Americans are spending billions of dollars to find out how they can lose weight. That’s a lot of money, but the most ironic thing is that all this obsession over HOW to lose weight is met with the SAD FACT that the United States is AN OBESE COUNTRY.  USA Today reports that 20% of preschoolers are obese. That’s one in five children who are only four years old. MSNBC reports:

The number of obese American adults outweighs the number of those who are merely overweight, according to the latest statistics from the federal government. Numbers posted by the National Center for Health Statistics show that more than 34 percent of Americans are obese, compared to 32.7 percent who are overweight. It said just under 6 percent are “extremely” obese. More than one-third of adults, or over 72 million people, were obese in 2005-2006, the NCHS said in its report.

Researchers at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine and San Diego State University say that a lack of physical activity was the most significant risk factor contributing to obesity in 11- to 15-year-olds.

So how can it be that we as a nation are so diet-conscious while at the same time so miserably overweight? My hunch is that the problem lies anywhere in between these facts:

1. People gain weight then lose it and then gain it, so they become lifetime customers of the swelling (pardon the pun) weight loss industry.
2. Obesity continues to go up, creating an ever-new source of weight loss industry business and customer base.
3. People are more weight conscious than they are health-conscious. It’s an image thing and not a health issue.
4. It’s easier (so it is rationalized) to cycle in and out of weight loss than stay on a steady, healthy course.
5. People are addicted to bad foods.
6. People are less and less physically active.
7. Our federal government allows makers of bad, sickening food to advertise as if they are offering something worth eating

If you want to lose weight, remember these FIVE FACTS first and you’ll be on your way to success:

1. Eat fewer calories (if you eat less, you’ll burn more)
2. Exercise daily: an activity that keeps up your heartbeat and respiration.
3. Eat fewer carbohydrates because carbs that are not used are stored as sugar and fat.
4. Think about health first, weight second.

Dieting is hard, no doubt. When you put on pounds and can’t take them off easily, something is amiss. But what?

There are essentially two problems when it comes to losing weight:

1. Calories
2. Carbohydrates

Certainly, there are other factors, but these are the two most problematic. When you eat more calories than your body can burn, you gain weight. The most weight-gaining foods are those high in carbohydrates. So if you want to lose weight, try this for three weeks:

1. First, figure out how many calories you need. A rough estimate is that if you are a woman, you need only 2000 per day, and if a man, about 2300 a day.
2. Next, eat fewer calories than your body burns. This means you have to determine how many calories are in each food you eat. Not a problem. There are a zillion books on the market that do this for you. Once you’ve figured out how many calories are in your favorite foods, all you have to do is eat fewer than what you burn. For instance, if you eat only 1700 calories a day, your body will begin to burn its fat stores for energy, thus making you lose weight.
3. Next, cut out all bad and simple carbohydrates. Mainly, this means bread, pasta, beer, cake, cookies, ice cream, breakfast cereals and even fruits for three weeks. Simple carbohydrates are not just high in calories, but they also turn into fat if you don’t burn them. Plus, because they contain so many sugars, they are bad for your health in other ways.
4. Find some way to exercise: running in place, jumping jacks, walking around the block, jogging, martial arts, swimming, aerobics, bicycling or some other activity, because when you move your body you burn calories. Even just a little bit adds to the bottom line. (or should I say “subtracts from the bottom line”?)

Why three weeks? It’s a number you can live with. If this works for you, then work with the diet and keep on it toward your desired weight goal.

By Suzanne Dixon, MPH, MS, RD

Healthnotes Newswire —For the more than two-thirds of Americans who are overweight, artificial sweeteners may seem like a dream come true: sweet taste without the calories. However, in the most comprehensive review of artificial sweeteners to date, health experts have concluded that the weight loss benefits of these products may indeed be just a dream.

The sweet truth

When considering artificial sweeteners, keep in mind that many issues related to the American diet and food industry are highly politicized. Those who promote artificial sweeteners suggest these products are essential to weight loss efforts. Those in the natural health and organic food communities suggest artificial sweeteners are bad for health. In reality, the truth is somewhere in the middle: Artificial sweeteners are not necessary and effective for weight loss, nor will they ruin your health.

To arrive at this conclusion, researchers completed a comprehensive review of over 200 research papers and resources on artificial sweeteners. The review covers six artificial sweeteners that are approved for use in the US, Canada, and/or Europe: acesulfame-K (Sunett®), aspartame (NutraSweet®), cyclamate (Sugar Twin®), saccharin (Sweet’N Low®), sucralose (Splenda®), and neotame.

The reviewers were particularly interested in examining several popular theories about artificial sweeteners in relation to weight and appetite.

•    Speculation: By providing a sweet taste without any calories, artificial sweeteners “confuse” the brain and body, leading to increased appetite and subsequent over-eating. Review finding: This effect does not occur when artificial sweeteners are used in the context of a typical American diet.

•    Speculation: Diet soda increases the odds of developing metabolic syndrome, a condition defined by the presence of several risk factors for heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. Review finding: There is no clear association between artificial sweeteners and metabolic syndrome.

•    Speculation: Replacing sugary snacks and drinks with artificially sweetened options will help dieters shed pounds or keep them off in the long run. Review finding: In order to lose weight, a comprehensive approach to calorie reduction must be employed and artificial sweeteners alone will not do the trick. Simply put, “there’s no free lunch.”

In the final analysis, the reviewers conclude that while the short- and long-term safety of these products are established, we simply do not have solid evidence that they affect body weight, either by promoting overeating or by helping to shed pounds. Appetite and weight regulation are complex and more research is required to fully understand these issues.

Real food rules

Given the ambiguous conclusions of this review, what’s a dieter to do? Even dessert, full of fat and sugar, can be part of a healthy diet when consumed occasionally and in proper proportion. One of the most respected food experts of our time, Marion Nestle concludes, “You know my rule from What to Eat: never eat anything with anything artificial in it.” If this doesn’t work for you, consider the sage words of writer Michael Pollan: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” If we all did this, we’d be a lot healthier.

(Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:1–14; http://whattoeatbook.com/2008/02/10/the-diet-soda-puzzle; http://www.michaelpollan.com)

It’s already known that eating fast can lead to weight gain. A new study published in the British Medical Journal now shows that the combination of quick eating and eating until full might be a sure-fire recipe for becoming overweight.

Sitting behind a desk all day, lounging during leisure time, and eating more calories than you burn all contribute to weight gain, and being overweight, in turn, increases your risk for a wide range of health problems.

Researchers from Japan surveyed 3,287 adults to investigate the effects of eating fast, eating until full, and the combination of both on weight gain in a study about heart disease risk.

More than half of the men and women reported that they regularly eat until they are full and 46% of men and 36% of women said that they ate quickly. Both men and women were about two times more likely to be overweight if they were quick eaters or if they ate until full; the combination of eating quickly and eating until full more than tripled the risk of being overweight. “The combination of the two eating behaviors had a supra-additive effect on being overweight,” said the researchers.

A little goes a long weigh

It doesn’t take a lot of weight loss to add up to big health gains: when overweight people with diabetes, high cholesterol, or high blood pressure lose as little of 10% of their body weight, they gain better blood sugar control, reduce their cholesterol levels, and bring their blood pressure down. As an added bonus, modest weight loss also increases longevity in people who are overweight.

To help keep your weight in a healthy range, consider trying these tips.

1. Use a smaller plate: More space on the dinnerware may tempt you to fill it up. Using a smaller bowl or plate can help keep portion sizes in control.
2. Share a meal: Eating with others allows time for conversation and helps slow down the pace of eating.
3. Set a “no more eating” time: If you’re given to an evening snack, try not to eat past a certain time, say 7:00 p.m. Brush your teeth at that time, setting the mood for the nighttime fast.
4. Make sure to break the fast: Eating breakfast is important for overall health as well as for weight control. You have the whole day to burn off the calories eaten at this meal, but you want to make them count by eating nutritious foods. Include a protein like hard boiled eggs or some fish from last night’s dinner to keep you going strong all day long.
5. Cut all sugars out of your diet. But don’t switch to artificial sweeteners because they lead to health problems.

(BMJ 2008;337:a2002doi:10.1136/bmj.a2002)

Healthnotes Newswire —For people who embark on weight-loss programs, keeping weight off is even harder than losing it. A new study found that about five hours of exercise per week makes it easier for overweight women who lose weight to keep it off.

Prescription for weight loss
The study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, included 201 overweight and obese women from 21 to 45 years old. The women were instructed to limit calories to 1,200 to 1,500 per day, and calories from fat to 20 to30% of total intake. Participants were divided into groups that engaged in four different levels of exercise intensity. Extra support was provided through regular support group meetings and telephone check-in calls with members of the intervention team. They were followed for two years.

The women lost an average of 17.8 pounds (8.1 kg) in the first six months, but only 9.2 pounds (4.2 kg) remained off after two years. Energy expenditure through exercise similarly increased early in the study, but dropped back to near baseline by the end.

It’s the follow-through that counts
The original exercise group assignment had no bearing on how much the women were exercising at the end of the study. When the women were grouped according to actual exercise, those who maintained the highest energy expenditure kept the most weight off. For these women, adding approximately 55 minutes of exercise per day, five days per week, to their regular daily activities was associated with sustained weight loss of 10% or more of their baseline body weight.

The researchers noted two other differences between the women who sustained 10% or greater weight loss and those who didn’t: they completed more telephone calls with the intervention team between months 6 and 24, and they reported sticking to weight-loss eating behaviors, such as self-monitoring of food intake and weight, not eating food from others, eating in only one place, and avoiding nighttime and emotional eating. Having extra support may have helped them stick to their exercise and eating behavior plans more closely.

Tips to keep it off
“This study showed how difficult it is to sustain weight loss of 10% or more of initial body weight, as fewer than 25% of the women in this study met this criterion at 24 months,” concluded lead study author Dr. John Jakicic of the University of Pittsburgh. “Relatively high levels of physical activity appear to contribute to sustained weight loss, and our findings help to clarify the amount of exercise needed for achieving and sustaining this degree of weight loss.”

The results support the recommendations set forth by the US Department of Agriculture in their 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which states that 60 to 90 minutes of daily moderate-intensity physical activity, in addition to calorie restriction, is needed for sustaining weight loss. Below are some other steps that help keep the weight off:

• Keep a daily food diary that records the amounts and types of foods eaten and the situations in which you eat. Awareness of the circumstances that lead to eating unhealthy foods and overeating provides the opportunity to make changes that encourage better weight-loss eating habits.
• Control portions, especially of fatty and starchy foods. Filling up on low-calorie foods like vegetables and fruits may help.
• Eat slowly—this allows you to recognize fullness before you’ve overeaten.
• Keep an exercise journal that shows your success and challenges in meeting exercise goals.
• Get regular support from a group, and consider enlisting the help of a trainer or weight-management specialist to keep you on track.

(Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1550–9)

One of the side effects of a very low calorie diet is GALLSTONES. Not a good thing! Starvation isn’t necessary in order to maintain a lighter weight. In fact, it’s a bad way to do it because the health risks are high.

Here are 10 Foods Guaranteed NOT to put weight on your body. They will NOT make you gain weight. Plus, they are very healthful.

1. Broccoli. Broccoli is a source of vitamins and minerals good for your liver, skin, kidneys, bowels and brain. Broccoli also detoxifies the body from pollutants.
2. Spinach. Spinach is a great source of iron, chlorophyll and vitamins.
3. Mushrooms. Mushrooms have been cited as an immune booster and a source of protection against cancer.
4. Tomatoes. Tomatoes are high in antioxidants that support heart health.
5. Red peppers. Red peppers are high in vitamin C for your adrenals, skin, blood vessels and heart.
6. Eggs. Eggs contain lutein and zeaxanthin, antioxidants that may keep eyes healthy and ward off the leading cause of blindness, macular degeneration. A recent report in the Journal of Nutrition suggests that we look at the egg as a whole package: Eggs are inexpensive, contain the highest-quality protein on the planet, and are loaded with small amounts of vital nutrients, including folate, riboflavin, selenium, B12, and choline.
7. Grapefruit. Grapefruit is a good vitamin C and fiber food. A half a 4″ diameter grapefruit contains only 38 calories.
8. Watermelon. A cup of watermelon is around 50 calories.
9. Celery. Eat it with a little sea salt
10. Cucumber.

AND HERE ARE SOME MORE LOW CALORIE FOODS..

1. Onions
2. Olives
3. Apple. While this is not the lowest food on the list, it is one of the best for a wide number of nutritional reasons, including vitamin and fiber content.
4. Olive Oil. Excellent source of fat needed for the brain, skin, liver and nervous system.

BOTTOM LINE: You can include many of these, mix them together and make yourself a low calorie meal…

Consider this example of an OMELET recipe that is only about 230 calories:

eggs (whisk until fluffy – and you’ll need two eggs)
sliced black olives – about 2 sliced whole olives
sliced mushrooms – about 2 whole mushrooms, sliced
raw spinach – about 1/4 cup
cheese – 1 slice

Says Patrick J. Bird, dean of the College of Health and Human Performance at the University of Florida, “The fat stored around the pelvis, buttocks and thighs of women appears to act as reserve storage for the energy demands of lactation.”

Prevention magazine tell us,

Before menopause, many women’s bodies store excess fat predominantly in this area, creating what’s come to be known as the “pear-shaped” body. For thousands of years, fat storage in these areas greatly helped cave-dwelling women survive during times of drought and famine. And women who could easily store fat in their hips and thighs tended to be able to give birth and feed a baby during a drought–during pregnancy and breastfeeding, the body needs as many as 1,000 extra calories a day–thus passing on their thigh-fat-storing genetics to future generations. This is one reason why thigh fat is so difficult to get rid of. Genes left over from your cave-dwelling ancestors cause hormones and enzymes in your body to direct every extra calorie into waiting fat cells in your hips and thighs. For example, your levels of the female sex hormone estrogen may be a tad higher than other women whose bodies don’t store excess fat in these areas (or as much of it).

So, it’s a hormonal thing that nature does to (for) women and the survival of our species. If this doesn’t make you feel any better, you should know that diet and exercise can eventually melt the fat away. Switch to a diet of organically grown fruits, nuts, seeds and lean meats, stop eating all processed foods and products made with flour, and exercise three to four times a day. Take 6 GTF Complex tablets a day.

Also, throw your television set out the window, because it causes people to sit around and do nothing but waste their brains and eat more junk food.

Sources:

1. Bird, Patrick J., Scientific American, “Why does fat deposit on the hips and thighs of women and around the stomachs of men?,” May 2006
2. Prevention, “4 exercises to reduce cellulite and build strong, smooth legs,” Jan 2006

Healthnotes Newswire — A new animal study found that a diet high in trans fats increases risk of insulin resistance and obesity, especially abdominal obesity, which is associated with heart disease. Choosing monounsaturated fat instead—as is found in olives, olive oil, avocado, and nuts and seeds—is a healthful alternative.

The new study, published in Obesity, looked at the effect of a high-trans-fat diet on sugar metabolism and weight gain in male African green monkeys. Forty-two monkeys were assigned to eat either a high-trans-fat diet or a low-trans-fat diet for six years. The monkeys on the high-trans-fat diet were given partially hydrogenated soybean oil so that trans fats accounted for approximately 8% of their daily calories—an amount similar to that of people who eat the most trans fats. The other monkeys ate the same diet but their fat was from a blend of oils high in monounsaturated fatty acids.

At the end of the study, the monkeys on the high-trans-fat diet gained four times as much weight and had more body fat than their counterparts, and a greater percentage of their body fat was in the abdomen, a pattern known to be linked to increased cardiac risk. Blood tests revealed that these monkeys showed signs of insulin resistance, a condition that leads to type 2 diabetes, but the other monkeys had normal responses to sugar and insulin.

“These findings show once again that the composition of the diet is at least as important as the calorie count,” commented Julianne Forbes, a naturopathic doctor practicing in Maine. “In addition to helping people slim down portions and reduce sugar, we can also help them lose weight, avoid diabetes, and prevent heart disease by teaching them to eat less refined foods and read labels on packaged foods to find those made without partially hydrogenated oils.”

(Obesity 2007;15:1675–84)

Don’t eat anything that contains high fructose corn syrup.

If you see high fructose corn syrup listed on a food label or beverage or condiment, don’t consume it.

Some foods that commonly contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) are: baking and cooking ingredients, beverages, soft drinks, breads, breakfast cereals, breakfast pastries, candy bars, condiments, cookies and cakes, cough syrups, crackers, dairy, drink mixers, frozen foods, gummi bears, ice creams, infant formula, jams and jellies, syrups, meats, pastries, salad dressings, sauces, snacks, soda, and microwavable soup.

Looking into what’s written about high fructose corn syrup, you’ll find a lot of articles saying there’s no proof it’s bad. Why is this? Is it because one of the biggest corporations in the history of the world is the corn grower behind the product? Could be. But let’s consider high fructose corn syrup as a sugar. Is it healthy to eat so much sugar when it’s in soda, baked goods, candy, bread, cookies, and nearly everything else that comes in a box? Moreover, the best question to ask is: Is it natural? The answer is no, it’s not natural. And substances that are not natural most always lead to health problems.

A New York Times article reports, “Studies have shown that the human body metabolizes fructose, the sweetest of the natural sugars, in a way that may promote weight gain. Specifically, fructose does not prompt the production of certain hormones that help regulate appetite and fat storage, and it produces elevated levels of triglycerides that researchers have linked to an increased risk of heart disease.”1

Michael F. Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group that often criticizes the food industry, says that unlike sugar molecules, which reside in the stalks of sugar cane or the beets that are used to make sugar, high-fructose corn syrup is artificial because it is not found anywhere in corn.

“You’re causing a change in the molecular structure, and that shouldn’t be considered natural,” he said, adding, however, that he never supported the notion that high-fructose corn syrup was a unique contributor to obesity.1

What’s so bad about sugars, anyway? People in the western world eat too much sugar, more than is natural and more than can be tolerated by a healthy body. Aside from contributing to obesity, refined sugars can cause tooth decay, slow healing, diabetes, hormonal imbalances, mood swings, nervousness, attention deficit and heart disease.

Science Daily reports:

Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found ‘astonishingly high’ levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable, the researcher notes.

Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.3

When you consider that companies like Coca Cola and a thousand other non-food purveyors are the backbone of media advertising, as well as ardent lobbyists, you’ll understand why so-called “experts” find it difficult to prove that sugar is bad for people. Read Dr Joseph Mercola writes on the subject:

There are over 35 years of HARD empirical evidence of refined man-made fructose metabolizing to triglycerides and adipose tissue, UNLIKE the fructose molecule linked to a glucose molecule, found in sucrose (cane or beet), which is converted to blood glucose.

Sucrose raises blood glucose and then crashes it, below fasting baseline, within 25 minutes of ingestions — A FACT.

HFCS or crystalline fructose or hydrolyzed fructose from inulin, convert to triglycerides and adipose tissue, within 60 minutes of ingestion, not blood glucose — A FACT.

The cheapest ingredient in the American food chain (profit factor) after air, water and salt is HFCS — A FACT.

In 1970, zero pounds of HFCS existed in the U.S. food chain, or the SEMANTICALLY legislated equivalent in the EU, ‘iso-glucose,’ which is High Fructose Wheat Or Beet Syrup. Today HFCS is about 68 pounds per year per person in the USA — FACT.

In 2005, if one looks at the actuarial curve on cardiovascular disease, obesity, hypoglycemia, and diabetes, they all parallel HFCS increase in the food chain — A FACT.

Corn starch converted to a man-made molecule falsely called ‘fructose’ is NOT sugar from cane or beet or metabolized the same — A FACT.

MDs have no nutritional or metabolic training in med school — A FACT.

MDs have no methodology in their teaching to prevent, as opposed to only treat — A FACT.

Does HFCS significantly contribute to ill health in the U.S. food chain? Yes, follow the insurance companies scrambling in actuarial panic with a sudden and unexplained spike in heart attack death pay-outs among baby boomers ingesting too much HFCS and telling MDs to warn patients to get off soda and HFCS-laden prducts, for profit — A FACT.4

Sources:

1. Warner, Melanie, A Sweetener With a Bad Rap, NY Times, Jul 08
2. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 79, No. 4, 537-543, April 2004
3. Soda Warning? High-fructose Corn Syrup Linked To Diabetes, New Study Suggests, ScienceDaily (Aug. 23, 2007)
4. Mercola, DO, Joseph, Debate About Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup, mercola.com

US Today reports: 

Some people are finding the bad news hard to stomach, including Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, who calls the magazine’s study “irresponsible journalism.”

“I don’t understand how they do this besides being cute,” says Goodman, who questioned the study’s validity.

Men’s Fitness editor in chief Roy Johnson says the magazine takes almost two dozen factors into account, such as a city’s sports participation rates, time spent working out, number of parks, average commute time, television viewing rates and legislative health initiatives.

Johnson says the fittest and fattest lists, now in their 10th year, are meant to encourage cities to be healthier. Rather than taking offense to topping the fat list, Goodman should use it as motivation for his city to shape up, Johnson says.

“Instead of shooting the messenger, go out for a run. We use a lot of data, and we’re very rigorous about this,” Johnson says.

Some of the fittest cities? Colorado Springs, Denver, Albuquerque, Portland. Other fat cities include too many cities in Texas to list. In fact, the Texas cities mount up pretty quickly. What’s going on in that state?  Read more here. 

And here’s some news that should make you think about eating your weight in pie…

Around the world, news media are feasting on alarming data that have started flowing from the International Association for the Study of Obesity. The new, London-based research and public-information outfit has just published the first issue of its International Journal of Pediatric Obesity. In news that will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever strolled through a suburban American shopping mall, where fast-food outlets hawk “super-size” meals to waddling passers-by, the publication reports that almost half of the child population of North and South America will be considered overweight in four more years.

In Europe, in the same period, almost two out of every five children will be considered too hefty. The ISAO’s journal notes that more than a million children in Europe “are estimated to have high blood pressure or high cholesterol levels, putting them at risk of heart disease, and 1.4 million may have early stages of liver disorder….” (Irish Examiner and Independent/Times of India)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, “[c]hanges in diet, a decrease in physical activity and too much time spent in front of computer or television screens have been blamed for the growing number of overweight children worldwide.” (Independent Online, South Africa) The chairman of the International Association for the Study of Obesity said of the latest data: “It is amazing and impressive and devastating.”

Read the entire article here.