Structured meal plans work well for people as long as they are on a set routine. But what happens when routines are thrown off by business travel, vacations or just dinner out? Is there a way to enjoy a business meal or a dinner date without falling off your nutrition plan? The following is a list of tips to help you make better decisions while dining out. I’ve also included a personal example of a recent trip.
1. Start with a salad When you’re traveling, it’s easy to get out of the habit of eating enough vegetables. If you’re eating in a group, it’s likely someone will want to order appetizers, which are often loaded with extra sugar, fats and processed carbohydrates. If you order a salad, ask for it to come with the appetizers. You’ll have something to eat while everyone else is loading up on everything else. Choose a dressing low in sugar, such as ranch, Cesar or blue cheese. If you’re not sure about what’s in the dressings, just ask your server. 2. Choose your protein Depending on the type of restaurant you’re at, the high-carb options might sound appealing, but look for those meals with a sufficient amount of protein like fish, chicken, lean beef, seafood, etc. If you don’t see an obvious lean protein choice, ask your server. 3. Ask for more vegetables Your main entrée usually doesn’t come alone. Sides often include potatoes, bread, rice or other starch. If you want to avoid extra starch, ask for extra vegetables. Most restaurants have a variety of steamed vegetables or similar options. Double up on them if you want to make sure you go home feeling full. 4. Skip the sauces, sugars and fried foods A seemingly nutritious option like fish or chicken can be as high in calories as a serving of lasagna when sauces and creams are used. Beware of how the meal is prepared, and again, if you’re not sure, just ask. 5. If you can’t find it on the menu the way you want it, ask for it Still can’t find what you want on the menu? Almost any restaurant would be happy to make something the way you want it. If you can get a grilled chicken breast over a salad at Burger King, you should be able to find something healthy at most sit-down restaurants. 6. If others are having dessert, have something, like coffee or tea If you make it through the meal eating what you should, there’s still the dessert hurdle. If you’re trying to eat healthy and manage your weight, there probably isn’t a dessert option on the menu that’s going to fit well. If others are eating dessert, it’s a good idea to have something in your hand so you’re not tempted to share with them. Espresso, tea, or even a small bowl of berries can be satisfying and keep you from digging into someone else’s chocolate cake.
A Personal Story
I don’t have to travel too often, but this past week, I needed to be out of town for work Tuesday afternoon through Friday evening. I can’t say it was perfect, but I also didn’t feel I veered too far from my normal way of eating. I thought I’d share what I ate as an example of the suggestions above. Tuesday Afternoon 4:30 pm, MSP Airport: Chicken salad with Caesar dressing from Chili’s to-go, skipped the croutons. Dark Roast coffee from Starbuck’s. 6:00 pm, in-flight: Package of peanuts & club soda 10:00 pm, Irvine, CA: Salad with some blue cheese dressing, pork chop, mixed vegetables and a glass of red wine. Wednesday 6:00 am: Shake in hotel room made with whey protein and water 8:00 pm: Ready-to-drink protein shake and an Ostrim stick (ostrich jerky) from the local fitness center 12:00 pm: Lunch at a Persian restaurant. I wasn’t familiar with the food, which was ordered for us. I had some smaller tastes of a few of the items such as a yogurt dish, an eggplant dish and the rice. I ate more of the protein, which included some lamb, beef, pork and chicken, along with some of the vegetables which were ordered. Dessert was an espresso. 6:00 pm: Salad with Caesar dressing, skipped the croutons. Mixed vegetables and a filet steak with iced tea. Stopped by Trader Joe’s for a bar of 86% organic dark chocolate on the way back to the hotel. Had half of it that night. Thursday 4:00 am: Shake in hotel room made with whey protein and water, along with my other supplements before a 6:00 am flight. 9:30 am: Chicken salad with Cesar dressing from Quizno’s at airport in Salt Lake City during layover with a bottle of water. 12:30 pm: Stopped at a truckstop diner on way to meeting in Missoula. Chicken salad with iced tea. 7:00 pm: Amazing meal at Finn & Porter in Missoula. A few clams, salad with some blue cheese dressing, grilled asparagus, grass-fed filet steak and red wine. Friday 5:00 am: Shake in hotel room made with whey protein and water, along with my other supplements. 8:30 am: After working out at a local fitness center and walking for about an hour to downtown Missoula, had an omelet with mushrooms, peppers, tomatoes, onions and sausage. 1:00 pm: Small package of almonds and a cup of coffee (unfortunately, there’s no restaurant at the Missoula airport like I thought there would be) before 2:00 pm flight home.
Summary
It isn’t always easy to make the right decision when you’re eating out. The variety of options and courses make it tempting to indulge. There’s also the voice in the back of your head that says “It’s only one meal” or “You deserve it.” Others who may not share the same goals as you can also try to talk you out of eating well. The truth is, shortly after the meal is over, the satisfaction from an unhealthy meal is gone. However, the satisfaction of making the right choice of food while enjoying a meal among friends or business people lasts long after the meal is over. Eat well. Live well.
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
As you look throughout the Life Time Weight Loss Site, you’ll see the tag line “More than just calories in, calories out.” In the battle for weight loss, calorie counting is one of the most popular methods for attempting weight loss, but it is not the only factor for weight loss. A variety of factors exist, which influence the body’s ability to shed excess body fat. Over a series of articles, we’ll take a look at the many ways we can positively or negatively impact our ability to burn fat and shed extra weight.
As mentioned above, calorie reduction is the most common suggestion for losing weight. Unfortunately, our bodies adjust to many lifestyle factors, including the calories we provide it. Generally, if an individual eats fewer calories, the body responds by burning fewer calories. If we exercise more, hunger can be increased as a way for the body to offset the extra calories burned. If we eat more of the right kinds of calories, our body can respond by burning more calories.
To effectively lose weight long-term, an appropriate nutrition and exercise program must change the body’s metabolism – the way the body uses the energy we provide it from food. An appropriate training and nutrition program for weight loss is designed to make the body better at burning fat at rest and during exercise. There are a variety of lifestyle factors which change how the body burns fat. They include:
Today, we’ll take a look at some of the background information. It’s a bit technical, but important for understanding how to influence the way the body burns fat. In upcoming articles, we’ll look at the specific ways you can modify nutrition and exercise to positively affect the way the body burns fat and conserves muscle.
Respiratory Quotient and Fat Burning
Just as your car has various measurements which show how the engine is running, so does your body. When it comes to fuel utilization (carbs vs. fat), a measurement called your respiratory quotient (RQ) helps to show how well your body burns fat. Respiratory quotient is measured during a resting metabolic rate assessment (CaloriePoint). The RQ value is the volume of carbon dioxide expired divided by the volume of oxygen inhaled. By measuring how much oxygen is inhaled and how much carbon dioxide is exhaled, the amount of carbohydrate and fat being burned can be measured.
The body is only able to use fat as a major fuel source when it is able to get enough oxygen to its cells. Generally, under resting or moderately active conditions, RQ is 0.7 to 1.0. During intense exercise, the ratio climbs above 1.0, which means the body is working anaerobically (without sufficient oxygen). The higher the RQ value, the more carbohydrate and less fat an individual burns. Because people burn the majority of their calories at rest or being slightly active, understanding your resting RQ level helps you understand how well you burn fat most of the day.
Weight loss must generally be accompanied by some modification to calorie intake. Some individuals, though, don’t lose weight at the expected rate even when their calories are reduced. Researchers were interested in this phenomenon. If the majority of weight loss philosophies revolve around calories in, calories out, and it in fact does not work for everyone, they wanted to find out why. After adjusting for dietary adherence, they found the next most significant factor in one’s ability to lose weight was the RQ value. Those who had the lowest RQ values had the most success with weight loss. That means those who burned the highest percentage of fat at rest had the most success with weight loss. In fact, that group also had the most success with avoiding weight regain as well.(1)
As an individual becomes more efficient at burning fat, RQ tends to decrease. The right kind of exercise can help decrease resting RQ levels; so can an appropriate nutrition plan. Periodically measuring your resting metabolic rate (CaloriePoint) can show you, over time, how well you’re doing at increasing your body’s ability to burn fat, as well as show you how much energy you burn at rest.
Just Help Me Burn Fat
Whew. That was a bit technical, but it’s an important foundational concept. The point of the above section is so you understand if you can help the body burn more fat instead of carbohydrate, even in a resting state, you can improve the ability to get the weight off. That being the case, the next question should be “What do I have to do to get my body burning more fat?” There isn’t any one answer, so we’ll take a look at the variety of ways in upcoming articles. The next article will be: Making the Body a Better Fat Burner: Your Daily Diet.
Regardless of what any magazine article may say, there is not a quick fix and there is not a single answer for losing weight for all people. The greater the number of ways you can influence your body to burn fat, the more likely it is you’ll find success. Stay tuned.
1. Barwell N, Malkova D. Leggate M, Gill J. Individual responsiveness to exercise-induced fat loss is associated with change in resting substrate utilization. Metabolism. 2009;58(9):1320-1328
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
A new research study presented additional evidence of the benefits of a lower-carb approach to diet. The study was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and financially supported by the National Institutes of Health.(1) It compared a calorie-controlled low-fat diet, against a low-carb diet in which participants were allowed to eat as much protein and fat as they wanted, over a two-year period. The bottom line finding was that both approaches led to the same weight loss over two years, but the low-carb diet led to much greater levels of health-promoting HDL cholesterol. Though this is the summary that’s made most of the news stories, there was additional, valuable information revealed in the study.
Study Design
The study group consisted of overweight individuals who were put into two different groups. The first group (low-fat group) was instructed to eat a diet consisting of 1200-1500 calories per day for women, and 1500-1800 calories per day for men. Of the total calories, 55% were to come from carbohydrate, 30% from fat and 15% from protein. Interestingly, it was only this group was instructed to maintain a specific calorie level.
The second group was instructed to follow a specific Atkins-diet protocol. In the first three months, they were to keep carbohydrate content below 20 grams per day from fibrous vegetables, while freely eating as much protein and fat as they wanted to. After the first three months, they gradually increased carbohydrate intake. Each week after the first twelve weeks, they were told to add an additional five grams of carbohydrate to their daily intake.
During the first twenty weeks (~five months), both groups received in-person, group support. Exercise and multivitamin recommendations were the same for both groups.
Study Findings
Not surprisingly, the groups lost their greatest amount of weight at the six-month mark, shortly after the group support program ended. This is important in that for many overweight individuals, without the support and accountability of a group or one-on-one program, they easily get off-track with their nutrition plan. From the six-month mark to the end of two years, weight crept back on in both groups to the point where, at the end of the study, both groups had lost 7% of their body weight from where they started, which averaged 15 pounds.
Dietary adherence is one of the most challenging aspects of studying nutrition. Without cooking meals every day for individuals, it’s nearly impossible to ensure they follow the prescribed plan. In many studies, the low-fat group tends to maintain a closer diet to what is recommended than the low-carb groups do. This is because the “low-fat” approach is not dramatically different than the Standard American Diet (SAD), where as the low-carb plan is quite different than most people in today’s society eat. From a weight loss perspective, a key point is that the low-fat group had to count calories to lose the weight, whereas the low-carb group simply had to limit carbohydrate intake. It would have been even more interesting if, over the two years, all foods would have been prepared for the low-carb group to ensure they stuck to the plan. Of course, it isn’t feasible for studies such as these to have that much control over food intake for such a long period of time.
Although LDL cholesterol was lower at Month 3 and Month 6 in the low-fat group, VLDL (small, dense LDL), which is the real “bad” cholesterol was lower in the low-carb group. A common misconception about low-carb diets is that they raise LDL cholesterol, but it is the large, fluffy LDL particles that usually rise on a low-carb diet, which does not present the health risk that VLDL cholesterol does. Excess carbohydrates tend to cause a rise in VLDL cholesterol. HDL cholesterol, a known protector against heart disease, often decreases with a low-fat diet. Consumption of fat, especially saturated fat, helps increase HDL cholesterol.(2) The recent study again confirmed this finding.
During the first year of the study, triglyceride levels fell dramatically more in the low-carb group than in the low-fat group. High triglyceride levels are another known indicator of heart disease risk. In the second half of the study, the second year, the difference in triglyceride levels was less significant. The change in triglycerides in the second half of the study was likely due to an increase in carbohydrate intake, which is common among those who participate in a low-carb study without regular support and accountability.
Bone mineral density was measured over the two-year period as well. Low-carb diets have a reputation for decreasing bone mineral density because of their higher protein intakes, although research has not supported that reputation.(3) This study showed that the low-carb approach was not detrimental to bone density. Generally, higher-protein diets can increase the body’s acid load, which requires more minerals to offset the acids. Consuming sufficient vegetables can offset any potential risks for decreasing bone density when consuming protein, and some studies show that higher-protein diets are better for maintaining bone density with aging.
Summary
We can glean a few important points from this study, which have been mentioned before. First, changing dietary habits is NOT easy. We live in a society where processed foods available everywhere. Without support, the chance of long-term success is greatly diminished. Until one’s life is completely changed, and they can’t think of going back to the old way of eating, it’s critical to find a support group. Support can be in-person, such as programs like EAT or TEAM. You may also find the support and encouragement you need through an online community. Participating in discussion forums and tracking what you eat can be great ways of finding motivation and accountability.
Second, evidence continues to mount which shows the positive outcomes from a reduced-carbohydrate diet for many people. Most peoples’ lifestyles are not active enough to justify the high amounts of carbohydrates we consume on a daily basis. The challenge, of course, is making the right decisions and avoiding the convenience foods we’re faced with each day. This goes back to the first point of connecting with a support group and staying connected with like-minded people.
Finally, lower-carbohydrate diets and higher-protein diets tend to go hand in hand. There is some debate as to which macronutrient plays a more significant role in weight management. Those who make protein intake a priority at each meal tend to eat less carbohydrates and less food in general. For some people, it may be easier to think of changing their nutritional habits by increasing the intake of vegetables and protein rather than reducing carbohydrates. In the end, less carbohydrate and more healthy fat and protein should help you get to your weight-management goals easier.
References: 1. Foster G, Wyatt H, Hill J, Makris A et al. Weight and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 Years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diet. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:147-157 2. Siri-Tarino P Sun Q, Hu F, Krauss R. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91:525-546 3. Darling A, Millward DJ, Torgerson DJ, Hewitt C, Lanham-New S. Dietary protein and bone health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;90(6):1674-1692
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
A new study is making headlines and news spots claiming that meat consumption causes weight gain. Studies in recent years have shown that protein, including meat, consumption can have a positive effect on weight management, so the study making headlines comes as quite a surprise. Before you react too quickly and start eating bread and butter for each meal, the following provides more of the detail behind the study. This single published study should be weighed against the rest of the evidence on diet and weight management.
A group of researchers, publishing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition analyzed data from the EPIC-PANACEA project, an ongoing project looking at diet and lifestyle factors influencing health and fitness in Europe. The recent study looked at meat consumption and body weight over a five-year period. The study group included almost 374,000 people from 16 different locations. The study conclusion was that in this review, those who consumed the most meat (250 g/day) gained the most weight over a five-year period. The weight gain was approximately 2 kilograms (4.4 pounds). According to the researchers, this effect took place without a difference in calorie consumption compared to the lower protein intake groups. The bottom-line conclusion was that it appeared that eating more meat led to more weight gain without the extra meat adding extra calories to the individuals’ diets. Because meat is such a common source or protein in our diet, if there was a study that showed higher protein intake causes body fat gain, it would be something to react to. With the large amount of research showing how higher-protein diets support weight loss (which often don’t make headlines like this), how can this study show the opposite effect? We’ll take a look at some of the holes in the study that probably don’t make it into the story on the study.
Epidemiological Studies
This study was an epidemiological study, meaning it is intended to look at a variety of associations and find associations. As an example, if someone wanted to compare the number of American cars per household with the rate of obesity, they may find in the U.S., there are more American cars per person than anywhere else, and then conclude “driving American cars is associated with increased risk of obesity.” We know there is no “cause and effect” in a study like this as it is not designed for that. Yet, the news headlines make it sound as though this study showed increasing meat consumption increases weight gain, which, based on the study design, it cannot do.
Definition of Meat
Meat consumption in this study was considered to be poultry, processed meat or red meat. Interestingly, poultry consumption had the greatest association with weight gain, which makes the results seem even stranger, since it is usually leaner than meat or processed meat, and so it is less calorie-dense. The amount consumed by the group with the highest intake averaged about 250 grams of meat per day, or just under 9 ounces per day. A typical serving is 3-4 ounces, so it doesn’t make sense that 2-3 servings a day would cause weight gain. Because this was not a controlled study, we don’t know what type of meat the participants were actually eating – fatty cuts, lean cuts, fried, breaded, baked, grilled or what was added to it.
Participant Questionnaires
The study authors admit, another weakness in this study is that the study participants were only able to provide food questionnaire data, which often provides inaccurate results. In a more controlled study, study participants would be given their food. In controlled studies, increasing protein intake has had a positive effect on supporting weight loss. Of course, it is also necessary for maintaining or increasing lean body mass. In addition, weight was simply asked of the participants. It was not measured. Without ensuring weight was measured in a consistent way before and after, it makes the actual measures somewhat suspect.
Weight & BMI
Because this was a population study, it was not designed for weight management. It was designed to track weight and BMI over time. Body weight and BMI are not the most accurate measurements of one’s physical conditioning. Because we’re talking about 4.4 pounds of weight gain over five years time, it’s quite possible that the weight gain could be attributed to gains in lean body mass, or muscle tissue. It’s also possible that the consumption of other foods may play more of a role. At any rate, because we don’t have body composition data, nor blood test results, the weight and BMI measurements have little meaning, especially because so many other studies show positive effects on LBM, body composition and blood values with increased protein consumption.
Summary
It is fascinating to see which published studies make news headlines and which do not. Oftentimes, it’s the epidemiological or population-based studies which make the news as their results seem to be “breaking news” – stories that seem to create some controversy. Unfortunately, they often serve to cause more confusion to the population than anything else. People may hear how a study like this is covered in the media and assume this is the final answer. In fact, in a case like this, the epidemiological study, which cannot in any way show a cause and effect relationship. On the other hand, there have been many other controlled studies that have showed increasing protein above the current levels of RDA have a positive impact on health and fitness. Of course, the right amount for each person varies so it’s best to talk with a Nutrition or Fitness Professional to know what’s best of you. There are a lot of other significant factors that affect weight gain such as excess processed carbohydrate intake, stress, digestive issues, sleep patterns, inflammation, insulin resistance, hormonal imbalances, lack of exercise, just to name a few. It’s best to put attention in those areas, which when corrected can often result in much more dramatic weight loss results.
Reference:
1. Vergnaud AC, Norat T, Romaguera D, Mouw T. Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study. Am J Clin Nut. 2010;92:398-407
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
In a previous article (Gluten Confusion) we took a look at where some of the attention on gluten is coming from. A significant part of the population appears to be sensitive to gluten, although a much smaller percentage is actually considered “allergic” to gluten. Even those who have minor sensitivities may find disruptions in their metabolism or other health ailments. Many people find themselves facing the idea of cutting gluten out of their diet but are left wondering how they will shop or how they will order foods at restaurants. The good news is that with a small amount of modification, it’s actually pretty easy to get the gluten out of the diet. Since many of the complications from consuming gluten were covered in the article mentioned above, this article will just focus on how to make some changes when you do your shopping or order foods at a restaurant, if your goal is to avoid gluten in your diet.
What is gluten?
“Gluten” is a term used to describe a group of proteins that are created when wheat flour is combined with liquid. The common sources of gluten include wheat, rye, barley or any crossbred grains from those three grains.(1) Typically, oats are considered gluten-free. However, if they are made in a facility that processes other grains, they can easily become contaminated with gluten.(2) According to the USDA, “Currently, there is no FDA regulation that defines the term ‘gluten-free.’ However, FDA has not objected to the use of the term ‘gluten-free’ in the labeling of foods, provided that when such a claim is made, it is truthful and not misleading.” That is an important statement because it places 100% of the responsibility for label claim on the manufacturer of the food. It is possible that food products can be contaminated with gluten during their production process and an individual would not know about it. While it may not be significant for an individual with a light sensitivity to gluten, it can be serious for those with celiac disease, a full-blown gluten allergy.
Many processed foods contain gluten. This could be one of the reasons the rate of gluten sensitivity has increased so much in recent history. We’re exposed to more gluten than we were in the past, especially when people focus on consuming a higher-carbohydrate, higher-grain diet. If you are buying processed foods, be sure to check the label.
What are some alternatives?
Being human, many of us are looking for the answer that’s keeping us from having optimal levels of health and fitness. There is no magic-bullet, but some people certainly do start feeling better, losing weight and having less aches and pains when they take gluten out of their diet. Oftentimes, this can be a result of simply removing extra carbohydrates and calories from their diet. Those who look for gluten-free replacements for their favorite foods may not have the same kind of health benefits. Eating gluten-free cookies instead of gluten-containing cookies may help avoid issues with gluten, but they still contain unnecessary calories and sugars. Once you get in the habit of avoiding gluten, you may find there are a variety of healthy meals you can make without the need to add extra carbohydrates.
For those times when you really do need to make up a starchy food like bread, cookies, etc. and want to avoid using gluten-containing ingredients, there are some options. Flours can be made with rice flour, arrowroot, potato, tapioca, nut flour (almond flour), corn, bean, pea, flax and cottonseed.(3) If you’re simply looking for other grains to add to recipes, the list below shows a more complete list of gluten-free options:
Gluten-Free
Basmati Rice
Beans
Bran
Black Beans
Brown Rice
Buckwheat
Chickpeas
Coconut Flour
Corn
Corn Tortillas
Fava Beans
Flax Seed
Garbanzo Beans
Gluten-Free Bread
Lentils
Millet
Oats (gluten-free)
Pinto Beans
Popcorn
Quinoa
Red Potatoes
Sweet Potatoes
Tapioca
White Potatoes
Wild Rice
What about dining out?
Most restaurants have gluten-free options, even if it isn’t stated on the menu. For the most part, you can’t go wrong with a salad as long as you have the croutons left off of it. A salad with a portion of protein is a fantastic meal which helps ensure you’re getting in the vegetables you should be eating. If you need some carbohydrates, potatoes, sweet potatoes and corn are often available on the menu. If you eat a big salad with protein on it, you probably won’t be hungry enough to eat the extra starch anyway.
What about LifeCafe?
LifeCafe offers a variety of nutritious, filling, great-tasting options made without gluten. The salads are a tremendous value, loaded with vegetables and outstanding in taste. Personally, I’d have a hard time finding another restaurant that makes a better salad. Gluten-free salad options include the Chicken Taco, Cobb, Fiesta BBQ Chicken, House, Mediterranean, LifeCafe and Tuscan Chicken salads. Of course, the shakes are made without gluten as well, with the FastFuel Complete being a nutrition powerhouse of a shake.
Summary
For those who decide to, or need to get the gluten out of their diet, there is still a large variety of foods available. In fact, if your diet is composed mostly of vegetables, fruit, proteins, nuts and seeds, you may be eating a pretty limited amount of gluten already. If you’re training hard and need the additional carbohydrates, you still have a lot of options. If you’re unsure about whether or not this is a necessary step in your nutrition plan, talk with a Nutrition or Fitness Professional. Many people eliminate gluten from their diet for a month and are amazed at how much better they feel. Others don’t notice a difference and may find they can tolerate gluten just fine. Based on the prevalence of issues with gluten, at worst, the effort won’t result in anything. At best it may make a significant difference in how you look, feel and perform.
In health,
Tom Nikkola
References:
1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Questions and Answers on the Gluten-Free Labeling Proposed Rule. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. January 23, 2007
2. Saturni L, Ferretti G, Bacchetti T. The Gluten-Free Diet: Safety and Nutritional Quality. Nutrients. 2010;2(1):16-34
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
Last week, I talked about the new report which will be used to create the 2010 Dietary Guidelines later this year. The most referenced part of the dietary guidelines is the food pyramid. Although the pyramid has gone through several facelifts over the past thirty years, the major recommendations have remained virtually the same: eat most of your calories from whole grains and other starches, eat plenty vegetables, fruit and dairy products, limit meat consumption as well as limit the intake of fats. As explained inlast week’s article, the recommendations have remained, for the most part, unchanged since they were put in place in 1980. During that time, rates of obesity, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other diseases have continued to rise at alarming rates. The food pyramid is a visual way of depicting what is supposed to be an ideal diet. By selecting the right number of each of the food groups, it should result in an appropriate balance of carbohydrates, fat and protein. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee (DGAC) report attempted to review this issue, and their conclusions were…interesting, especially based on the research they used. One of the major questions the committee attempted to ask was:
“What is the Relationship between Macronutrient Proportion and Body Weight in Adults?”
To answer this question, the committee reviewed research on whether a particular diet type (high-carb, low-carb, high-protein, etc.) affected weight loss more significantly than the others. The committee’s conclusions, and the results the research itself presented, spoke two different messages. In addition, in focusing solely on weight loss, the committee may have missed how much of an impact dietary adjustments make on other health-related measures, such as cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose and insulin levels.
Heart disease and diabetes are two major health issues our nation faces. Although they are typically associated with being overweight, that is not always the case. When reviewing research on different diet types, it’s important to not only review the effects those diets have on weight loss, but on other risk factors which increase the chance of developing additional diseases. As you’ll see below, even those studies which didn’t show much of a difference in weight loss often did show benefits for other risk factors.
The Challenge of Studying Macronutrient Ratios
The study of macronutrients and their relationship to weight management and health risk factors has proven to be somewhat of a challenge. For example, the term “low-carb diet” can mean a diet of less than 40% carbohydrates in some studies, while in others it is far less. Some studies consider high-carbohydrate to be at a level of 50-55% of daily calories. When diets of 55% carbohydrate are compared to diets of 40% carbohydrate, there is little significant difference in outcome. The overall carbohydrate load is not significantly different. It is when carbohydrates are more reduced that greater changes begin to appear. The same can be said of the term “high-protein.” A high-protein diet may include 20-25% of total calories and be considered “high-protein” because it is greater than the 15% average most Americans consume. Other studies use 30-35% or higher of total calories to consider a diet “high-protein.” To get a better understanding of diet’s role in weight management and health risk factors, the studies conducted at the greater extremes often provide us with the greatest understanding. In addition, compliance can often be an issue as well. When study participants are sent home to follow a particular diet type, they often have a difficult time adhering to the diet protocol.1 That’s why support groups and accountability sessions are some important, not only for research, but for those who are focused on changing their diet and improving their health.
Macronutrient Proportion and Weight Loss
The DGAC reviewed some of the existing research on various diet types and the impact on weight loss. In total, they reviewed 36 published papers. In the committee’s review, they explained that 20 of the 36 studies showed no difference in weight loss for different macronutrient proportions. Thirteen studies showed that lower carbohydrate reduced weight better than low-fat or high-cab diets. Four studies showed higher-protein diets reduced weight better than lower-protein or higher-carbohydrate diets. To reiterate, of 36 papers, twenty showed that any of the diet types resulted in weight loss (as long as there was a caloric deficit), 13 studies showed better weight loss with a lower-carbohydrate diet and four showed better weight loss with higher-protein diets. The conclusion was…no difference exists. If there were not any studies showing low-fat did better, and there were 13 that showed that low-carb did do better, one must wonder why the conclusion was not “evidence suggests a lower-carbohydrate and/or higher-protein diet appears to more positively affect weight loss than a higher-carb or lower-fat or lower-protein diet.” If that were the conclusion, you can imagine it could have a major effect on the look of the food pyramid and could require a recant of previous recommendations. It would also cause a major change in the processed food industry.
Aside from the effects of the diet types on weight loss, there were other health benefits associated with the diet types which were not discussed. As mentioned above, the committee concluded that 20 studies showed no difference in weight loss. The following are some comments and conclusions from the some of the studies the committee said show “no difference in weight loss between diets differing in macronutrient proportion.”
Capel et al. compared a high-carbohydrate and moderate-carbohydrate diet with obese women and found the weight loss to be similar, but lipid profiles improved more with the moderate-carbohydrate group.2
Frisch at al. concluded: “Despite the favorable effects of both diets on weight loss, the carbohydrate-reduced diet was more beneficial with respect to major cardiovascular risk factors such as central obesity, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure compared to the fat-reduced diet.”3
A study by Gordon et al. compared high (30% of diet) protein and normal (15% of diet) protein diets and found the lower protein group lost a little more body weight, but averaged a loss of 37.5% of lean body mass, whereas the higher protein group only lost an average of 17.3% of lean body mass. Comparing fat loss, the higher protein group lost more body fat.4
A comparison of a plant-based low-carbohydrate diet with a high-carbohydrate lacto-ovo vegetarian diet showed similar weight loss in both groups, but the low-carb group had greater reductions in LDL-cholesterol and total choelesterol-HDL ratio and a greater reduction in triglyerides.5
A comparison of a ketogenic low-carbohydrate diet (<20 g carbs/day) with a lower-carbohydrate diet (40% of diet) showed no advantage of one or the other. Low carbohydrate diets provide a variety of benefits, but there does appear to be a point where further decreasing carbohydrates is not necessary. In this case, keeping carbohydrates under 20 grams per day didn’t provide benefit, and would likely be more difficult to achieve, than a more moderately-reduced carbohydrate diet.6
Another study on protein intake compared a diet of 30% protein with 18% protein. Both groups lost similar body weight, but the “high” protein group better maintained lean body mass and had better feelings of satiety.7
McLaughlin et al. compared high- and lower-carbohydrate diets (60% carb, 25% fat vs. 40% carb, 45% fat). Weight loss, fasting glucose, as well as decrease in blood pressure were similar between the two groups. However, the lower-carb group showed greater decreases in fasting insulin and triglycerides. HDL levels rose significantly more with lower-carb group as well.8
A 2006 study in Nutrition & Metabolism compared three diets: Very low fat (70% carb/10% fat/20% protein), high unsaturated fat (50/30/20), and very low carb (20/60/20). Total pounds lost did not differ much among groups, but percentage weight lost was significantly greater in VLC group, although total fat loss was similar among groups. The low-carb group had a slight increase in total LDL with, which is often the case as saturated fat tends to increase the large, fluffy LDL particles which do not negatively impact health. HDL increased with VLC whereas it decreased with other two. Major changes to fasting insulin were seen with the VLC group (decreased 33%) whereas HUF decreased 19% and VLF decreased it 15%. Also, the VLC group significantly reduced triglycerides.9
A 2008 study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology compared two diet groups: A very low-carb (4% carb/35% pro/ 61% fat) and a moderate carb (46% carb/24% pro/30% fat) diet. HDL (“good cholesterol”) increased by three times as much in low-carb group compared to higher-carb. Triglycerides decreased by twice as much in very low-carb group versus the higher-carb. Weight loss was greater in low-carb group, but difference was not significant. The research group concluded, “…the VLCHF (very-low carb/high-fat) diet as a weight loss strategy may confer the greatest clinical benefits in patients who present with hypertriglyceridemia, low HDL levels, abdominal obesity, and insulin resistance.”10
Wal et al. compared diets including moderate- and low-carbohydrate diets including moderate carbohydrate, low-fat or low-carbohydrate, high-fat meal replacements. Both groups lost significantly more weight as well as inches from their waists and thighs than the control group, while the low-carbohydrate group lost a greater percentage of body fat. Although the moderate-carbohydrate group showed significant reductions in serum cholesterol, the low-carbohydrate group showed the greatest improvements in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein.11
Of the twenty studies the DGAC listed as showing no difference in weight loss between different macronutrient-proportioned diets, the ten mentioned above all provide evidence in benefits of reduced-carbohydrate diets beyond weight loss. These ten, plus the thirteen studies the DGAC did mention as providing evidence of reducing carbohydrate provide a compelling case for revisiting the low-fat dogma behind our current dietary guidelines. The evidence is strong which shows how simple changes to our diet by reducing carbohydrate intake positively affect lipid profiles, insulin and glucose levels, as well as our beltlines. If the comments above seem impressive, the results of the seventeen studies which showed positive results from lower-carbohydrates or higher protein on weight loss were even more impressive.
For an educational and entertaining review of an additional study which was not included in the DGAC list of studies, check out this presentation from Dr. Christopher Gardner of Stanford University, titled The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (at Losing)?
Summary
In study after study, reducing carbohydrates and increasing protein and/or fat positively affects fasting insulin levels, triglyceride levels, HDL-cholesterol levels, and often results in greater weight loss compared to low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets. The one stumbling block for many researchers is that increasing fat often increases LDL cholesterol levels. However, for those who take their research a step further, they generally find that the LDL cholesterol that is increased is large-particle LDL cholesterol, which has been shown to have no detrimental effect on risk factors. Keep in mind there is a big difference between “reducing carbohydrates” and being on a “low-carb” diet. Many of the benefits with lipid profiles and insulin levels are seen with diets containing as much as 40% of total calories as carbohydrates. There isn’t a perfect level to suit all individuals, but 40% may be a good place to start for many people.
On a positive note, this year’s committee appears to be placing more emphasis on using current research to build out the guidelines, even though they may not be looking deeply enough at what that research shows. The DGAC report contains a variety of other information related to diet as well such as stressing the need to increase the consumption of vegetables and fruit. Because suggested macronutrient levels lie at the heart of dietary guidelines, the suggested macronutrient levels should receive more attention from the committee before drafting the final version of the 2010 Dieatary Guidelines for Americans.
In health,
Tom Nikkola
References
1. Sacks FM, Bray GA, Carey VJ, Smith SR, Ryan DH, Anton SD, McManus K, Champagne CM, Bishop LM, Laranjo N, Leboff MS, Rood JC, de Jonge L, Greenway FL, Loria CM, Obarzanek E, Williamson DA. Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(9):859-73
2. Capel F, Viguerie N, Vega N, Dejean S, Arner P, Klimcakova E, Martinez JA, Saris WH, Holst C, Taylor M, Oppert JM, Sørensen TI, Clément K, Vidal H, Langin D. Contribution of energy restriction and macronutrient composition to changes in adipose tissue gene expression during dietary weight-loss programs in obese women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93(11):4315-22
3. Frisch S, Zittermann A, Berthold HK, Götting C, Kuhn J, Kleesiek K, Stehle P, Körtke H. A randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of carbohydrate-reduced or fat-reduced diets in patients attending a telemedically guided weight loss program. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;18(8):36
4. Gordon MM, Bopp MJ, Easter L, Miller GD, Lyles MF, Houston DK, Nicklas BJ, Kritchevsky SB. Effectsof dietary protein on the composition of weight loss in post-menopausal women. J Nutr Health Aging. 2008;12(8):505-9
4. Jenkins DJ, Wong JM, Kendall CW, Esfahani A, Ng VW, Leong TC, Faulkner DA, Vidgen E, Greaves KA, Paul G, Singer W. The effect of a plant-based low-carbohydrate ("Eco-Atkins") diet on body weight and blood lipid concentrations in hyperlipidemic subjects. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(11):1046-54
6. Johnston CS, Tjonn SL, Swan PD, White A, Hutchins H, Sears B. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(5):1055-61
7. Leidy HJ, Carnell NS, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. Higher protein intake preserves lean mass and satiety with weight loss in pre-obese and obese women. Obesity. 2007;15(2):421-9
8. McLaughlin T, Carter S, Lamendola C, Abbasi F, Yee G, Schaaf P, Basina M, Reaven G. Effects of moderate variations in macronutrient composition on weight loss and reduction in cardiovascular disease risk in obese, insulin-resistant adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84(4):813-21
9. Noakes M, Foster PR, Keogh JB, James AP, Mamo JC, Clifton PM. Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk. Nutr Metab. 2006;11;3:7
10. Tay J, Brinkworth GD, Noakes M, Keogh J, Clifton PM. Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(1):59-67
11. Wal JS, McBurney MI, Moellering N, Marth J, Dhurandhar NV. Moderate-carbohydrate low-fat versus low-carbohydrate high-fat meal replacements for weight loss. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2007;58(4):321-9
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
Five years after remodeling the USDA Food Pyramid, it’s time once again to revisit the government recommendations for food intake. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) released its 699 page report on June 12, which provides the details on what will be used to issue the official guidelines later this year. Federal regulations require the guidelines to be updated every five years, which has been the case since 1980. As the guidelines evolve, the food industry general follows with foods designed to taste great, be made quickly and in some way fit within the “healthy” guidelines. The main difference between the 2005 guidelines and the latest version seem to be the acknowledgement that the rate of obesity is a national crisis. Before we review the contents of the 2010 report, we’ll take a look at how the guidelines began. Next week, we’ll take a look at what the new guidelines recommend and how they match up with the most current research on nutrition and obesity.
More Than A Century of Dieting
Although the issues surrounding obesity have become a major health threat in the United States, managing weight is not a new issue. Reports of various diet types were available in the late 1800’s, with low-carbohydrate diets being among those that provided some of the most effective results. Dieting became more popular in the 1920s. That was about the time that low-fat diets became more popular. The reasoning that led to low-fat recommendations was that fat has more than twice as many calories per gram as protein or carbohydrates. The thought was that if fat could just be taken out of the foods people were eating, they’d eat fewer overall calories, which would increase the rate of weight loss. Of course, we now know that to be too simplistic. Those who choose only low-fat and non-fat foods tend to eat more overall calories because the lack of fat keeps one’s appetite from being satisfied.1
The reality of heart disease caught the attention of almost all Americans when on Saturday, September 24, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a heart attack. According to Gary Taubes in Good Calories, Bad Calories, Eisenhower had no history of heart disease, exercised regularly, maintained a healthy weight and blood pressure and had cholesterol levels below normal. Other than the stress of his role as President (stress wasn’t considered a major factor in heart disease at that time), there wasn’t much indication he was at risk of heart disease.2 Interestingly, after the heart attack, The President increased his focus on his cholesterol levels and ate less and less fat and cholesterol-containing foods. The more he reduced the cholesterol in his food, the more his blood cholesterol levels rose. Just prior to the heart attack, they were measured at 165 mg/dl. The last time his cholesterol was checked as President, it had risen to 259.
It was about this same time that Ancel Keys of the University of Minnesota was featured in Time magazine. Keys recommended a low-fat diet based on his controversial Seven-Countries Study. In the study, Keys selected the data of seven countries which showed that the more fat those countries consumed, the more heart disease they had. Unfortunately, other countries which didn’t fit the trend line were excluded making the case more compelling than it actually was. This became a foundational study for dietary recommendations ever since that time.
Although evidence was lacking to support a low-fat diet, the theory became the rule. The first official government dietary recommendations were published in 1977 in a document called Dietary Goals for the United States.3 The document emphasized the need to increase carbohydrate consumption and decrease fat intake. There were other recommendations such as decreasing sugar and salt, but the recommendation to increase carbohydrate consumption and decrease fat would prove to be the major message the media and the food industry would grab a hold of.
In 1980, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) drafted the first version of the dietary guidelines, titled Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans. They also put into law that it would be revised and updated every five years. The 20-page report was summarized with 7 Guidelines:
Eat a Variety of Foods
Maintain Ideal Weight
Avoid Too Much Fat, Saturated Fat and Cholesterol
Eat Foods with Adequate Starch and Fiber
Avoid Too Much Sugar
Avoid Too Much Sodium
If you Drink Alcohol, Do So in Moderation
Dieting 2010
Fast-forward thirty years to 2010. Diabetes, obesity, cancer and other nutritionally-influenced diseases weigh down our country’s health care system. This year’s report places much more emphasis on our current state of obesity and calls for action to reverse the trend. There are four main categories of focus for the DGAC, which will be used to shape the final Dietary Guidelines for 2010. They are:
Reduce overweight and obesity by reducing calories (consumed) and increasing physical activity
Shift food consumption to a diet that emphasizes vegetables, beans, fruits, nuts and seeds
Meet the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans
From a high level, each of the above statements is a great approach. From a nutrition standpoint, there is no doubt Americans must consume more vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds (and multivitamins) to achieve optimal nutrient intakes. Unfortunately, the report includes several references to avoid red meat consumption and saturated fat, both of which have not been shown to lead to health problems. It also stresses consumption of low-fat dairy and whole grains, which aligns well with the way farms are subsidized. Dairy and gluten are two of the most common food allergies people face which can lead to serious health complications.
Even though the dietary guidelines have traditionally lagged behind the most current, accurate evidence surrounding health and nutrition, this year’s report does provide more accurate and relevant guidance than some of the previous reports. Next week, we’ll take a look at the actual recommendations. While the Dietary Guidelines won’t have all the answers to our obesity crisis, they will hopefully push the food industry in the right direction. If you’re interested in investigating more of the history behind today’s nutrition recommendations, or if you’d like to better understand what the research shows, Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes is a great place to start. It is a hefty read, but is one of a handful of books I recommend all the time. It is well-researched and well-written.
In health,
Tom Nikkola
References
1. La Berge A. How the Ideology of Low Fat Conquered America. Jour Hist Med. 2008;2:63
2. Gary Taubes. Good Calories, Bad Calories. 2008 Anchor Books, New York, New York
3. Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Dietary Goals for the United States. United States Senate. February, 1977
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
There are still some people who believe you can get all the vitamins and minerals you need through food alone. A new study, published in The Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition on June 10 challenges that notion, especially for those striving to lose weight.1 The new study reviewed the dietary recommendations in four popular diet plans to see how well they provided suggested intakes of important micronutrients. The diets included in the study were:
- Atkins for Life diet
- The South Beach Diet
- The DASH diet (Sponsored by the National Institute of Health)
- The Best Life Diet
The purpose of the study was not to critique any of the above diets based on their individual philosophies. Instead, it was simply designed to determine if people could achieve the Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) of 27 vitamins and minerals. As you can see from the table below, the nutrition plans averaged to provide RDA levels of micronutrients for less than half of the 27 vitamins and minerals. In order to meet RDA levels or higher for ALL 27 nutrients, it required and average of almost 28,000 calories per day of food from the suggested nutrition plans! It is hard to imagine consuming such a ridiculous amount of food to achieve the RDAs. After further review, six micronutrients seemed to be difficult to find in the food supply and deficiencies were common among all of the nutrition plans. They included vitamin B7 (biotin), vitamin D, vitamin E, chromium, iodine and molybdenum. With those six nutrient removed from the calculations, the calorie requirements were recalculated to determine how much would be required to meet RDA levels of the remaining 21 nutrients. An average daily intake of 3475 calories per day was required, which is still well above a maintenance level of energy intake for the average individual. Also of interest was the fact that the NIH-sponsored DASH diet still required 5000 calories per day to achieve RDA levels of the 21 remaining nutrients.
Of course, the six nutrients that were taken out to help reduce the calorie requirements must still be consumed. Where do we get these from? Vitamin D levels could be met from sun exposure, but it is obvious that we are not getting close to enough vitamin D from the sun. Some estimates show that 70-80% of the population is deficient in vitamin D.2 For the rest of the micronutrients that are not met through diet, the only way to get them in seems to be through supplementation.
Diet Plan
Suggested Calorie Level
Number of Nutrients Meeting RDA at Suggested Calorie Level (of 27 Measured)
Calorie Level Required to Meet ALL 27 Micronutrients
Calorie Level Required to Meet 21 Most Common Micronutrients
Atkins for Life
1786
12 (44.4%)
37,500
3175
The South Beach Diet
1197
6 (22.2%)
18,800
2425
DASH
2217
14 (51.9%)
33,500
5000
The Best Life Diet
1793
15 (56.6%)
20,500
3300
Average of diets
1748
12 (43.5%)
27,575
3475
*Adapted from JISSN article1
Why is it so hard?
There are pros and cons to each of the above nutrition plans, but each of them does have the intent to guide individuals toward higher-quality foods with more vitamins and minerals in them. Even so, they fall short of the RDAs. Vegetables, especially non-starchy vegetables should be a larger component of our food intake. Even when eating more vegetables and fruit, produce provides far less for nutrients than it once did, with the nutrients in farmland soils being depleted by 85% over the past 100 years.3 So, for those who do their best to eat 9-12 vegetable and fruit servings per day, they’ll still likely fall short on vitamins and minerals. The reality, though, is that few people meet those levels of intake. About 10% of the population meets a level of just five servings of vegetables and fruit each day.4
There is also a big difference between the minimal amount RDA levels, and optimal levels. While there is no “perfect” level for each individual, many nutrients should be taken in at levels higher than RDAs call for. This becomes especially important for those who begin exercising or are under other levels of stress, as stress and exercise increase the need and use of many vitamins and minerals. Stress, exercise, and other lifestyle factors can cause us to use up the micronutrients we have, and our food supply isn’t likely to replace what we need by itself.
Shopping for a Multivitamin
Just as you shouldn’t cut corners with the quality of food you eat, you shouldn’t cut corners with your nutritional supplements. One of the fastest ways to instantly increase the nutrient quality of your lifestyle is to start taking a high-quality multivitamin. Cheaper isn’t better though. A high-quality multivitamin should be about a dollar a day (about $1.75 per day for a high-quality multivitamin + omega-3 fatty acids), a small price to pay to ensure optimal levels of nutrients are consumed each day. Look for products that have separate morning and evening formulas as many vitamins support energy production, which is beneficial during the day and many of the minerals play a more supportive role for rest and recovery, which is beneficial at night. Some supplements are fine in tablet form, but vitamins and minerals are best taken in a capsule form, which will break down faster than a tablet and helps prevent the vitamins from being damaged during production of the supplement. Make sure your multivitamin is produced by a reputable company as well. Cheap prices often mean cheap ingredients, but it can also mean low-quality production practices. If the bottle doesn’t show who makes it, ask (Note: We’re proud to say that the Life Time Performance Multivitamins are manufactured by Douglas Labs).
Summary
The point of the study above was not to point out just the fact that these nutrition protocols came up short on RDAs. The reality is that just about anyone’s daily nutrition habits will come up short of meeting RDAs with food alone, and quite possibly far short of optimal levels of nutrient intake. There is no doubt that taking a multivitamin is beneficial. Unless an individual is taking medications that could cause negative reactions with multivitamins, the habit of taking your multivitamins and omega-3 fish oil every day could be the easiest, most impactful step you can take in improving your health and reducing the risk of future diseases.
In health,
Tom Nikkola
References:
1. Calton J. Prevalence of micronutrient deficiency in popular diet plans. JISSN. 2010;7:24
2. Hyman, M. Vitamin D: Why You Are Probably NOT Getting Enough and How That Makes You Sick. The Huffington Post. May 22, 2010
3. Marler JB, Wallin J. Human Health, the Nutritional Quality of Harvested Food and Sustainable Farming Systems. The Nutrition Security Institute.
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
If you are like many Americans, beef is “what’s for dinner.” We have a major affinity for red meat. Hamburgers, steaks and hot dogs are everyday meals for many people. Like most things nutrition, they should not be eaten in excess, but can certainly be part of a well balanced nutrition plan. However, not all beef is the same. We’ll take a look at five reasons why the beef you choose should come only from grass-fed cows instead of conventional, grain-fed cows. As you’ll see, it’s more than a decision about nutrition.
1. Grass-fed beef is more nutritious(1)
A new review of 30 years of research on the difference between conventionally-fed and grass fed beef was published in the Nutrition Journal. The review showed several health benefits of consuming grass-fed beef over grain-fed beef, including:
Grass-fed beef has significantly higher amounts of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA has been shown in studies to protect against cancer and heart disease, help build muscle and promote fat loss(2). It has also been associated with healthy cholesterol, glucose and insulin metabolism(3,4).
Grass-fed beef contains a higher percentage of its saturated fat as stearic acid, which seems to not affect cholesterol levels compared to the higher amounts of myristic and palmitic acid in grain-fed beef which have been shown to elevate cholesterol
Grass-fed beef has higher levels of Vitamins A and E and the body’s most powerful antioxidant glutathione, as well as superoxide dismutase
Grass-fed beef contains less overall fat per serving
Grass-fed beef contains less omega-6 fatty acids, associated with inflammation, and more omega-3 fatty acids, which combat inflammation along with providing a host of additional health benefits
2. Grass-fed beef is easier on the environment(5)
Since cattle are not born to eat grain, they have difficulty digesting it. Much like when humans’ digestive systems are not functioning correctly, cattle produce large amounts of gas. There is concern that the methane they produce could have a significant impact on global warming. Beyond that, though, is the amount of wasted fuel needed to produce feed for grain-fed cattle. The following paragraph, from EatWild.com explains it well:
It’s a different story in a confinement operation. Here, the animals are crowded into sheds or kept outdoors on barren land and all their feed is shipped to them from distant fields. On those fields, the crops are treated with fossil-fuel based fertilizers, sprayed with pesticides, and planted, tilled, and harvested with heavy equipment. Each of these operations requires non-renewable fuel. Then the feed is shipped to feed manufacturers where it is dried, flaked or pelleted, and mixed with other ingredients and then, finally, shipped to the waiting animals, using yet more fossil fuel.
There is also a day-for-night difference in “manure management” on the two systems. On well-managed pasture-based farms, the animals spread their manure evenly over the soil where it becomes a natural source of organic fertilizer. The manure improves the quality of the grass, which increases the rate of gain of the animals. It’s a closed, sustainable system.
On factory farms, the excrement builds up in the feedlots and sheds where it fouls the air and releases ammonia and other gasses to the eco-system. The fumes stress and sicken the animals and farm workers, and they lower the quality of life of people in nearby homes. To get rid of the waste, it is shipped to nearby fields where it overloads the land with nutrients. The excess nitrogen and phosphorous pollute the soil and ground water and drain off into streams, rivers, and estuaries where it can create “dead zones” that threaten the fish population.
3. Grass-fed beef doesn’t contain hormones or antibiotics, and isn’t fed food that has other chemicals sprayed on it
Although use of steroids in beef has been banned in Europe, it is still allowed in the United States. There is concern that the hormones found in conventional beef can be transferred to humans by consuming the beef. Although this is area of much controversy, it’s not worth it to take the chance at consuming excess hormones if you don’t have to. With our high rates of cancer, metabolic imbalances, and younger ages of the onset of puberty, there is always the question of what our meat or dairy could do to us(6).
Because cattle raised on a feedlot are more prone to sickness, they’re also more likely to receive regular shots of antibiotics. There’s also the chance of them being passed on to those that eat the meat (or consume the dairy).
4. Grass-fed beef is treated humanely(7)
The life of a grass-fed cow, allowed to move around and eat its natural diet is a stark contrast to the life of a cow raised on a feedlot, where space is minimized and the cows may spend most of their day standing in piles of manure. The ability to move around helps reduce the levels of fat in the meat, which make it healthier for us as well.
5. Grass-fed beef is less likely to contribute to food poisoning(7,8)
Grass-fed beef have a healthier digestive system because they eat the food they’re supposed to (a good lesson to keep in mind for us humans, as well). With a healthier immune system, they’re less susceptible to disease like e. coli. Being allowed to roam the farm, they’re not left standing in piles of manure, or stuck next to another cow that may become ill.
Summary
The two common reasons people use for not making the switch to grass-fed beef is the taste and the cost. Some people fall in love with the tastes of grass-fed beef immediately, and others have to acquire the taste for it. As for the cost, the more people that make the switch, the lower prices are likely to drop based on supply and demand. We also have to understand that when we’re getting ground beef for $2 per pound, or are able to buy a ¼ pound burger for less than $2, some kind of nutritional / environmental shortcut is being made.
Finally, as you think about what happens to a cow when it’s provided a diet it is not intended to eat, consider what can happen to yourself if you’re not following a diet you are intended to eat. Although it’s a bit of a different topic, you can’t help but wonder: If feeding a cow a diet of grains when it’s intended to eat grass causes this many issues, imagine the issues we do to ourselves when we choose to follow a diet we’re not intended to.
In health, Tom Nikkola
1. Daley C, Abbott A, Doyle P, Nader G, Larson S. A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef. Nut Jour. 2010;9:10
4. Moloney F, Yeow TP, Mullen A, et al. Conjugated linoleic acid supplementation, insulin sensitivity, and lipoprotein metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:887-95
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
I frequently encounter personal situations that I think would be worth writing about. On occasion, I'll include them in an article, sometimes I don't. Today's situation, I thought, would be worth sharing in hopes it may help someone else make a better decision in the future. My wife and I are on vacation, and staying at an all-inclusive resort. Today was our first full day at the resort and we started the day off with breakfast, which was served buffet style. We were seated at our table and looked around at what everyone else was eating - pancakes, toast, juice, sausages and some breakfast sweets. We looked at each other and thought the same thing. "No eggs?"
Prior to our vacation, we had talked about our hopes to get a fresh omelet at the buffet, since we normally eat eggs for breakfast. We were surprised to see no one else at the tables around us were eating any eggs. Once we got our coffee, we got up to explore what was available for breakfast at the buffet. Low and behold, as we approached the buffet, we saw the reason no one was eating eggs or omelets. There was a small line! There were about five people waiting to have their fresh omelet made and it was obvious many other people were not willing to wait. It took about five minutes to wait in line and have the omelet made. I enjoyed my omelet with some ham, green peppers, tomatoes, green chilies, mushrooms and salsa. I had an extra couple of slices of ham as well. It was delicious and satisfied me until lunch around 1:00.
What’s the point of this story? The point is that we often reach for the most convenient food we can find, rather than the one that can bring us the most long-term benefit. The restaurant had a pretty good sampling of the American population, with about two out of three people being overweight. As I looked around, the overload of carbohydrates and lack of protein on most people’s plates were doing little to help combat the weight issues they were facing.
Is it easy to stop eating the high-carb foods? Not at all. As Dr. Jim LaValle says in his book Cracking the Metabolic Code, people can be hooked on a virtual carbohydrate addiction – they eat plenty of carbohydrates because the rise in blood sugar makes them feel good in the short-term(1). A couple of hours later, their blood sugar drops and they reach for more carbohydrates and continue to repeat the cycle all day, then wake up and do it all over again. That is rather simplified compared to the detail he goes into in his book, and the detail discussed in previous articles. The point is, the short-term satisfaction of those foods has to be seen as of less benefit than the long-term health benefits found by avoiding them.
When I look at a plate overflowing with high-carbohydrate, processed, nutrient poor foods, I know that they taste good. I know that for a very short period of time, they would be satisfying to eat. I also know that for me, like many other people, once I start, I don’t want to stop. I can get on the cycle like anyone else of eating a few foods I shouldn’t, and those foods can turn into a few more, and then more…Rather than getting on that cycle, it’s a healthier choice in the long-run to reach for the whole-food vegetables, protein, a bit of fruit. I also can’t help reminding myself that eating the processed, calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods leads to the scary statistics our nation is facing in its health:
- 67% of the population is overweight(2) - 33% of the population is obese(2) - 23.6 million people have diabetes, 57 million are pre-diabetic (some say this is a very conservative estimate)(3) - 80 million people have cardiovascular disease(4)
Aside from the statistics above, excess weight is also associated with blood lipid abnormalities, cancer, depression, gallbladder disease, gynecological problems, metabolic syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver, osteoarthritis, skin problems, sleep apnea and stroke(5). Every time you eat, you have the opportunity to enhance or reduce your health. Choose wisely!
In health,
Tom Nikkola
Jim LaValle. Cracking The Metabolic Code. 2004. Basic Health Publications. Laguna Beach, CA
Thorpe K. The Future Costs of Obesity. 2009. Report from United Health Foundation, the American Public Health Association and Partnership for Prevention
American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Statistics. Diabetes Basics online article at www.diabetes.org
American Heart Association. Heart Disease & Stroke Statistics: 2009 Update At-A-Glance. Found at www.americanheart.org
Mayo Clinic Staff. Obesity Complications. Online article at MayoClinic.com
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
One of the most common "tips" people read and hear about nutrition is "Everything in moderation." "No food is bad as long as you don't eat too much of it." Is that really the case for everyone? Or, can food have enough power over us, that even a small taste of certain foods can send us in a downward spiral of uncontrolled eating?
The foods we eat today are not the same things we've traditionally considered "food." With a blend of science and psychology, many of today's foods are designed to appear healthier than they are, subconsciously call your name and keep you from feeling full until you've eaten far more than you had planned. The combinations of salt, fat and sugar are intended to trigger your brain into craving foods in the same way your brain can become addicted to drugs or alcohol. When people say they can't stop eating something, it may be true that they really can't stop eating.
Feeding Your Brain Instead of Your Body
David Kessler recently wrote a fascinating book called The End of Overeating. This text provides an interesting look behind the curtain of food design. After understanding the incredible amount of thought and research that goes into your favorite flavor of potato chip, cookie or snack food at the grocery store, or meal at your favorite restaurant, you may understand how futile the idea of eating those foods in moderation may be.
It is rare for someone to have strong cravings for whole foods, such as plain vegetables, fruit, meats or dairy products. To make you crave those foods, it takes adding salt, fat, sugar, more fat and more sugar. Oftentimes, additional sauces are added which contain more salt, fat and sugar. Foods are designed to go down easy, with just a few chews, so you'll be less likely to have your hunger signals triggered. John Haywood, who designs restaurant concepts, was quoted in Kessler's book, "Processing creates a sort of 'adult baby food.'" The food goes down easier so it feels like we haven't eaten as much. The ingredients are designed to provide pleasure and make you want to come back for more. Going back to the idea of eating "real food," it would be tough to eat 2000 calories of lean meat, vegetables and fruit. It's pretty easy to take in those kinds of calories without realizing it when the food is processed for you.
Problems With Moderation
Why is moderation so difficult for people? For many people, having a small amount of an addictive food causes something called priming. Priming with food is much like the response when an alcoholic has just one taste of alcohol. The mechanisms in the brain are not totally understood, but it's very clear that a small amount of some foods for some people will create a strong drive to eat more. Chips, crackers, cake, coffee drinks - everyone is different. The addiction to these foods can be caused by how it makes people feel, and the more those foods are relied on for those feelings, the stronger the addiction becomes. As Kessler explains:
When we're hungry, almost any food can have a priming effect - in fact, that's one of the risks of dieting. But in the absence of hunger, only highly palatable foods are likely to spark further eating. "Having a little bit makes you want more. And then you have it, and it makes you want still more," observed (Harriet) de Wit.
How Can I Gain Control?
As explained above, hunger can be a major spark to fuel uncontrolled eating. Eating small, frequent meals helps to control hunger. The key with small, frequent meals is to avoid the high-carb snacks so often marketed for snacking. Snacks such as 100 calorie snack packs, granola bars, pudding snacks and other foods you see advertised on television, do little to control hunger and often result in people eating more than they otherwise would. If you are going to eat every few hours, it's important to eat plenty of protein with those meals, healthy fats and include fruit and vegetables whenever possible.
Eating frequently can help avoid excess hunger, but what about those foods that seem to call our name day after day? Kessler provides offers four steps in the process or reversing the habits of overheating:
Awareness - Simply understanding that there are foods that have some control over some of us is an important first-step.
Engaging in competing behaviors - Keeping yourself away from the possibility of being pulled into those foods is the next step. If it means driving a different route to avoid a certain restaurant, eating on a full stomach or shopping with a friend or family member so you don't buy thing you don't need may be necessary. It may also be necessary to get out of the habit of buying foods for other family members that you have trouble with. If those foods are not good for you, they're not good for your other family members.
Formulate thoughts that compete with, and serve to quite, the old ones - Understand that you may not be able to have "just have one bite." Understand that you won't reach your fitness goals by eating those foods. You may increase your health risks by eating those foods, because it can result in one after another.
Support - Finding the right support is critical to controlling cravings and managing weight. Find other people with similar goals and challenges. Look for the right kind of friends to share your goals with. You will have a much better chance of success discussing your goals and challenges with people on the same page as you are. It's also important to beware of other friends or family members who don't care about what they eat or the shape they're in. They can quickly cause you to sabotage your plan. Programs like TEAM Weight Loss and eat are also great places to find support.
Summary
When discussing whole-foods such as vegetables, fruits, meat, dairy, nuts and seeds and high-quality nutritional supplements, eating in moderation makes total sense. It's also quite easy to eat in moderation when those are the foods your diet consists of. If it doesn't consist of those foods and includes more processed foods, moderation may not be the key to success, especially in those foods that seem to speak to you.
David A Kessler, MD. The End of Overeating. 2009. Rodale. New York, New York.
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
It's the official start of "Diet Season." I was at Life Time Fitness in Lakeville Saturday morning for my workout and was it ever busy! I often workout at the Lakeville club on the weekends and Chanhassen during the week. As I warmed up for my workout, I spent some time looking at new faces, faces I hadn't seen in quite some time and the regulars that were always there when I was. What I found most interesting was that no matter how new anyone seemed to be, they all seemed to be exercising with the same, high level of intensity. I'm guessing Sunday morning some people woke up with some pretty tender muscles. It made me think about how many people are totally driven to achieve their fitness goals at this time of the year.
Everyone follows a diet, whether it is the Standard American Diet, a structured plan found in one of many diet or weight loss programs, or a philosophy an individual has developed over time. The Merriam-Webster definition of "diet" is:
1 a: food and drink regularly provided or consumed b: habitual nourishment c: the kind and amount of food prescribed for a person or animal for a special reason d: a regimen of eating and drinking sparingly so as to reduce one's weight
If you're one of the many people committing to a renewed diet, what will you change in your diet this year to improve your health, fitness, appearance or performance? Each individual has unique metabolic and nutrition needs. However, some principles are consistent for almost everyone. If you're just starting your diet, or renewing your fitness plan, here are a few tips to get you started the right way. Hopefully you'll find yourself on track well past January.
Give it Time
It's human nature to want results immediately. If you're like many people, you probably check the mirror the morning after your first day on your plan, or step on the scale hoping a couple of pounds have come off in your first 24 hours. The reality is, weight loss (or muscle gain) does not follow a simple set of rules. It is not always as easy as burning 3500 calories more than you eat in a week to lose weight. Your metabolism can change with changes in diet. Food choices influence hormones. Environmental changes can affect weight loss. Stress and sleep can support or disrupt your plan. People also tend to under-estimate how much food they actually eat. Unless you live in a science lab where every variable is accounted for, it is difficult to accurately predict exactly how an individual will respond to a nutrition plan. It takes time to see how you respond. It's also important to seek support from an expert in holistic nutrition and metabolism if you feel like you're doing things right but you're not seeing things change as you'd expect them to.
We all live busy, time-starved lives. That being the case, it's easy to rely on frozen meals and other processed foods. Calorie-controlled, frozen meals may be appealing, but they will not provide the same quality nutrients that whole foods can. Take the time to prepare meals ahead of time a couple of times per week. Cooking meals in bulk on Sundays and Wednesdays, such as several chicken breasts, a large roast with lean meat and vegetables, or making a large egg bake can save time. You're also less likely to go out to eat if you've prepared your meals instead of bringing a frozen dinner with you. Be sure each meal contains plenty of protein and most meals include vegetables or fruit. You may find this article helpful as well:
Build a Solid Nutrition Base with Quality Supplements
This time of the year, you'll see advertisements everywhere for the latest "cutting-edge" products to guarantee weight loss. Don't be misled. For supplements, the basics should be high-quality multivitamins, omega-3 fish oil and meal replacement powders or protein powders. Even for those who eat a diet composed of whole, organic foods, it's nearly impossible with today's soils to get the optimal levels of nutrients from food alone. A high-quality multivitamin helps ensure the daily intakes of vitamins and minerals achieve more optimal levels. Fish oil plays an important role in a growing number of metabolic processes, and getting more high-quality protein in your diet is important for a number of reasons. For additional reading, you may be interested in these articles:
There are many pieces to the puzzle of an optimal diet. When you start putting a puzzle together, you usually start with the pieces that make the puzzle come together easiest, such as uniquely colored pieces and edge pieces. Making a switch to a diet composed of predominantly whole foods and high-quality supplements are those easy pieces. An individual's optimal nutrition plan is not a simple 10-piece puzzle. It is more like a complex jigsaw puzzle and completing it takes patience. You also need to focus on the easy pieces first, before getting caught up in the little things. Be sure to allow yourself time. Stay committed for the long run, not just for January.
In health,
Tom
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
We're in the middle of the holiday season. While the holiday season is about much more than food, the five-week period between Thanksgiving and New Year's is filled with more treats and sweets than people experience at any other part of the year. There is a way to manage your weight while still enjoying holiday foods. Following the suggestions below can help you keep the holiday weight off and still have a good time.
Pick your "treat" meals and enjoy them
Around the holidays, special foods are often available everywhere, every day. While it would be nice to be able to indulge a little each day, it can be pretty difficult to manage weight while having a couple of cookies every day. From Thanksgiving through New Year's, there are 37 days this year. Eating an extra 300 calories per day for 37 days results in an extra 11,100 calories. In addition, many people find the weekends get more out of hand with holiday parties and get-togethers. If Friday through Sunday result in an additional 2000 excess calories, which might be conservative, that's another 12,000 calories. Eating an excess 23,000 calories theoretically results in an extra 6.5 pounds of pure fat. If these extra calories were coming through lean meat and vegetables, they may not result in much weight gain, but when they're coming from sugar and other processed carbohydrates, and (sometimes) alcohol, the weight-gain can be significant.
Having said all that, many people can find more success with simply enjoying their holiday get-togethers and making some sacrifice during the rest of the week. If you have something to look forward to at the end of the week, you may find it easier to eat a reduced-calorie diet during the other days. Skip the office "goodies" and avoid buying sweets for your desktop or countertop. If you're eating five to six times per day, you'll eat 35-42 meals per week. If you get off your plan on Friday and Saturday night through the holidays, it's only two of those total meals during the week. Eating a reduced-calorie diet, higher-protein diet five days per week and enjoying a couple of holiday parties or get-togethers each week can easily result in maintenance of body weight through the holidays. Depending on how well people eat during the week, they may even find they lose weight during the holiday season.
Eat your protein first
Many previous articles have discussed the importance of eating a sufficient amount of quality protein. Higher-protein diets help to regulate blood-sugar, which helps to maintain insulin levels. When insulin levels are constantly high from too many carbohydrates in the diet, the body can't use fat for fuel well. Eating plenty of protein can help keep insulin levels lower. In addition, eating plenty of protein reduces hunger, or increases the feeling of fullness. Eating plenty of protein at the beginning of a holiday party can help you control your cravings for the other high-calorie foods. You may even want to drink a protein shake on the way to the party to reduce your hunger even more.
Drink plenty of water
Drinking plenty of water helps fill your stomach, which can reduce the amount of food you can eat. As mentioned above, drinking a protein shake on the way to a party can help you feel more full, partly from the protein content and also from the amount of water in it. If you don't have a protein shake available, at least drink a bottle of water en route. Try to drink another glass or two of water each hour during the party.
Choose your beverages wisely
While a glass of red wine has been shown to provide some health benefits, drinking alcohol is not usually included in a healthy eating article. However, it is a reality for many people during the holidays. Drinking alcohol has been shown to do little for satiety, meaning when you drink alcohol, it won't help you feel more full, no matter how many calories are in it. If you are going to drink, it's best to avoid mixed drinks which can have a lot of sugar.
Other festive drinks, like those at your favorite coffee house can be incredibly high in calories as well. Loaded with sugar, they do little to satisfy cravings for very long, and can quickly become a bad habit. A Grande Starbucks Peppermint Mocha has 440 calories. A cup of eggnog has about 350 calories. The worst part about these drinks is not the total calorie content, but the amount of sugar.
Don't skip a workout, but don't use a workout as an excuse to eat more
During the season of eating, it's critical to stick to your exercise program. Strength training and higher-intensity cardio can improve your body's ability to store the sugars you may be eating during the holidays. That said, workouts are not a license to eat. When people have the mentality that they can eat because they exercised, the metabolic effects of their workouts can easily be offset by a few high-calorie snacks.
Summary
An inevitable reality of the holiday season is that get-togethers will include a lot of special foods. One or two meals per week will not sabotage your fitness program if you're strict to your plan during the rest of the week. When people indulge a little each day and indulge a lot at the holiday parties, it can easily lead to several pounds of new, unwanted body fat to start off the new year with. Stick with the suggestions above and you may have a head start on your New Year's program on January 1.
In health,
Tom Nikkola
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
As far back as I can remember, our family always went to my Godparents house for Thanksgiving. Many of the great-tasting foods were the same from year to year and the day often unfolded much the same. We'd arrive, visit, have appetizers while watching one of the football games, eat dinner, dessert and then like magic, the adult men would fall fast asleep while the women visited in the kitchen. I can still see and hear my Godfather, Bill, snoring on the chair and my Dad sound asleep on the couch. Year after year, someone would say, "It's the turkey. That tryptophan puts you right to sleep."
Is there something special about turkey that really does knock you out, especially on Thanksgiving day? Why is it that you can have turkey on other days and there's no effect? Is there something special about a baked turkey? Or is it possible the turkey really has nothing to do with the afternoon coma many people are put in following Thanksgiving dinner?
Turkey Isn't a "Sleeping Pill"
Turkey has gotten its reputation for inducing sleep based on the fact that it contains the amino acid l-tryptophan. The body uses tryptophan to produce the neurotransmitter serotonin. Serotonin is necessary to support rest, relaxation and restful sleep. Taking the amino acid tryptophan by itself may help support sleep, which could be where turkey got is sleep-inducing reputation. However, turkey is not really deserving of this reputation.
Turkey does not contain a significant amount of tryptophan compared to other foods, especially other protein-containing foods. The chart below shows the amount of tryptophan in a 3.6 ounce (100 gram) serving. As you can see, there are many other foods that have a higher concentration of tryptophan than turkey, yet none of these foods have the reputation for inducing sleep. Tryptophan competes with other amino acids in food to be absorbed into the brain. The small amount found in food is likely not enough to cause sleep, especially in the presence of the other amino acids. So if the turkey doesn't do it, what puts people to sleep?
Food
Tryptophan
(gr / 3.6 oz portion)
Dried Egg White
1.00
Dried Spirulina
0.93
Dried Atlantic Cod
0.70
Raw Soybeans
0.59
Parmesan Cheese
0.56
Caribou
0.46
Sesame Seed
0.37
Cheddar Cheese
0.32
Sunflower Seed
0.30
Pork Chop
0.25
Turkey
0.24
Chicken
0.24
Beef
0.23
Salmon
0.22
Atlantic Perch
0.21
Lamb Chop
0.21
Egg
0.17
White Wheat Flour
0.13
White Rice
0.08
Milk
0.08
Russet Potatoes
0.02
Adapted from the USDA nutrient database and Wikipedia
Then what causes me to fall asleep?
Considering a typical Thanksgiving Day meal, the list of foods likely includes: appetizers (typically high in carbohydrates), dinner rolls, stuffing, potatoes, gravy, turkey, green bean casserole, cranberries (usually sweetened) and of course, pumpkin pie. Although dinners vary from family to family, the majority of the foods will be fairly high in carbohydrate. The only food choice high in protein is the turkey, ham or something similar. Using my personal example from above, first come the appetizers. They're likely high in carbohydrates (yes, they're probably high in fat, too, but that won't impact blood sugar). Then comes the meal with a huge load of carbohydrates, followed by dessert, with more sugar and carbohydrates. Depending on where you get the information, Thanksgiving meals are between 3000-4500 calories.
So, once you're loaded up with carbohydrates, your blood-sugar goes up, up, up for a while and at some point it will come crashing down. That's when the lights go out. Along with falling blood-sugar, a couple of other things take place while you're sitting on the couch, more stuffed than the turkey ever could have been. Your intestines stretch out to handle the large volume of food, which can have the opposite impact of the "fight or flight" response on your nervous system. The huge feeding causes your nervous system to relax and induce sleep. Also, your digestive system needs more blood than normal to support the digestion of the meal. Since your digestive system needs it, the rest of your body gets less blood than normal, including your brain. Your body just knows that the best thing to do is make you sit still and burn as few calories as possible as it attempts to digest the massive meal.
Summary
Overfeeding is never really a healthy thing to do. The best thing to do is eat slowly, eat only one serving, and fill up more of your plate with turkey and vegetables. Eating more turkey will replace a lot of the other high-carb/high-fat foods around the table and fill you up faster. In fact, the turkey that you were told would put you to sleep may actually keep you from overdoing the food and falling fast asleep.
If you do choose to overindulge, be sure you get yourself to the gym the next day. If you average 300 calories burned per hour during exercise, you'll only need to workout for...fifteen hours to offset your meal. Fortunately, Life Time Fitness is open 24 hours a day! Happy Thanksgiving!
In health,
Tom Nikkola
Resources:
Lieberman, H. Nutrition, brain function and cognitive performance. Appetite. November 2002
Coco Blaantyne. Does Turkey Make You Sleepy?Scientific American. November 21, 2007
Joanne Holden, Nutrition Data Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 20. US Dept Agriculture
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
How often have you heard someone say "I just can't lose weight. No matter what I try..." The more we've changed our lifestyle and available foods over the past 50-100 years, the more we've had to come up with rules and guidelines for eating. As we've changed the chemistry of our metabolisms through the foods we eat, lifestyles we live, and the environments we live in, we've made our body's face metabolic challenges they've never faced before. Some people have the fortune of simply adjusting how many calories they eat and watching the weight come off. For others, weight loss is much more complicated than the idea of "calories in and calories out." If you're not seeing things change as much as you would hope to, the list below may offer some insight. The sections are listed from more simple issues to more complex, which would be a great way to review weight loss for your own life if things are not going the way you want them to. This is far from a complete guide, but could possibly help you consider some of the reasons you, or someone you know, is not seeing the results you've been expecting.
Underestimating Calories Consumed
Some people are fortunate enough to lose weight with the most basic means - managing calorie consumption. Simply eating less calories than they burn is enough to achieve weight loss, even when the source of those calories (carb, protein, fat) are not monitored. One of the reasons so many people who think they're doing everything right do not lose weight, is that they consistently underestimate how many calories they consume. Studies have shown that people take in 20-30% more calories each day than they think they do. A handful of candy without thinking, a handful of nuts instead of a serving, a full-sized steak instead of 6-8 ounces. It all easily adds up.
As an example, let's say an individual who burns 3000 calories per day with exercise attempts to take in 2500 calories, which theoretically should result in a pound of weight lost each week. Taking in 25% more than he thinks he's consuming means he's eating about 3100 calories per day, which could actually result in weight gain instead of weight loss. Research on this topic has found that the larger the meal is, the greater the margin of error when estimating calories. That means when eating out, it's best to get the nutrition information ahead of time, rather than estimating the large-portion meals served at most restaurants. Similar research has also found that those who attempt to cut calories by eating more healthy main dishes end up eating more calorie-dense side dishes, appetizers and deserts.
One of the best solutions to become more accurate in understanding calorie consumption is weighing and journaling food intake. It is difficult to estimate serving size just by looking at foods, especially if you've never measured foods before. A $15 food scale can be a great tool to learn how much food your actually eating, and using an online journal to track the food helps you account for everything you're eating. It's not necessary to weigh everything for the rest of your life, but using it for a few months to understand how small average serving sizes are is a great learning experience. As an added bonus, food often lasts longer, as you will get more meals from the same amount of food.
Overestimating Calories Burned
Using the dashboard of exercise machines can often be misleading, as they are designed with standardized formulas. A heart rate monitor allows for more accurate calorie calculations. Whichever method is used for calculating calories burned during a workout, there are still about 23 other hours in a day which must be accounted for. Studies have shown that when people exercise with increased intensity, they can often offset the calories burned during exercise by being less active later in the day. Someone who burns 500 calories in a workout may burn 500 calories less than normal later in the day because they are tired from their workout.
To make sure you still have plenty of energy later in the day to stay active, build up the intensity of your workouts. If you train too hard, too soon in your program, you may spend too much of your day resting and recovering, and not burning your normal amount of calories through daily activity. Exercise is an important part of a weight loss plan, but should be part of a properly designed program so it does not negatively impact the rest of your day.
Eating too many carbohydrates
A diet consistently low in fat and high in carbohydrate can keep blood sugar and insulin levels high throughout the day. When insulin levels are high, the body cannot release fat from the fat cells. Eating a lot of carbohydrates can also increase cravings for more carbohydrates. After a meal, when blood-sugar levels do start to fall, cravings for more carbohydrates go up and it's easy to reach for more high-carb snacks. Consuming extra protein with each meal or snack can help control blood-sugar, reduce hunger, and actually make your body burn more calories during digestion than carbohydrates and fat.
Focusing the diet on too many carbohydrates can displace calories from healthy fat and protein in the diet, which are important for weight management. To learn more about the importance of protein in your diet, check out The Power of Protein articles.
Micronutrient deficiencies can interfere with weight management
Although there isn't as much research on the topic, there is growing evidence to suggest that vitamin and mineral deficiencies can negatively affect the metabolism, increase food cravings, and halt weight loss. Vitamin D and the B vitamins have been more recently shown to be important for energy metabolism and weight management.
Stress can lead to weight gain
Chronic stress can cause havoc on weight management. The hormones released from chronic stress can sabotage the ability to control weight. One of the stress hormones, cortisol, has been directly related to the storage of increased belly fat. Otherwise-fit individuals can find themselves storing more belly fat, or visceral fat, as a result of unmanaged stress.
From a nutritional standpoint, avoiding processed foods, simple carbohydrates, or even excess carbohydrates in general is important when under a lot of stress. High-carb foods are appealing when under stress, but can only serve to make things worse.
Hormone imbalances can work against weight-loss goals
Beyond the stress hormones mentioned above, other hormonal issues can reduce the ability to lose weight. It can be a result of foods we eat, medications we take, even environmental toxins we encounter. If you've take care of the points above and still are not seeing results, it would be wise to consult with a Naturopathic Physician, Holistic Nutritionist or a Registered Dietitian who understands metabolism at a deeper level and understands how food and our environment impact metabolism function. As our food system and lifestyles have changed over the past 50-100 years, we encounter more challenges to our metabolism than ever before. If your metabolism is functioning efficiently, weight can be managed much easier. It can be improved through dietary changes, proper supplementation, and lifestyle changes.
Summary
In the space of a short article, hopefully you can understand the variety of reasons for not losing weight. In a time when two-thirds of our population is overweight or obese, and the rates of diabetes are increasing at alarming rates, we have to understand our health depends on more than simply eating foods that appear healthy on the label. If you've tried to lose weight, or know someone who has, without success, there is hope. It is not always as simple as just eating less calories. But then again, our food is no longer as simple as whole-food carbohydrates, protein and fat. Our lifestyles are not as simple as a 40-hour workweek. Our metabolisms are not a simple system either. However, with some patience, education and proper guidance, you can determine what is right or wrong for you.
In health,
Tom Nikkola
References:
Shai I, et. al. Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:229-41
Wansink B, Chandon P. Meal Size, Not Body Size, Explains Errors in Estimating the Calorie Content of Meals. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:326-332
Mahabir S, Baer DJ, Giffen C, Subar A, Campbell W, Hartman TJ, Clevidence B, Albanes D, Taylor PR. Calorie intake misreporting by diet record and food frequency questionnaire compared to doubly labeled water among postmenopausal women. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006)60,561-565
Westerterp-Plantenga MS, Nieuwenhuizen A, Tome D, Soenen S, Westerterp KR. Dietary Protein, Weight Loss, and Weight Maintenance. Annu Rev Nutr. 2009;29:21-41
Jim LaValle. Cracking the Metabolic Code. 2004. Basic Health Publications, Inc. Laguna Beach, CA
Gary Taubes. Good Calories, Bad Calories. 2007. Anchor Books. New York, New York.
This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.
Structured meal plans work well for people as long as they are on a set routine. But what happens when routines are thrown off by business travel, vacations or just dinner out? Is there a way to enjoy a business meal or a dinner date without falling off your nutrition plan? The following is a list of tips to help you make better decisions while dining out. I’ve also included a personal example of a recent trip.
