South Carolina (29.7%); 6. Oklahoma*** (29.5%); 7. Kentucky (29.0%); 8. Louisiana (28.9%); 9. Michigan*** (28.8%) 10. (tie) Arkansas (28.6%) and Ohio* (28.6%); 12. North Carolina*** (28.3%); 13. Missouri (28.1%); 14. (tie) Georgia (27.9%) and Texas (27.9%); 16. Indiana (27.4%); 17. Delaware*** (27.3%); 18. (tie) Alaska (27.2%) and Kansas*** (27.2%) 20. (tie) Nebraska (26.9%) and South Dakota*** (26.9%); 22. (tie) Iowa (26.7%) and North Dakota* (26.7%) and Pennsylvania** 26.7%; 25. (tie) Maryland*** (26.0%) and Wisconsin (26.0%); 27. Illinois 25.9%; 28. (tie) Oregon (25.4%) and Virginia (25.4) and Washington*** (25.4%); 31. Minnesota (25.3%); 32. Nevada* 25.1%; 33. (tie) Arizona** (24.8%) and Idaho (24.8%); 35. Maine* (24.7%); 36. New Mexico*** (24.6%); 37. New York** (24.5%) 38. Wyoming (24.3%); 39. (tie) Florida* (24.1%) and New Hampshire (24.1%); 41. California (23.6%); 42. New Jersey (23.4%); 43. Montana** (22.7%); 44. Utah (22.5%); 45. District of Columbia (22.3%); 46. Vermont** (22.1%); 47. Hawaii* (21.8%); 48. Rhode Island (21.7%); 49. Connecticut (21.3%); 50. Massachusetts (21.2%); 51. Colorado (18.9%)
State-by-State Obese and Overweight Children Ages 10-17 Rankings
Note: 1 = Highest rate of childhood overweight, 51 = lowest. Rankings are based on the National Survey of Children's Health, a phone survey of parents with children ages 10-17 conducted in 2007 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Additional information about methodologies and confidence intervals is available in the report. Children with a body mass index, a calculation based on weight and height ratios, at or above the 95th percentile for their age are considered obese and children at or above the 85th percentile are considered overweight. States with statistically significant (p<0.05) increases in combined obesity and overweight since the NSCH was last issued in 2003 are noted with an asterisk (*).
1. Mississippi* (44.4%); 2. Arkansas (37.5%); 3. Georgia (37.3%); 4. Kentucky (37.1%) 5. Tennessee (36.5%) 6. Alabama (36.1%); 7. Louisiana (35.9%); 8. West Virginia (35.5%); 9. District of Columbia (35.4%); 10. Illinois (34.9%); 11. Nevada* (34.2%); 12. Alaska (33.9%); 13. South Carolina (33.7%); 14. North Carolina (33.5%); 15. Ohio (33.3%); 16. Delaware (33.2%); 17. Florida (33.1%); 18. New York (32.9%); 19. New Mexico (32.7%) 20. Texas (32.2%) 21. Nebraska (31.5%); 22. Kansas (31.1%); 23. (tie) Missouri (31.0%) and New Jersey (31.0%) and Virginia (31.0%); 26. (tie) Arizona (30.6%) and Michigan (30.6%); 28. California (30.5%); 29. Rhode Island (30.1%); 30. Massachusetts (30.0%) 31. Indiana (29.9%) 32. Pennsylvania (29.7%); 33. (tie) Oklahoma (29.5%) and Washington (29.5%); 35. New Hampshire (29.4%); 36. Maryland (28.8%); 37. Hawaii (28.5%); 38. South Dakota (28.4%); 39. Maine (28.2%); 40. Wisconsin (27.9%); 41. Idaho (27.5%); 42. Colorado (27.2%); 43. Vermont (26.7%); 44. Iowa (26.5%); 45. (tie) Connecticut (25.7%) and North Dakota (25.7%) and Wyoming (25.7%); 48. Montana (25.6%); 49. Oregon (24.3%); 50. (tie) Minnesota (23.1%) and Utah (23.1%)
Trust for America's Health is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to saving lives by protecting the health of every community and working to make disease prevention a national priority.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Consumers haven't a clue
Today’ Re-Powering information – A new study was just published about consumers awareness of the nutrition in fast foods. Most consumers don’t have a clue – and the fast food companies like it that way!
Consumers haven't a clue
Newswise - A new study by marketing researchers at the University of Arkansas indicates that many consumers have a poor understanding of the calorie, fat and sodium content of quick-service restaurant meals. This finding is especially true for less healthful meals, such as a cheeseburger with fries and regular (not diet) soft drink. Although diet soda is poor nutrition!
The researchers - Scot Burton and Elizabeth "Betsy" Howlett, marketing professors in the Sam M. Walton College of Business, and graduate student Andrea Tangari - found that as the calorie content of a meal increased, so did the extent to which calorie, fat and sodium levels were underestimated. In other words, although most consumers expected a large cheeseburger and fries to be high in calories, few realized just how unhealthy that meal was. For example, sodium levels from these purchased meals provided more than 75 percent of the daily-recommended level of 2300 milligrams, and consumers underestimated the amount of sodium in their meals by roughly 1,000 milligrams.
Results also showed that when nutrition information was worse than expected, consumers' product evaluations were much more negative.
"Our findings provide potential insight into why frequent restaurant diners may have difficulty maintaining or losing weight," said Howlett. "On average, frequent diners unknowingly consumed 900 extra calories a week from restaurant meals. This degree of underestimation appears capable of causing significant weight gain over the long term." This is how easily a person can destroy a weeks worth of effort and caloric deficit. The bigger the meal... the worse it is... and the less we realize it.
Within the context of the national obesity problem and possible legislation mandating disclosure of calorie and nutrient information on menus, the researchers conducted three studies to determine how accurately consumers estimate calorie, fat and sodium content of quick-service restaurant meals. Of particular interest was how objective nutrition information interacted with prior expectations to influence product evaluations, purchase intentions and perceptions of diet-related disease risks.
"Our results suggest that when obligated to disclose nutrition information, quick-service restaurants with signature items that are substantially higher in calories than consumers' expect may find their firms in a relatively less favorable position," Burton said. "These restaurants may wish to improve their portfolio of healthy items by either introducing new products or improving the nutrition profile of foods on their current menu by switching to lower calorie ingredients." Certainly, if consumers knew in advance what the nutritional value (or non-value) of these fast food meals were they would be influenced to make better selections. I would hope anyway. I am also pretty sure the fast food chain will fight hard against this legislation to pass as it will cripple their business.
An example of this strategy has been demonstrated recently by KFC, which recently introduced a grilled (unfried) chicken meal that is healthier than a fried-chicken meal.
In the first study, participants kept a diary of their fast-food purchases. They recorded restaurants visited, meal prices, specific food and drinks consumed and ratings of meal satisfaction. After a seven-day period, they estimated the calorie, fat and sodium levels for each restaurant meal recorded in their diary. The researchers then gathered participants' opinions and perceptions about each specific meal purchased. Next, the participants visited restaurant Web sites to obtain objective calorie and nutrient levels for each meal. Several days after obtaining this objective information, meals were re-evaluated.
The researchers found that when objective calorie levels were relatively low, consumers' estimates, on average, were close to actual levels. For example, the participants did not grossly overestimate or underestimate the amount of calories in a garden salad with a medium diet drink. However, when objective calories were relatively high, consumers' estimates were significantly less than actual levels. Consequently, the disclosure of actual calories had a strong negative effect on product evaluations.
"Without awareness of actual quantitative information - the objective levels of calories, fat and sodium - it is difficult to assess the potential effect that quick-service restaurant purchases may have on consumers' weight maintenance or weight-loss efforts," Howlett said.
The purpose of the second study, a controlled, Web-based experiment, was to determine how the provision of objective calorie information for actual quick-service restaurant items influenced consumers' choices and purchase intentions. Via an online survey, 363 adult consumers provided their opinions of and purchase intentions for three popular meals served by two quick-service restaurant chains. Participants were given a description of each meal. Some descriptions included calorie information; others did not. The third study employed a longitudinal experiment in which participants formed expectations, based on a fictitious restaurant review, about calorie levels and then were provided product information that either confirmed or contradicted initial expectations.
Results from the second and third studies confirmed those of the initial experiment - that objective calorie and nutrient levels often deviate from consumer expectations and the extent of this difference determines the extent to which objective nutrition information affects consumers' product evaluations and choices. Specifically, the researchers found that when objective calorie levels were higher than expected, purchase intentions were lower. More importantly, the percentage of consumers choosing less healthful menu items decreased when actual calorie levels exceeded expected levels. The percentage of consumers choosing healthier items increased when actual calorie levels were disclosed and those calorie levels were less than expected. However, when actual calorie levels were consistent with what was expected, consumers' meal evaluations were not affected, even when the meal calorie levels were very high.
The study was published in the Journal of Retailing and may be found at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620186/description#description. Electronic copies are available upon request.
Consumers haven't a clue
Newswise - A new study by marketing researchers at the University of Arkansas indicates that many consumers have a poor understanding of the calorie, fat and sodium content of quick-service restaurant meals. This finding is especially true for less healthful meals, such as a cheeseburger with fries and regular (not diet) soft drink. Although diet soda is poor nutrition!
The researchers - Scot Burton and Elizabeth "Betsy" Howlett, marketing professors in the Sam M. Walton College of Business, and graduate student Andrea Tangari - found that as the calorie content of a meal increased, so did the extent to which calorie, fat and sodium levels were underestimated. In other words, although most consumers expected a large cheeseburger and fries to be high in calories, few realized just how unhealthy that meal was. For example, sodium levels from these purchased meals provided more than 75 percent of the daily-recommended level of 2300 milligrams, and consumers underestimated the amount of sodium in their meals by roughly 1,000 milligrams.
Results also showed that when nutrition information was worse than expected, consumers' product evaluations were much more negative.
"Our findings provide potential insight into why frequent restaurant diners may have difficulty maintaining or losing weight," said Howlett. "On average, frequent diners unknowingly consumed 900 extra calories a week from restaurant meals. This degree of underestimation appears capable of causing significant weight gain over the long term." This is how easily a person can destroy a weeks worth of effort and caloric deficit. The bigger the meal... the worse it is... and the less we realize it.
Within the context of the national obesity problem and possible legislation mandating disclosure of calorie and nutrient information on menus, the researchers conducted three studies to determine how accurately consumers estimate calorie, fat and sodium content of quick-service restaurant meals. Of particular interest was how objective nutrition information interacted with prior expectations to influence product evaluations, purchase intentions and perceptions of diet-related disease risks.
"Our results suggest that when obligated to disclose nutrition information, quick-service restaurants with signature items that are substantially higher in calories than consumers' expect may find their firms in a relatively less favorable position," Burton said. "These restaurants may wish to improve their portfolio of healthy items by either introducing new products or improving the nutrition profile of foods on their current menu by switching to lower calorie ingredients." Certainly, if consumers knew in advance what the nutritional value (or non-value) of these fast food meals were they would be influenced to make better selections. I would hope anyway. I am also pretty sure the fast food chain will fight hard against this legislation to pass as it will cripple their business.
An example of this strategy has been demonstrated recently by KFC, which recently introduced a grilled (unfried) chicken meal that is healthier than a fried-chicken meal.
In the first study, participants kept a diary of their fast-food purchases. They recorded restaurants visited, meal prices, specific food and drinks consumed and ratings of meal satisfaction. After a seven-day period, they estimated the calorie, fat and sodium levels for each restaurant meal recorded in their diary. The researchers then gathered participants' opinions and perceptions about each specific meal purchased. Next, the participants visited restaurant Web sites to obtain objective calorie and nutrient levels for each meal. Several days after obtaining this objective information, meals were re-evaluated.
The researchers found that when objective calorie levels were relatively low, consumers' estimates, on average, were close to actual levels. For example, the participants did not grossly overestimate or underestimate the amount of calories in a garden salad with a medium diet drink. However, when objective calories were relatively high, consumers' estimates were significantly less than actual levels. Consequently, the disclosure of actual calories had a strong negative effect on product evaluations.
"Without awareness of actual quantitative information - the objective levels of calories, fat and sodium - it is difficult to assess the potential effect that quick-service restaurant purchases may have on consumers' weight maintenance or weight-loss efforts," Howlett said.
The purpose of the second study, a controlled, Web-based experiment, was to determine how the provision of objective calorie information for actual quick-service restaurant items influenced consumers' choices and purchase intentions. Via an online survey, 363 adult consumers provided their opinions of and purchase intentions for three popular meals served by two quick-service restaurant chains. Participants were given a description of each meal. Some descriptions included calorie information; others did not. The third study employed a longitudinal experiment in which participants formed expectations, based on a fictitious restaurant review, about calorie levels and then were provided product information that either confirmed or contradicted initial expectations.
Results from the second and third studies confirmed those of the initial experiment - that objective calorie and nutrient levels often deviate from consumer expectations and the extent of this difference determines the extent to which objective nutrition information affects consumers' product evaluations and choices. Specifically, the researchers found that when objective calorie levels were higher than expected, purchase intentions were lower. More importantly, the percentage of consumers choosing less healthful menu items decreased when actual calorie levels exceeded expected levels. The percentage of consumers choosing healthier items increased when actual calorie levels were disclosed and those calorie levels were less than expected. However, when actual calorie levels were consistent with what was expected, consumers' meal evaluations were not affected, even when the meal calorie levels were very high.
The study was published in the Journal of Retailing and may be found at http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/620186/description#description. Electronic copies are available upon request.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Low Caloric Diets- protein at EVERY meal
Today’s Repowering information – This article is by Tom Venuto. . It explains why I also recommend you have a protein at EVERY meal and watch your portion sizes as well as create a small caloric deficit each day. This is a Q&A from Tom’s Newsletter about cutting carbs for weight loss.
QUESTION: Tom, I've been reading your stuff for years and I also read a lot of other sites and message boards including some of the low carb boards. I have finally come to the conclusion, both from all my reading and my personal experience, that the idea that one will lose weight just by cutting carbs is a myth.
And I welcome anyone who thinks they can to go ahead and try to prove me wrong. I'm not looking for a fight of course, just looking for good information and discussion.
Consider the following two situations; each involves an identical male who requires 3,000 calories/day to maintain his current weight.
SITUATION #1: The individual reduces his calories to 2,500/day, which theoretically will result in losing one pound/week. The individual divides his calories so 60% (1500) come from Carbs and the remainder come from Fat and Protein. Will he lose weight even though he's eating a lot of Carbs? I believe the answer is YES because even though the carbs are high (60%), he is in a calorie deficit.
SITUATION #2 The individual adopts a Low Carb Diet by eating only 25 grams of Carbs daily (100 calories). He then eats an additional 2900 calories of Fat and Protein. Will he lose weight?
I believe the answer is NO because even though the carbs are low, he is eating at his maintenance level.
Now, I understand that there are advantages to controlling insulin and reducing Carbs, including some health benefits for some people, but what I often don't see on the low carb benefit list is the impact that fat has on controlling appetite.
I believe that Fat satiates even the largest appetite, causing you to eat less.
Therefore, I believe that the reason a Low Carb Diet works is because people who follow it eat fewer calories.
I would love to get your feedback on this Tom and if you or any of your newsletter or blog readers have any studies or information proving me wrong, please let me know.
Thank you
John in Texas
PS. I realize I'm not the first to question a Low Carb diet, so my apologies if this has been discussed in your newsletters before.
ANSWER:
Thanks for your well-thought out question John. Yes, we've
discussed this before, but it's timely and worth discussing
again, especially with some of the long-term research that
was just published earlier this year.
You are preaching to the choir though, my friend. You are
right, fat loss hinges on calories in versus calories out.
BUT -- and there is a big BUT -- we really need to make some
distinctions about low carb and high protein so we don't
throw out the baby with the bathwater. Low carb has some
advantages. More importantly, so does high protein.
Heres where most of the confusion comes from in this whole
low carb thing:
Are we talking about low carb in a free-living / ad-libitum
(non calorie counting) situation, or are we talking about a
laboratory-controlled study or a strict calorie-counting
situation?
This makes all the difference because in a free-living,
situation, low carb almost always beats high carb for
weight loss, especially in the early weeks and months on
the program.
This can be partly explained by water weight and glycogen
loss in the initial weeks, but also by actual greater fat
loss during the early stages.
However, this is not because of "metabolic advantage" of
low carbs over high carbs, it is because subjects in these
types of studies ate less in the low carb group.
In other words, low carb diets usually control appetite
better, when calories are not counted,... i.e. you get
automatic calorie control.
So you are correct in your conclusion.
Furthermore, it's difficult to eat too much when you remove
an entire group of calorie dense foods (sugars and starches)
which are a food group responsible for providing a huge
portion of the calories in most people's diets.
Sure, you can overeat on dietary fat as well, at least
in a mixed diet, but apparently not easily in the absence
of carbs.
Now, heres the kicker...
As soon as you start controlling calories.. I mean hospital
ward or research facility controlled, where the subjects
cannot pick and choose their own food, and instead, the food
is weighed and measured and almost literally spoon fed to
the subjects, the difference in weight loss between low
carb and high carb shrinks or even vanishes.
In other words, when calories are matched, there is little
or no difference in fat loss between a high carb and low carb
diet, when dietary fats and carbs are the variables manipulated.
In the long term studies, even more valuable data has emerged...
The big study by the New England Journal of Medicine that got all
that publicity earlier this year confirmed it once again...
Even though low carb diets work better in the short term for
weight loss in free living subjects, the advantage decreases
by month six, and disappears after a year or two.
The moral of the story is (drumroll please)...
Most people don't stick with ANY type of diet very well for very long.
And... the extreme low carb diets in particular have lower long
term adherence rates and poor long term maintenance rates.
Now, this does not mean that low carb diets do not have
benefits. They certainly do, and some of them are health
related (which is beyond the scope of this column).
Others are fat loss related...
If you automatically eat less due to appetite suppression and
removal of calorie dense foods, that is clearly an advantage,
it's just not the advantage that most low carb advocates
suggest.
There is no proof of metabolic advantage purely from
restriction of carbs and insulin does not lead to obesity
in a cause and effect sense, insulin merely plays a role
in the process of partioning surplus carbs into fat stores
or in suppressing fat release.
Insulin is important to manage, but not the deciding factor
in whether you lose fat or not.
One change in macronutrients that DOES help fat loss is an
increase in protein. Protein is highly thermogenic - about 30%.
So 30% of the energy in protein is not available for potential
fat storage, as it is metabolized just in the digestion process.
So in reality, you could say it's the higher protein, NOT
the reduced carbs, that provides the real advantage!
Ironically, a high protein diet is not always low in carbs.
Take the 40-40-20 macro split from BFFM (or BFL) for example.
40% of calories from protein is very high. And yet 40% carbs
is not very low!
The protein-induced thermodynamic advantage is somewhat small,
but it's significant if a large shift in protein intake is made
as is the case with a 30-40% protein program.
For example, the old food pyramid/ traditional dietician-style
diet is 15% protein. Research from the University of Washington
School of Medicine showed that when protein is doubled to 30%
(replacing carbs), there is a small but measureable advantage
even when matched calorie for calorie.
In free living studies, the advantage is even larger because
protein is a great appetite suppressant and is highly satiating.
In fact, protein NOT FAT, is the most satiating nutrient.
It appears that fat is psychologically satiating, but protein
is the hands down winner as the most satiating, appetite
suppressing macronutrient, physiologically speaking.
Thus, a protein with every meal and a 30% (or even higher) ratio of
protein is conducive to better fat loss - which incidentally is
EXACTLY how the Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program is set up
End
Have a peaceful day,
QUESTION: Tom, I've been reading your stuff for years and I also read a lot of other sites and message boards including some of the low carb boards. I have finally come to the conclusion, both from all my reading and my personal experience, that the idea that one will lose weight just by cutting carbs is a myth.
And I welcome anyone who thinks they can to go ahead and try to prove me wrong. I'm not looking for a fight of course, just looking for good information and discussion.
Consider the following two situations; each involves an identical male who requires 3,000 calories/day to maintain his current weight.
SITUATION #1: The individual reduces his calories to 2,500/day, which theoretically will result in losing one pound/week. The individual divides his calories so 60% (1500) come from Carbs and the remainder come from Fat and Protein. Will he lose weight even though he's eating a lot of Carbs? I believe the answer is YES because even though the carbs are high (60%), he is in a calorie deficit.
SITUATION #2 The individual adopts a Low Carb Diet by eating only 25 grams of Carbs daily (100 calories). He then eats an additional 2900 calories of Fat and Protein. Will he lose weight?
I believe the answer is NO because even though the carbs are low, he is eating at his maintenance level.
Now, I understand that there are advantages to controlling insulin and reducing Carbs, including some health benefits for some people, but what I often don't see on the low carb benefit list is the impact that fat has on controlling appetite.
I believe that Fat satiates even the largest appetite, causing you to eat less.
Therefore, I believe that the reason a Low Carb Diet works is because people who follow it eat fewer calories.
I would love to get your feedback on this Tom and if you or any of your newsletter or blog readers have any studies or information proving me wrong, please let me know.
Thank you
John in Texas
PS. I realize I'm not the first to question a Low Carb diet, so my apologies if this has been discussed in your newsletters before.
ANSWER:
Thanks for your well-thought out question John. Yes, we've
discussed this before, but it's timely and worth discussing
again, especially with some of the long-term research that
was just published earlier this year.
You are preaching to the choir though, my friend. You are
right, fat loss hinges on calories in versus calories out.
BUT -- and there is a big BUT -- we really need to make some
distinctions about low carb and high protein so we don't
throw out the baby with the bathwater. Low carb has some
advantages. More importantly, so does high protein.
Heres where most of the confusion comes from in this whole
low carb thing:
Are we talking about low carb in a free-living / ad-libitum
(non calorie counting) situation, or are we talking about a
laboratory-controlled study or a strict calorie-counting
situation?
This makes all the difference because in a free-living,
situation, low carb almost always beats high carb for
weight loss, especially in the early weeks and months on
the program.
This can be partly explained by water weight and glycogen
loss in the initial weeks, but also by actual greater fat
loss during the early stages.
However, this is not because of "metabolic advantage" of
low carbs over high carbs, it is because subjects in these
types of studies ate less in the low carb group.
In other words, low carb diets usually control appetite
better, when calories are not counted,... i.e. you get
automatic calorie control.
So you are correct in your conclusion.
Furthermore, it's difficult to eat too much when you remove
an entire group of calorie dense foods (sugars and starches)
which are a food group responsible for providing a huge
portion of the calories in most people's diets.
Sure, you can overeat on dietary fat as well, at least
in a mixed diet, but apparently not easily in the absence
of carbs.
Now, heres the kicker...
As soon as you start controlling calories.. I mean hospital
ward or research facility controlled, where the subjects
cannot pick and choose their own food, and instead, the food
is weighed and measured and almost literally spoon fed to
the subjects, the difference in weight loss between low
carb and high carb shrinks or even vanishes.
In other words, when calories are matched, there is little
or no difference in fat loss between a high carb and low carb
diet, when dietary fats and carbs are the variables manipulated.
In the long term studies, even more valuable data has emerged...
The big study by the New England Journal of Medicine that got all
that publicity earlier this year confirmed it once again...
Even though low carb diets work better in the short term for
weight loss in free living subjects, the advantage decreases
by month six, and disappears after a year or two.
The moral of the story is (drumroll please)...
Most people don't stick with ANY type of diet very well for very long.
And... the extreme low carb diets in particular have lower long
term adherence rates and poor long term maintenance rates.
Now, this does not mean that low carb diets do not have
benefits. They certainly do, and some of them are health
related (which is beyond the scope of this column).
Others are fat loss related...
If you automatically eat less due to appetite suppression and
removal of calorie dense foods, that is clearly an advantage,
it's just not the advantage that most low carb advocates
suggest.
There is no proof of metabolic advantage purely from
restriction of carbs and insulin does not lead to obesity
in a cause and effect sense, insulin merely plays a role
in the process of partioning surplus carbs into fat stores
or in suppressing fat release.
Insulin is important to manage, but not the deciding factor
in whether you lose fat or not.
One change in macronutrients that DOES help fat loss is an
increase in protein. Protein is highly thermogenic - about 30%.
So 30% of the energy in protein is not available for potential
fat storage, as it is metabolized just in the digestion process.
So in reality, you could say it's the higher protein, NOT
the reduced carbs, that provides the real advantage!
Ironically, a high protein diet is not always low in carbs.
Take the 40-40-20 macro split from BFFM (or BFL) for example.
40% of calories from protein is very high. And yet 40% carbs
is not very low!
The protein-induced thermodynamic advantage is somewhat small,
but it's significant if a large shift in protein intake is made
as is the case with a 30-40% protein program.
For example, the old food pyramid/ traditional dietician-style
diet is 15% protein. Research from the University of Washington
School of Medicine showed that when protein is doubled to 30%
(replacing carbs), there is a small but measureable advantage
even when matched calorie for calorie.
In free living studies, the advantage is even larger because
protein is a great appetite suppressant and is highly satiating.
In fact, protein NOT FAT, is the most satiating nutrient.
It appears that fat is psychologically satiating, but protein
is the hands down winner as the most satiating, appetite
suppressing macronutrient, physiologically speaking.
Thus, a protein with every meal and a 30% (or even higher) ratio of
protein is conducive to better fat loss - which incidentally is
EXACTLY how the Burn The Fat, Feed The Muscle program is set up
End
Have a peaceful day,
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Motivation to get on the scale.. Understand what your scale number really means!
Today's Empowering Info and Motivation: Tomorrow is re-assessment day. Everyone should be losing on average 5 – 6 pounds a camp –assuming you have that to lose. Read below to see some facts about body weight and fat weight to prepare you for when you weigh in tomorrow.
Your scale can tell you how much you weigh in total, but it just cannot tell you if you've lost body fat - unless you have a body fat analyzer like I use at camp. Expect to add some muscle to your body when you are doing the conditioning we are doing in boot camp. You will want and need it for your metabolism and for your beautiful shape.
The following components all add up to the reading your scale gives you. Anything that is not considered fat is considered muscle by the body fat scales so you may see some variation some times. For the most part everyone goes down!
Connective tissue - specifically, tendons and ligaments. Connective tissue adapts through resistance training to allow you to function at higher levels, and it will not adversely affect your body's appearance in any way. The more fit you are, the stronger your connective tissues.
Muscle tissue - As you add lean muscle tissue to your body, you'll burn more calories and stored body fat during exercise as well as throughout the day doing normal activity. And the additional muscle tissue allows your body to look and feel firm and toned.
Glycogen - when you consume whole grain carbohydrates you're body will store glycogen (the reserve fuel that gets converted into glucose, the body's primary source of energy). And with each gram of additional glycogen, your body stores several grams of water along with it. This is a very beneficial process, but it will add to what your scale reads.
Blood Volume - as we become increasingly fit, we add blood volume.
In addition to these positive gains in weight, your scale can vary as much as 3-6% on any given day based on digestive contents and your hydration level.
Here's how you can determine real progress:
Answer the following questions: Do I have more energy? Are my clothes fitting more loosely? Have others commented that I'm "looking good"? Am I starting to like what I see in the mirror?
Measure your body composition - discover how much of you is made up of body fat versus lean body mass. All the methods of measuring body composition are subject to some error, but if you stick to the same method and tester, you'll find that change over time is reliable.
Some of you took a picture at the start of this program. It’s never too late to do that (I won’t ask you to re-gain any weight). You don't have to look at the photo (yet). We’ll wait another 2 months to get more conditioning under your belt! I know the results will be extraordinary!
It's ironic that the increases in connective tissue, lean muscle tissue, glycogen and blood volume - the things that are crucial to improving how your body looks, feels and functions - can be the same things that initially make you think you're making no progress.
Why the Scale Lies
By Renee Cloe
We've been told over and over again that daily weighing is unnecessary, yet many of us can't resist peeking at that number every morning. If you just can't bring yourself to toss the scale in the trash, you should definitely familiarize yourself with the factors that influence its readings. From water retention to glycogen storage and changes in lean body mass, daily weight fluctuations are normal. They are not indicators of your success or failure. Once you understand how these mechanisms work, you can free yourself from the daily battle with the bathroom scale. Water makes up about 60% of total body mass. Normal fluctuations in the body's water content can send scale-watchers into a tailspin if they don't understand what's happening. Two factors influencing water retention are water consumption and salt intake. Strange as it sounds, the less water you drink, the more of it your body retains.
If you are even slightly dehydrated your body will hang onto its water supplies with a vengeance, possibly causing the number on the scale to inch upward. The solution is to drink plenty of water. Excess salt (sodium) can also play a big role in water retention. A single teaspoon of salt contains over 2,000 mg of sodium.
Generally, we should only eat between 1,000 and 3,000 mg of sodium a day, so it's easy to go overboard. Sodium is a sneaky substance. You would expect it to be most highly concentrated in salty chips, nuts, and crackers. However, a food doesn't have to taste salty to be loaded with sodium. A half cup of instant pudding actually contains nearly four times as much sodium as an ounce of salted nuts, 460 mg in the pudding versus 123 mg in the nuts. The more highly processed a food is, the more likely it is to have a high sodium content. That's why, when it comes to eating, it's wise to stick mainly to the basics: fruits, vegetables, lean meat, beans, and whole grains.
Be sure to read the labels on canned foods, boxed mixes, and frozen dinners. Women may also retain several pounds of water prior to menstruation. This is very common and the weight will likely disappear as quickly as it arrives. Pre-menstrual water-weight gain can be minimized by drinking plenty of water, maintaining an exercise program, and keeping high-sodium processed foods to a minimum. Another factor that can influence the scale is glycogen. Think of glycogen as a fuel tank full of stored carbohydrate. Some glycogen is stored in the liver and some is stored the muscles themselves. This energy reserve weighs more than a pound and its packaged with 3-4 pounds of water when it's stored. Your glycogen supply will shrink during the day if you fail to take in enough carbohydrates. As the glycogen supply shrinks you will experience a small imperceptible increase in appetite and your body will restore this fuel reserve along with its associated water. It's normal to experience glycogen and water weight shifts of up to 2 pounds per day even with no changes in your calorie intake or activity level. These fluctuations have nothing to do with fat loss, although they can make for some unnecessarily dramatic weigh-ins if you’re prone to obsessing over the number on the scale.
Otherwise rational people also tend to forget about the actual weight of the food they eat. For this reason, it's wise to weigh yourself first thing in the morning before you've had anything to eat or drink. Swallowing a bunch of food before you step on the scale is no different than putting a bunch of rocks in your pocket. The 5 pounds that you gain right after a huge dinner is not fat. It's the actual weight of everything you've had to eat and drink. The added weight of the meal will be gone several hours later when you've finished digesting it.
Exercise physiologists tell us that in order to store one pound of fat, you need to eat 3,500 calories more than your body is able to burn. In other words, to actually store the above dinner as 5 pounds of fat, it would have to contain a whopping 17,500 calories. This is not likely, in fact it's not humanly possible. So when the scale goes up 3 or 4 pounds overnight, rest easy, its likely to be water, glycogen, and the weight of your dinner. Keep in mind that the 3,500 calorie rule works in reverse also. In order to lose one pound of fat you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in. Generally, it's only possible to lose 1-2 pounds of fat per week.
When you follow a very low calorie diet that causes your weight to drop 10 pounds in 7 days, it's physically impossible for all of that to be fat. What you're really losing is water, glycogen, and muscle. This brings us to the scale's sneakiest attribute. It doesn't just weigh fat. It weighs muscle, bone, water, internal organs and all. When you lose "weight," that doesn't necessarily mean that you've lost fat. In fact, the scale has no way of telling you what you've lost (or gained). Losing muscle is nothing to celebrate. Muscle is a metabolically active tissue. The more muscle you have the more calories your body burns, even when you're just sitting around. That's one reason why a fit, active person is able to eat considerably more food than the dieter who is unwittingly destroying muscle tissue.
Robin Landis, author of "Body Fueling," compares fat and muscles to feathers and gold. One pound of fat is like a big fluffy, lumpy bunch of feathers, and one pound of muscle is small and valuable like a piece of gold. Obviously, you want to lose the dumpy, bulky feathers and keep the sleek beautiful gold. The problem with the scale is that it doesn't differentiate between the two. It can't tell you how much of your total body weight is lean tissue and how much is fat.
There are several other measuring techniques that can accomplish this, although they vary in convenience, accuracy, and cost. Skin-fold calipers pinch and measure fat folds at various locations on the body, hydrostatic (or underwater) weighing involves exhaling all of the air from your lungs before being lowered into a tank of water, and bioelectrical impedance measures the degree to which your body fat impedes a mild electrical current. If the thought of being pinched, dunked, or gently zapped just doesn't appeal to you, don't worry.
The best measurement tool of all turns out to be your very own eyes. How do you look? How do you feel? How do your clothes fit? Are your rings looser? Do your muscles feel firmer? These are the true measurements of success. If you are exercising and eating right, don't be discouraged by a small gain on the scale. Fluctuations are perfectly normal. Expect them to happen and take them in stride. Its a matter of mind over scale.
Your scale can tell you how much you weigh in total, but it just cannot tell you if you've lost body fat - unless you have a body fat analyzer like I use at camp. Expect to add some muscle to your body when you are doing the conditioning we are doing in boot camp. You will want and need it for your metabolism and for your beautiful shape.
The following components all add up to the reading your scale gives you. Anything that is not considered fat is considered muscle by the body fat scales so you may see some variation some times. For the most part everyone goes down!
Connective tissue - specifically, tendons and ligaments. Connective tissue adapts through resistance training to allow you to function at higher levels, and it will not adversely affect your body's appearance in any way. The more fit you are, the stronger your connective tissues.
Muscle tissue - As you add lean muscle tissue to your body, you'll burn more calories and stored body fat during exercise as well as throughout the day doing normal activity. And the additional muscle tissue allows your body to look and feel firm and toned.
Glycogen - when you consume whole grain carbohydrates you're body will store glycogen (the reserve fuel that gets converted into glucose, the body's primary source of energy). And with each gram of additional glycogen, your body stores several grams of water along with it. This is a very beneficial process, but it will add to what your scale reads.
Blood Volume - as we become increasingly fit, we add blood volume.
In addition to these positive gains in weight, your scale can vary as much as 3-6% on any given day based on digestive contents and your hydration level.
Here's how you can determine real progress:
Answer the following questions: Do I have more energy? Are my clothes fitting more loosely? Have others commented that I'm "looking good"? Am I starting to like what I see in the mirror?
Measure your body composition - discover how much of you is made up of body fat versus lean body mass. All the methods of measuring body composition are subject to some error, but if you stick to the same method and tester, you'll find that change over time is reliable.
Some of you took a picture at the start of this program. It’s never too late to do that (I won’t ask you to re-gain any weight). You don't have to look at the photo (yet). We’ll wait another 2 months to get more conditioning under your belt! I know the results will be extraordinary!
It's ironic that the increases in connective tissue, lean muscle tissue, glycogen and blood volume - the things that are crucial to improving how your body looks, feels and functions - can be the same things that initially make you think you're making no progress.
Why the Scale Lies
By Renee Cloe
We've been told over and over again that daily weighing is unnecessary, yet many of us can't resist peeking at that number every morning. If you just can't bring yourself to toss the scale in the trash, you should definitely familiarize yourself with the factors that influence its readings. From water retention to glycogen storage and changes in lean body mass, daily weight fluctuations are normal. They are not indicators of your success or failure. Once you understand how these mechanisms work, you can free yourself from the daily battle with the bathroom scale. Water makes up about 60% of total body mass. Normal fluctuations in the body's water content can send scale-watchers into a tailspin if they don't understand what's happening. Two factors influencing water retention are water consumption and salt intake. Strange as it sounds, the less water you drink, the more of it your body retains.
If you are even slightly dehydrated your body will hang onto its water supplies with a vengeance, possibly causing the number on the scale to inch upward. The solution is to drink plenty of water. Excess salt (sodium) can also play a big role in water retention. A single teaspoon of salt contains over 2,000 mg of sodium.
Generally, we should only eat between 1,000 and 3,000 mg of sodium a day, so it's easy to go overboard. Sodium is a sneaky substance. You would expect it to be most highly concentrated in salty chips, nuts, and crackers. However, a food doesn't have to taste salty to be loaded with sodium. A half cup of instant pudding actually contains nearly four times as much sodium as an ounce of salted nuts, 460 mg in the pudding versus 123 mg in the nuts. The more highly processed a food is, the more likely it is to have a high sodium content. That's why, when it comes to eating, it's wise to stick mainly to the basics: fruits, vegetables, lean meat, beans, and whole grains.
Be sure to read the labels on canned foods, boxed mixes, and frozen dinners. Women may also retain several pounds of water prior to menstruation. This is very common and the weight will likely disappear as quickly as it arrives. Pre-menstrual water-weight gain can be minimized by drinking plenty of water, maintaining an exercise program, and keeping high-sodium processed foods to a minimum. Another factor that can influence the scale is glycogen. Think of glycogen as a fuel tank full of stored carbohydrate. Some glycogen is stored in the liver and some is stored the muscles themselves. This energy reserve weighs more than a pound and its packaged with 3-4 pounds of water when it's stored. Your glycogen supply will shrink during the day if you fail to take in enough carbohydrates. As the glycogen supply shrinks you will experience a small imperceptible increase in appetite and your body will restore this fuel reserve along with its associated water. It's normal to experience glycogen and water weight shifts of up to 2 pounds per day even with no changes in your calorie intake or activity level. These fluctuations have nothing to do with fat loss, although they can make for some unnecessarily dramatic weigh-ins if you’re prone to obsessing over the number on the scale.
Otherwise rational people also tend to forget about the actual weight of the food they eat. For this reason, it's wise to weigh yourself first thing in the morning before you've had anything to eat or drink. Swallowing a bunch of food before you step on the scale is no different than putting a bunch of rocks in your pocket. The 5 pounds that you gain right after a huge dinner is not fat. It's the actual weight of everything you've had to eat and drink. The added weight of the meal will be gone several hours later when you've finished digesting it.
Exercise physiologists tell us that in order to store one pound of fat, you need to eat 3,500 calories more than your body is able to burn. In other words, to actually store the above dinner as 5 pounds of fat, it would have to contain a whopping 17,500 calories. This is not likely, in fact it's not humanly possible. So when the scale goes up 3 or 4 pounds overnight, rest easy, its likely to be water, glycogen, and the weight of your dinner. Keep in mind that the 3,500 calorie rule works in reverse also. In order to lose one pound of fat you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in. Generally, it's only possible to lose 1-2 pounds of fat per week.
When you follow a very low calorie diet that causes your weight to drop 10 pounds in 7 days, it's physically impossible for all of that to be fat. What you're really losing is water, glycogen, and muscle. This brings us to the scale's sneakiest attribute. It doesn't just weigh fat. It weighs muscle, bone, water, internal organs and all. When you lose "weight," that doesn't necessarily mean that you've lost fat. In fact, the scale has no way of telling you what you've lost (or gained). Losing muscle is nothing to celebrate. Muscle is a metabolically active tissue. The more muscle you have the more calories your body burns, even when you're just sitting around. That's one reason why a fit, active person is able to eat considerably more food than the dieter who is unwittingly destroying muscle tissue.
Robin Landis, author of "Body Fueling," compares fat and muscles to feathers and gold. One pound of fat is like a big fluffy, lumpy bunch of feathers, and one pound of muscle is small and valuable like a piece of gold. Obviously, you want to lose the dumpy, bulky feathers and keep the sleek beautiful gold. The problem with the scale is that it doesn't differentiate between the two. It can't tell you how much of your total body weight is lean tissue and how much is fat.
There are several other measuring techniques that can accomplish this, although they vary in convenience, accuracy, and cost. Skin-fold calipers pinch and measure fat folds at various locations on the body, hydrostatic (or underwater) weighing involves exhaling all of the air from your lungs before being lowered into a tank of water, and bioelectrical impedance measures the degree to which your body fat impedes a mild electrical current. If the thought of being pinched, dunked, or gently zapped just doesn't appeal to you, don't worry.
The best measurement tool of all turns out to be your very own eyes. How do you look? How do you feel? How do your clothes fit? Are your rings looser? Do your muscles feel firmer? These are the true measurements of success. If you are exercising and eating right, don't be discouraged by a small gain on the scale. Fluctuations are perfectly normal. Expect them to happen and take them in stride. Its a matter of mind over scale.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Brain Chemistry altered by foods high in fat, salt, and sugar
Today’s Re-Powering Information – The article below explains why you grab that cookie even though you know you shouldn’t eat it. It also explains why diets don’t work. The author also has a new book called “The End of Overeating”. I have not read it, but if you struggle with overfeeding, it may be worth the read.
Published Monday May 4, 2009
Brain aches for food bathed in badness
THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON - He went in the middle of the night, long after the last employee had locked up the Chili's Grill and Bar. He'd steer his car around the back, check to make sure no one was around and then quietly approach the Dumpster.
Click to Enlarge
Foods high in fat, salt and sugar alter the brain's chemistry in ways that compel people to overeat, says Dr. David Kessler, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.
If anyone noticed the man foraging through the trash, they would have assumed he was a vagrant. Except he was wearing black dress slacks and padded gardening gloves.
The high-octane career path of David Kessler, the Harvard-trained doctor, lawyer, medical school dean and former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, had come to this: nocturnal Dumpster diving. It took many of these forays until Kessler emerged with his prize: ingredient labels affixed to empty cardboard boxes that spelled out the fats, salt and sugar used to make the Southwestern Eggrolls, Boneless Shanghai Wings and other dishes served by the nation's second-largest restaurant chain.
Kessler was on a mission to understand a problem that has vexed him since childhood: why he can't resist certain foods.
His resulting theory, described in his new book, "The End of Overeating," is startling. Foods high in fat, salt and sugar alter the brain's chemistry in ways that compel people to overeat. "Much of the scientific research around overeating has been physiology - what's going on in our body," he said. "The real question is what's going on in our brain."
The ingredient labels gave Kessler information the restaurant chain declined to provide when he asked for it. At the FDA, Kessler pushed through nutrition labels on foods sold through retail outlets but stopped short of requiring the same for restaurants. Yet if suppliers ship across state lines, as suppliers for Chili's do, the ingredients must be printed on the box. That is what led Kessler, one of the nation's leading public health figures, to hang around trash bins across California.
The labels showed the foods were bathed in salt, fat and sugars, beyond what a diner might expect by reading the menu, Kessler said. The ingredient list for Southwestern Eggrolls mentioned salt eight different times; sugars showed up five times. The "egg rolls," which are deep-fried in fat, contain chicken that has been chopped up like meatloaf to give it a "melt in the mouth" quality that also makes it easier to eat quickly. By the time a diner has finished this appetizer, the person has consumed 910 calories, 57 grams of fat and 1,960 milligrams of sodium.
Instead of satisfying hunger, the salt-fat-sugar combination will stimulate that diner's brain to crave more, Kessler said. And the food industry manipulates this neurological response, designing foods to induce people to eat more than they should or even want to, Kessler found.
His theory, borne out in a growing body of scientific research, has implications not just for the increasing number of Americans struggling with obesity but for health providers and policymakers.
"The challenge is how do we explain to America what's going on - how do we break through and help people understand how their brains have been captured?" he said.
Kessler is best remembered for his investigation of the tobacco industry and attempts to place it under federal regulation while he was FDA commissioner from 1990 to 1997.
Kessler's aggressive approach toward the tobacco industry led to billion-dollar settlements between Big Tobacco and 46 states and laid the groundwork for legislation now pending in Congress that would place tobacco under FDA regulation.
Whether government ought to exercise tougher controls over the food industry is going to be the next great debate, especially since much of the advertising is aimed at children, Kessler said.
"The food the industry is selling is much more powerful than we realized," he said. "I used to think I ate to feel full. Now I know, we have the science that shows, we're eating to stimulate ourselves. And so the question is what are we going to do about it?"
Through interviews with scientists, psychologists and food industry insiders, and his own scientific studies and hours spent surreptitiously watching other diners at food courts and restaurants around the country, Kessler said, he finally began to understand why he couldn't control his eating.
"Highly palatable" foods - those containing fat, sugar and salt - stimulate the brain to release dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with the pleasure center, he found. In time, the brain gets wired so that dopamine pathways light up at the mere suggestion of the food, such as driving past a fast-food restaurant, and the urge to eat the food grows insistent. Once the food is eaten, the brain releases opioids, which bring emotional relief. Together, dopamine and opioids create a pathway that can activate every time a person is reminded about the particular food. This happens regardless of whether the person is hungry.
Not everyone is vulnerable to "conditioned overeating" - Kessler estimates that about 15 percent of the population is not affected and says more research is needed to understand what makes them immune.
But the key to stopping the cycle is to rewire the brain's response to food, he said.
Deprivation only heightens the way the brain values the food, which is why dieting doesn't work, he said.
Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom
Copyright ©2009 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
Published Monday May 4, 2009
Brain aches for food bathed in badness
THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON - He went in the middle of the night, long after the last employee had locked up the Chili's Grill and Bar. He'd steer his car around the back, check to make sure no one was around and then quietly approach the Dumpster.
Click to Enlarge
Foods high in fat, salt and sugar alter the brain's chemistry in ways that compel people to overeat, says Dr. David Kessler, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.
If anyone noticed the man foraging through the trash, they would have assumed he was a vagrant. Except he was wearing black dress slacks and padded gardening gloves.
The high-octane career path of David Kessler, the Harvard-trained doctor, lawyer, medical school dean and former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, had come to this: nocturnal Dumpster diving. It took many of these forays until Kessler emerged with his prize: ingredient labels affixed to empty cardboard boxes that spelled out the fats, salt and sugar used to make the Southwestern Eggrolls, Boneless Shanghai Wings and other dishes served by the nation's second-largest restaurant chain.
Kessler was on a mission to understand a problem that has vexed him since childhood: why he can't resist certain foods.
His resulting theory, described in his new book, "The End of Overeating," is startling. Foods high in fat, salt and sugar alter the brain's chemistry in ways that compel people to overeat. "Much of the scientific research around overeating has been physiology - what's going on in our body," he said. "The real question is what's going on in our brain."
The ingredient labels gave Kessler information the restaurant chain declined to provide when he asked for it. At the FDA, Kessler pushed through nutrition labels on foods sold through retail outlets but stopped short of requiring the same for restaurants. Yet if suppliers ship across state lines, as suppliers for Chili's do, the ingredients must be printed on the box. That is what led Kessler, one of the nation's leading public health figures, to hang around trash bins across California.
The labels showed the foods were bathed in salt, fat and sugars, beyond what a diner might expect by reading the menu, Kessler said. The ingredient list for Southwestern Eggrolls mentioned salt eight different times; sugars showed up five times. The "egg rolls," which are deep-fried in fat, contain chicken that has been chopped up like meatloaf to give it a "melt in the mouth" quality that also makes it easier to eat quickly. By the time a diner has finished this appetizer, the person has consumed 910 calories, 57 grams of fat and 1,960 milligrams of sodium.
Instead of satisfying hunger, the salt-fat-sugar combination will stimulate that diner's brain to crave more, Kessler said. And the food industry manipulates this neurological response, designing foods to induce people to eat more than they should or even want to, Kessler found.
His theory, borne out in a growing body of scientific research, has implications not just for the increasing number of Americans struggling with obesity but for health providers and policymakers.
"The challenge is how do we explain to America what's going on - how do we break through and help people understand how their brains have been captured?" he said.
Kessler is best remembered for his investigation of the tobacco industry and attempts to place it under federal regulation while he was FDA commissioner from 1990 to 1997.
Kessler's aggressive approach toward the tobacco industry led to billion-dollar settlements between Big Tobacco and 46 states and laid the groundwork for legislation now pending in Congress that would place tobacco under FDA regulation.
Whether government ought to exercise tougher controls over the food industry is going to be the next great debate, especially since much of the advertising is aimed at children, Kessler said.
"The food the industry is selling is much more powerful than we realized," he said. "I used to think I ate to feel full. Now I know, we have the science that shows, we're eating to stimulate ourselves. And so the question is what are we going to do about it?"
Through interviews with scientists, psychologists and food industry insiders, and his own scientific studies and hours spent surreptitiously watching other diners at food courts and restaurants around the country, Kessler said, he finally began to understand why he couldn't control his eating.
"Highly palatable" foods - those containing fat, sugar and salt - stimulate the brain to release dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with the pleasure center, he found. In time, the brain gets wired so that dopamine pathways light up at the mere suggestion of the food, such as driving past a fast-food restaurant, and the urge to eat the food grows insistent. Once the food is eaten, the brain releases opioids, which bring emotional relief. Together, dopamine and opioids create a pathway that can activate every time a person is reminded about the particular food. This happens regardless of whether the person is hungry.
Not everyone is vulnerable to "conditioned overeating" - Kessler estimates that about 15 percent of the population is not affected and says more research is needed to understand what makes them immune.
But the key to stopping the cycle is to rewire the brain's response to food, he said.
Deprivation only heightens the way the brain values the food, which is why dieting doesn't work, he said.
Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom
Copyright ©2009 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)