How to lose 100 or more pounds

Props to Heather Davis. She has lost 110 pounds. It's a story many would like to live. She didn't follow a gimmicky diet or or sign-up for a quick fix fad. She did it with a good plan, hard work and perseverance.

Here are ten tips she offered in a CNN story that you can use to help you on your journey.

I like all of these tips. I use variations of nearly all of these in my weight loss program. One that I haven't used but will incorporate immediately, Tip #8, keep an item of your "big" clothes as motivation. That's a great idea!

Congratulations Heather!

1. Never let anyone tell you "You can't." Yes, you can.
2. Get as much social support as possible. Going to the gym with others is fun and motivating.
3. You will not be the biggest person in the gym and everyone will not be staring at you.
4. Some thin people in the gym used to be really heavy and they will applaud you.
5. Lose weight for you. Not because someone else tells you to. Also, know when to stop losing.
6. If you lose your way (fall off your diet), get right back into the saddle and try again.
7. Keep a calendar. Mark off every day you exercise and eat right. You will see the days rack up, and it will make you proud.
8. When you do lose weight, save one item from your heaviest weight. Look at it when you feel discouraged and you'll see how far you've come.
9. Don't let friends or family derail you. If you don't want to eat something, it is OK to politely decline, but don't go crazy. You don't want to be "that person" at the lunch table.
10. If you want cheesecake or a sweet treat -- eat it in moderation. Don't deprive yourself of anything or you will get discouraged.

Stupid Obesity - Socially Contagious?

This is a few days old but I still wanted to comment. In case you missed it, a study released last week indicated obesity was socially contagious. Authors of the study concluded that if you lived, worked or were friends with an obese person, you were more likely to be obese. Conversely, if you were height and weight proportionate, your friends and family were likely to be the same. Hence the socially contagious theme behind the research.

You remember the old saying..."Birds of a feather..."

In some respects the adage is true. You're not going to find the best lawyers or financial firms on the low-rent side of town, are you? Of course not, they're likely to be right next door to each other or in the next building - downtown or in the financial district.

But when it comes to this socially contagious idea, I completely disagree with the theory.

Here's why.

For the last several years we've been bombarded with news of the obesity epidemic.

And you've seen the headlines many times...

• "Obesity rates are rising?"
• "Obesity is an epidemic!"
• "Our kids are becoming obese at the fastest rate in US history!"

So if obesity is rising at epidemic proportions, how does the Socially Contagious idea fit?

It doesn't.

It doesn't fit because if everyone is becoming obese, does it really matter who your friends are? Does it really matter who your family members are? Does it really matter who you work with?

The short answer is no. While there certainly is some relationship, there's simply too little separation of the data to justify a Socially Contagious theory. By that I mean there are too many related items over-lapping each other that are better predictors of obesity than simply the circle of people you see on a regular basis.

Like a bad diet and too little exercise. At the same time we're bombarded by the obesity statistics, we're bombarded by information that our diets are terrible and we can't get off the couch for 30 minutes of exercise. These are more important than the Socially Contagious idea.

But back to the question...

Does is really matter who your friends are?

If more than 60% of the population is overweight or obese, simply by chance your going to be living, working or socializing with someone that was overweight or obese. So no, it doesn't.

Calling obesity socially contagious is analogous to saying that humans having two legs is socially contagious. We're all humans, we all have two legs. And just by chance you're going to know somone, live with someone or work with someone that is overweight or obese.

So does it make sense to say it's socially contagious?

Why exercise is good!

Exercise is good. Inflammation in the body is bad! - it's significantly related to a whole host of cardiovascular diseases.

The most frequently measured biomarker of inflammation in the body is C-reactive protein (CRP). High levels of CRP indicate high levels of inflammation. Essential fatty acids (Omega 3's, for example) are known to reduce inflammation - so eat some fresh, Wild Salmon today :-). Other foods known to reduce inflammation are fresh fruits and vegetables, like berries, grapes, celery and avocadoes (there are more but that's a quick list). Green tea has some anti-inflammatory characteristics too.

Fitness has been shown to be inversely related to CRP, the more fit you are the less CRP in your bloodstream. What hasn't been very well understood, however, is the mechanism that's in play. For example, if you are highly fit and have low CRP levels, is that because you are fit or are the habits of living your daily lifestyle (ie, diet full of fresh fruits, vegetables and healthy doses of essential fatty acids) causing your low levels of CRP.

This study attempted to answer that question.

What they found was that exercise was a significant contributor to low levels of CRP. They looked at sympathetic and parasympathetic tone. The former increases heart rate, respiration, substrate utilization, etc... when you start exercising, while the latter brings these values down, back to resting levels once you stop. Their main finding was a direct relationship between parasympathetic tone and CRP, which means the longer your body takes to get back to resting levels, the higher your levels of CRP. And, conversely, the quicker your body gets back to resting levels, the lower your levels of CRP.

So exercise is good for reducing inflammation in the body. Chalk up another one for the good guys.

Understand this, exercise is good but higher intensity exercise is even better. If you want to work on your body's ability to recover, than do some interval training or other form of high intensity training. It can be cardio, weights, agility drills, anything really, the higher the intensity, the harder your body has to work to recover. Over time, it will recover more quickly and decrease your overall level of inflammation.

So, really, go out and break a sweat today! here in Houston today, that won't be too hard :-)

Dr. Brian


PS. If you need some guidance on your exercise program, sign up for one of our FREE newsletters. If you are a golfer and want to knock 4-5 strokes off your game, get a copy of the Golf Fitness Boot Camp, you can even download it to your computer right now! It will improve your game and the inflammation in your body.

And it continues...

Potential New Target For Type 2 Diabetes Found By Penn Researchers

"We hope that drug companies will look for new ways to modify fat metabolism in type 2 diabetics using these possible targets."

Big Pharma dovetails quite nicely with the tertiary nature of our health care system. You don't visit the doctor before you get sick. Type II diabetes and most chronic cardiovascular conditions are almost completely related to lifestyle. Eat a diet high in nutrient deficient, highly processed foods, do very little physical activity and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict glucose metabolic problems in your future.

But the purpose of this post is to shed light on the dependence of federal research monies on Big Pharma. The quote above is taken directly from the article and shows that perfectly. It's as if researchers using federal money are directing the research focus of Big Pharma.

Why do we need more or different drugs when a perfectly acceptable solution is available? Why can't there be a quote like this directed at lifestyle change? It is a perfectly acceptable solution.

I closed a previous post by asking if I was being cynical, maybe I am.

How did they get there in the 1st place?

As a former academic (and fully aware of the importance of scientific publications), there are times when I scratch my head and wonder, "Federal dollars were spent on this!"

In nearly all cases, outcomes are predictable within an expected range. It's called the scientific method. With no desire to get into a discussion of the scientific method, a recent study looked at the role of diet on recovery from colon cancer.

You can read the summary. Here is the first paragraph:
"Patients with stage III colon cancer who have undergone surgery and chemotherapy with the goal of cure may have a higher risk of relapsing and dying early if they follow a predominantly "Western" diet of red meat, fatty foods, refined grains, and desserts, according to research led by investigators at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston."

As I read this summary, all I could think was, "What type of diet do you think got them there in the first place?" I'm sure this research was needed somewhere, after all, if a study doen'st prove it, how do you know it's true.

But there is some good news...we know now the answer to the question and a "prudent" diet has made some headlines.

Am I just being cynical?

Why do they do this?

"Scientists in Indiana are reporting progress toward development of low glycemic and slowly digestible starch, a form of starch that would be less apt to cause the spike in blood sugar - and perhaps sharp hunger pangs - that many individuals experience after eating bread, baked goods, and other high-carbohydrate foods."

The rest of the summary can be read here.

My only question is why?

I can understand the need for people to consume healthier foods - particularly than those listed in the quote above. But what if we just ate less of that food and more fruits and vegetables, healthier meats and drank more water? What if we just ate grains as they grow in the field?

Look in your pantry. Foods in plastic bags and carboard boxes are loaded with things that used to be good, healthy foods. Take enriched white flour for example. Out in the field, its a perfectly healthy and natural food.

To end up as a cake, bread or other food, it gets processed. The problem with processing is that it removes the good stuff, mainly the fiber, vitamins and minerals. As the end-product food stuff, it's a plain-old, bland, quickly digesting starch.

Now, based on the objectives of these scientists, a new, more slowly digesting starch is being manufactured. And they're making progress. I don't know if I should jump for joy or just ask the question: "What is wrong with this picture?"

If we have a perfectly healthy food, process it and turn it into something that is not good for our digestive system, why do we want to further alter it so that it is better for our digestive system? Before you answer, think about the steps being taken to make the food better.

Is this coming full circle or am I just missing something completely obvious here? Please enlighten me!

Answering this research question

Reading this summary, I felt an urge to blurt out: "No blank, Sherlock!"

A recent study published in JAMA, a leading pillar of medical research dissemination, compared low GI diets with low-fat diets on insulin secretion in high insulin secreters.

On the surface, this appears to be a legitimate research question. Insulin is related to glucose metabolism and given the current state of obesity and type II diabetes in America, this might be something we should know.

However, most people in the medical fields should intuitively know this. The glycemic index of any food indicates the level it raises blood sugar when consumed. The higher the glycemic index, the higher the blood sugar response. For example, twinkies rate rather high on the glycemic index. Consume two or three of them and your blood sugar will spike.

At least for a while. In response, your body will release (secrete) insulin to bring it back down to normal.

If you are a high insulin secreter, you're either type II diabetic, pre-diabetic or have a non-lifestyle related condition effecting your ability to metabolize blood sugar. You have to secrete more because the insulin you do release is becoming more and more insensitive to blood sugar. When this starts happening, the amount you secrete increases just to get your blood sugar back to normal. Over time your ability to regulate blood sugar becomes difficult and you become type II diabetic. For more info, go here.

But back to the study...

All markers of cardiovascular health were improved following low GI diet when compared to a low-fat diet. Again, this makes perfect sense. You're not obese or diabetic because you eat a low-fat diet of whole, natural foods. You're obese or diabetic (even if you eat a low-fat diet) because you are consuming overly-processed foods - cardboard boxes and plastics bags. The fat they contain is not healthy (trans fat) and to increase palatability (here) and shelf-life, sugars and preservatives are added.

The end result is a low-fat food that has a high GI, which increases insulin secretion when consumed. And the cycle continues...

I'll conclude by saying that as a former academic, I'm well aware the importance peer-reviewed publications play in the tenure process. So in some ways, I understand why this paper was published. Without knowing all the details, I can only hope this paper was part of a larger study with these data points already collected, making the question easy to answer.

Until next time...

The fallacy of "fat-burning" zones and low-intensity exercise

Press Release 1: Walking not enough for significant exercise benefits.
Press Release 2: "No time to exercise" is no excuse, study shows.

By most publications, walking is the most popular form of physical activity. And why not? It's easy to incorporate walking into your daily routine. You can make a concerted effort to take the stairs rather than the elevator, walk down the hall to speak with a colleague rather than emailing or phoning them, or even take a quick 10 minute walk on your lunch hour.

For the longest time, many health-related organizations trumpeted the healthy effects of walking on cardiovascular disease, chronic disease, mental disorders and weight control. In fact, Shape Up America has dedicated a large part of their mission to their 10,000 steps a day program. The main message of this program (and others like it) is to accumulate 10,000 steps (about 5 miles) each day and your health will improve.

But are we missing something?

"Generally, low-intensity activity such as walking alone is not likely to give anybody marked health benefits compared to programs that occassionally elevate the intensity," says Dr. Vicki Harber, lead author of the study in the first press release.

Their study compared traditional exercise (using treadmills and stationary cycles) at a moderate-intensity with the 10,000 steps a day program, where subjects accumulated 10,000 steps per day.

The most significant finding was that fitness levels in the traditional exercise group improved at a rate 2.5 times that of the 10,000 steps per day group.

A separate study confirms these findings.

One group followed an interval training protocol while the other performed continuous, moderate-intensity stationary cycling. Over the study period, the interval training group trained for a total of 2.5 hours while the cycling group trained for 10.5 hours.

The results?

No significant differences in health or fitness markers between the groups.

"The most striking finding from our study was the remarkably similar adaptations induced by two such diverse training strategies," says Martin Gibala, associate professor of kinesiology at McMaster University.

My thoughts
People in the service side (personal trainers, coaches, instructors, etc...) of the fitness industry have known for a long time that harder exercise provides better results. Those doing research on physical activity and health (I used to be one of them) realize this too. However, those doing research also understand that a continuum between the benefits of exercise and the intensity of exercise exists.

So much of the American population is completely inactive that getting up and following the 10,000 steps per day program will provide health benefits, which explains the major campaigns. But it's important to realize too, that once you leave the "couch potato" behind, increasing the intensity of exercise will do more (and in a shorter period of time) than simply walking. So the continuum is getting people off the couch to doing something and then getting them to do more.

All of this leads us to walking and "burning calories." Earlier I mentioned a few of the reasons why walking is the most popular form of exericse. I intentionally did not mention fat loss (although I mentioned weight control, which is a completely different issue). You can readily verify the tie-in between walking and fat-burning zones by reading magazine headings, talking with any un-informed trainer or reading the "charts" in the fitness center or on the treadmill.

What do the headlines, trainers or chart say (or show)?

That fat-burning zones are of lower intensity than "cardio-training" zones. This may be true for "in-the-moment" metabolism, but completely off the mark in every other regard. Higher intensity exercise burns more calories, can be done in a shorter period of time and provides better health benefits than "fat-burning" zone exercise.

There is a ton of research to suppor this claim but the health conditions that receive the most benefit from higher intensity exercise are cardiovascular diseases. These include hypertension, type II diabetes, high cholesterol, metabolic syndrome and obesity.

Your take home message
Don't give up on walking!

Instead, replace some of your walking with higher-intensity exercise. Make your body huff-and-puff a little. You'll be better off in the long run.

Isn't it better to get the same (or better) results in a shorter period of time?

Of course it is. That's why working out harder is better than the alternative.

Eat Meat, Lose Weight? Could Dr. Atkins have been right?

The text between the dashed lines comes directly from the press release. A link to view the press release is at the bottom of this post. Unless otherwise stated, the text between the dashed lines is exactly as it appears in the press release.
All text after the dashed line contains my comments.

------------------------------------------

A study in the September, 2006 issue of Cell Metabolism evaluated normal and obese individuals for their response to the hunger-fighting hormone peptide YY (PYY). In previous research reports, it was shown to reduce food intake by up to 1/3 when given by injection.

“We’ve now found that increasing the protein content of the diet augments the body’s own PYY, helping to reduce hunger and aid weight loss,” said Medical Research Council clinician scientist Rachel Batterham of University College London. (Emphasis added by me).

Further investigation in mice supported the human study results.

Also, genetically modified mice unable to produce PYY ate more and became markedly obese.

When researchers treated those hormone deficient mice with PYY, the animals lost weight.

“The findings show that PYY deficiency can cause obesity and that PYY appears to mediate the beneficial effects of increased-protein content diets," Batterham said. "One potential weight loss strategy is therefore to increase the satiating power of the diet and promote weight loss through the addition of dietary protein--harnessing our own satiety system (Emphasis added by me).

“Such a diet is perhaps more typical to that of our hunter-gatherer ancestors,” she added.

The average Western diet derives 49% of energy intake from carbohydrate, 35% from fat, and 16% from protein, Batterham said. That differs considerably from the diet of hunter-gatherers, who ate as much as twice the amount of protein (Emphasis added by me).

------------------------------------------
EUREKA (only because this press release comes from Eureka Alert), more protein in your diet leads to greater weight loss. I think Dr. Atkins was onto something many years ago, regardless of the bad press.

People in the know have realized for a long time the positive role protein plays in your diet, health and body weight. That’s why I recommend eating protein at every meal and even with your snacks. But you can’t eat just any protein. It must be healthy, natural and not packed with preservatives and saturated fats.

In other words, get the majority of your protein from chicken, beef, turkey, fish and wild game. Stay away from meats that come in plastic bags or containers and cardboard boxes. This meat is processed and loaded with preservatives and trans fatty acids.

To limit processed meats, make sure the meat you do eat is as close to its natural state as possible. In this condition, it has undergone little processing.

For a better understanding of how to determine the extent of processing a protein source has undergone, you need to ask yourself four questions. The answers to these questions will lead you to an obvious conclusion.

To learn these four questions, read my nutrition e-book. You can get a free copy simply by signing up for my newsletter, Brian’s Report: 18 Holes of Golf fitness, nutrition, heath and much more. To sign-up, go here: http://www.briansekula.com/golf/BReport/BriansReportSignup.htm.

Some more of my thoughts from the article…

Why was the study replicated in mice after humans? My best guess is they wanted to isolate the PYY hormone, so they used the genetically modified mice. I’m not sure, but the sentence caught me off-guard.

The typical Western diet contains too many carbohydrates. But carbohydrates alone are not the culprit. It’s the type that matters. Too many people eat a diet laden in processed carbohydrates, which include chips, cookies, crackers, soda water, etc… If these “foods” were replaced with fruits and vegetables, along with healthy proteins, several things would happen. The incidence rates of many behaviorally related diseases would drop significantly. These include: obesity, heart disease, Type II Diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, many forms of cancer and even some bone and joint disorders. The list goes on. Additionally, the rate at which Americans take prescription medications would significantly decrease. How much help would that be to an over-burdened health care system?

But back to the article…

Archaeological studies indicate the typical hunter-gather diet consisted of proteins high in healthy fats, namely omega 3, 6 and 9 fatty acids. This was pre-agricultural times and the meat consumed was wild. It’s the modern-day equivalent of free-range meat. In other words, wild animals went where they wanted and ate what they wanted.

Soon after introduction of the agricultural period, it was discovered that farming meat was much better than the alternative. Who can blame them? If you had to kill something to eat it, you were just as likely to be killed while out hunting and gathering. So cattle (and other forms of meat) were raised as a meat source for the populace. It was also soon discovered that feeding them (as opposed to allowing them to range free in captivity) caused them to gain weight faster than if they were in the wild.

It wasn’t long that animal husbandry techniques discovered diets high in corn and other grains would cause a young calf to weigh over 1,200 pounds in about 14 months, as opposed to 2 years or more in the wild. As you might guess, this much of a weight gain in this short period of time is not a healthy weight gain. Tissue analyses show the vast majority of this weight gain is fat – specifically, saturated fat.

Coincidentally, fossil records from pre- and post-agricultural periods indicate when animal husbandry techniques were introduced, significant increases in nutritionally related diseases began to appear.

The Take Home Message

This is what I recommend. Note: I am not telling you what to do. I’m only making some recommendations. If you’d like, follow these suggestions but be aware that I am not qualified (not an MD) to TELL you what to do (that’s a disclaimer).

1. Eat more protein.
2. Eat protein at every meal.
3. Eat protein with your mid-morning and mid-afternoon snacks.
4. Keep protein powder at home and at work (for convenience).
5. Take two hours one day each week and plan your meals and snacks.
6. Significantly increase the fruits and vegetables you eat.
7. SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the food you eat in plastic bags and cardboard boxes.

Press Release Link
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/cp-epb082806.php