Currently viewing the category: "calories"

Obesity Causes Imbalance

By On · Add Comment · In anabolism, autonomic nervous system, calories, catabolism, exercise, fight or flight response, homeostasis, hormones, obesity, parasympathetic nervous system, sympathetic nervous system

Continuing on with obesity, you know, I’ve been hearing quite a bit about hormones and their role in weight gain. It is an indisputable fact that the concentration of some hormones goes haywire as people gain weight. But listen up o’ seekers of truth: Hormone imbalances are a consequence of weight gain (though I am certain they are also maintainers of such), but in and of themselves they are not the cause.

Hormones are chemicals messengers that have a number of functions, one being regulation or homeostasis. Homeostasis is a control mechanism that maintains the balance in a system—it is a universal principle. The peripheral nervous system is made up of the somatic and autonomic nervous systems (ANS), the latter controlling functions that are on auto pilot–the one’s we don’t have to think about.

The ANS has two branches that act in continual oscillation under normal conditions—the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. The sympathetic nervous system is responsible for our fight or flight responses; the parasympathetic for our rest and digest. In other words, each branch of the ANS is responsible for various functions that support either build-up (parasympathetic) or breakdown (sympathetic) processes. Energy utilization is one such process.

During energy buildup and storage or anabolism—when we extract and store our energy molecules—our parasympathetic system is the driver, controlling various hormones and chemical messengers. During breakdown and utilization (fuel burning) or catabolism—it’s our sympathetic nervous system that’s the driver, with it’s own hormones and neurotransmitters. Parasympathetic prepares the body for build-up (rest and digest), which includes slowing molecular breakdown and energy utilization (sympathetic), increased blood flow to the digestive system, and decreased blood flow to the muscles. When this system is in full force, we often feel relaxed, lazy, maybe even sluggish. Our bodies are ripe for energy storage or weight gain when we are in rest and digest.

On the flip side, our sympathetic nervous system prepares the body for energy utilization, especially under stressful conditions. Remember it’s the fight or flight system. During sympathetic stimulation, our metabolism speeds up so we burn fuel more efficiently, blood flow to the digestive organs decreases (less food coming in and being distributed to tissues, thus less stored), and muscles perfuse with blood (getting ready to work). It’s what makes you shake and tremble when you are stress or excited, although I am certain some people rarely feel it so strongly.

I say that because, no doubt, obese people are in a state of parasympathetic imbalance. That is, their parasympathetic system is kicked in more often than their sympathetic system. As a result, it has been observed in obese people that certain parasympathetic processes are acting normally while their sympathetic system is depressed. The effects of such an imbalance is that obese people have difficulty burning fuel efficiently, while they are quite proficient at packing it in.

Okay, we’ll no sh#%…we all know that: It’s harder for obese people to lose weight. No kidding…that doesn’t mean they cannot. The reason this happens is that when fuel keeps coming in as food, the body, in its profound intelligence, does what it’s proficient at: stores it as fat for leaner times, for survival. The body doesn’t understand gluttony; it doesn’t understand prosperity—it doesn’t know 24-hr pizza delivery exists. All it understands is, “Influx of food—store it.” Period. And so that’s what it does.

As a result of overeating, excessive weight gain and very likely low physical activity, the body is forced into this autonomic nervous system imbalance between parasympathetic and under-active sympathetic systems. And a vicious cycle ensues.

Yes it’s the reason obese people don’t see the same gains non-obese people see from short-term exercise…that’s why they’ve got to make it lifestyle, and see what happens after two years of continued activity. Too many obese people quit when they don’t see result within three months.

And, yes, decreasing calories too quickly can lead to a stress that is both mental and physical, one that the body interprets as a need to store even more (“Starvation!”). That’s why I always recommend keeping weight loss to realistic and healthy goals of one pound per week. It’s one thing I like about the Weight Watchers program—they do it slowly and steadily, advocating lifetime wellness and not just a crash-diet (literally and figuratively).

But here’s the skinny: In the end, it still comes down to calories in (and stored) versus calories burned. It’s just that the hormonal changes that DO occur—the ANS imbalance—slow things down that much more for the obese person. In the end, though, part of the answer is still to exercise regularly and effectively, as well as change eating habits (see last post).  There is, however, one more obstacle that is probably the biggest hump when it comes to losing and keeping off weight, and one which I will be discussing in the next post—the human mind.

Obesity: Primarily a Food Choice Issue

By On · Add Comment · In body fat, calories, childhood obesity, food choices, French fries, genetic theory of obesity, losing weight, nutrition, weight gain

I’ve gotten to experience something very interesting over the last couple of weeks.  Resulting from my posts on childhood statin recommendations and parental responsibility for childhood obesity, I’ve gotten numerous replies, comments and tweets that have both commended and criticized my views.  Being all for intelligent discussion, I’ve welcomed the responses; but something has become very clear to me: People who are attached to a particular point-of-view will fill any holes with their own interpretations and opinions,quite apart from anything that has ever been said or implied.  It’s an interesting phenomenon.  So as promised, I will continue presenting my viewpoint on obesity in general, and specifically, childhood obesity, so I can fill those holes myself, and keep my thoughts from being assumed by others.

Let me begin with the obvious: What is obesity?  From Wikipedia:

Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems.  Body mass index (BMI), a measurement which compares weight and height, defines people as overweight (pre-obese) if their BMI is between 25 and 30 kg/m, and obese when it is greater than 30 kg/m

Wikipedia is not necessarily the end all be all as a reference source…but, in this case…well, it’s right.  Weight gain, which can lead to obesity, is caused by taking in more calories than you burn, period.  It doesn’t happen from eating one tootsie roll, despite a tootsie roll being an unhealthy food-like item, or from eating one French fry, or even thirty on a Saturday night for that matter; nor does it come from eating a Twinkie, or a bag of chips, or drinking a soda.  No, gaining excessive weight, and developing obesity, comes from eating lots of crap over and over again.

It is what one does repeatedly that matters, so, in that regard, obesity is a calorie issue.  But yes, there is more to it, although I would argue very strongly that the most important factor is overeating.  As a rule, Americans eat too much.  Listen, I am an American.  I eat at restaurants.  My observation is that the portions served in most restaurants are more than most people need under most circumstances.  I also observe how others eat, and can say quite confidently that most people aren’t leaving their plates half-full.  No, most people put it away–all of it–plain and simple.  And this (as a habit) leads to excessive weight gain.

Here’s some basic nutritional physiology: Take in more calories than you expend, you gain weight.  Expend more calories than you take in, you lose weight.  When intake and output (over time) are relatively equal…you maintain weight, no gain, no loss.  Duh.  It blows me away that some people actually try to argue against this simple fact.  Why not, then, argue against the Pythagorean Theorem while you’re at it?

Listen, it doesn’t make sense to try to disprove what we already know about any science.  If it’s an established principle, why try to reinvent the wheel?  Oh no, the Law of Gravity is wrong, and that’s why we can’t unify all theories on physical forces.  No serious thinker would go that route.  Instead they would take what is already known and try to formulate a theory around that.  Freakin’ duh!   So why do some self-proclaimed experts attempt it with nutritional physiology?

There is no doubt that food types matter when it comes to weight gain and obesity.  It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to understand that French fries are a worse food choice than broccoli.  And it doesn’t take a theoretical physicist to understand that eating wholesome foods, as a habit, is better than simply cutting your French fry intake in half.  Freakin’ duh!


What amazes me is that some people think that somehow my previous posts suggested that I advocate a low calorie diet.  When have I ever said that?  Let me be perfectly clear: I’ve never said anything about a diet of any sort.  When I speak of “diet,” I speak in terms of how one eats, the types of foods one eats, and NOT a freakin’ fad diet (and that includes Atkins, or rehashed Atkin’s-like theories).  I simply cannot be any clearer.  The types of foods you eat matters, and how much of them you eat matters too, and how much you burn with physical activity also matters a whole hell of a lot more than your mutated skinny genes (and you thought those were just clothing trends).

Interestingly, the notion that calories in vs. calories out and food type both contribute to obesity presents somewhat of a conundrum to people battling weight.  Some will say, “I don’t eat junk food, and I just cannot seem to lose weight.”  Then you eat too much, is my answer.  No, I don’t eat too much.  Then the types of foods you are eating are poor choices.  No, that’s not it either.  Okay, then what is it?  It’s genetics.  Oh, you mean fatness runs in your family.  Well, no…I have a gene.  But nobody else in your family is fat?  Well yes…both my parents.  Listen that’s called nurture–what you were exposed growing up, your learned behaviors–not necessarily genetics, or nature.  All you are doing when you blame it on your genetics is pulling yourself out of the equation, and I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it.  Genetics, hormones, lack of sleep, blah, blah, blah…yes, okay, they contribute…but not more than your food choices do, both in quantity and quality.

I’m going to discuss hormonal factors in weight gain in the next post on the subject, as well as list some factors that are primary in the development and maintenance of obesity.  Just remember that food choices matter–the types of foods you eat (whole, natural foods that you prepare yourself are best), as well as how much you eat.  Denying basic physiological principles isn’t going to make one dent in the obesity epidemic, so the fools doing just that are merely perpetuating the problem.

Cap’n Crunch Sabathia No More: His Surefire Weight-Loss Plan

By On · Add Comment · In calories, Cap'n Crunch, CC Sabathia, diabetes, New York Yankees, nutrition, obesity epidemic, soda, sugar
New York Yankees pitcher CC Sabathia is reporting to spring training 25 lbs lighter.  The secret: He kicked the Cap’n Crunch.  Aw yeh, the former fat-boy is weighing in at a svelte 290, not bad for a 6’7″ frame.  And to think he did it all with one simple change.  Just think of what that might mean for you or your kids!

Sabathia, the Yankees ace, weighed in at a whopping 315 lbs last season, when he was knocking down a full box of Cap’n Crunch every day!  Each box of Cap’n Crunch has 12.59 servings, each serving has 12 grams of sugar, making a box of the sugary cereal contain a total of 151 grams of sugar.  Further, the nutritional info on the box lists the number of calories at 217 per double serving.  Therefore, a full box of Cap’n Crunch contains 1,366 calories.  Dang!

To put this into perspective, a soda (Coke, let’s say) contains 40 grams of sugar and 150 calories per 12 oz. can.  More perspective: one teaspoon of sugar equals about six grams; therefore, a can of soda has about seven teaspoons of sugar (see video below**).  Even more perspective: Most sugar packets found in the U.S. have approximately 4 grams of sugar, thus a can of soda contains ten packets of sugar (U.S.).

Now back to Sabathia.  His one full box of Cap’n Crunch a day gave him a sugar equivalent of drinking 4 sodas, 25 teaspoons of sugar, or 38 sugar packets.  Nice, CC…nice.

*A report released in 2009 by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale gave Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries the worst nutritional score of any cereal marketed to children and families. ~ from Wikipedia

How about your kids?  Do they eat Cap’n Crunch?  Fruit Loops?  Frosted Flakes?  Do they drink soda?  These cereals and soft drinks have been staples in the American diet for the last fifty years, and it’s not because people aren’t consuming them.  It’s not just 6’7″ professional athletes eating this junk, either.  It’s little Timmy, and little Rainflower, and maybe even you.

Listen, next time you’re thinking about feeding Junior the Cap’n Crunch, why not just give him a Snickers bar?  Same amount of sugar as in a two-serving bowl of the Crunch.  And is it any wonder we are in the midst of an obesity (and diabetes) epidemic?

**Please watch the video below to get great perspective on the amount of sugar contained in a soda:

Bout Time

By On · Add Comment · In aspartame, calories, diet soda, health reform, lifestyle behaviors, obesity, soda, sugar
Finally, a useful suggestion for health reform–tax sodas! Well, by golly…I think they’ve got something there: Tax the nutritionally inert liquid sugar that Americans are severely addicted to, and yes, a solution. One solution. Small solution. But a great start.

Here are the facts. Sodas are the number one consumed beverage in the United States. They contain about 100 calories and ten teaspoons of sugar. Diet sodas add their own twist. While having zero calories, a large study conducted at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio showed that people who drink diet soda regularly are 41% more likely than regular soda drinkers to become obese. What??? You heard right, the zero calorie drink actually makes people more susceptible to obesity; and it’s because of aspartame, the artificial sweetener, that people pack on the pounds.

According to researchers, aspartame fools the body into thinking it will be receiving sugar–an energy source–but that sugar never comes; so the body is left wanting. What happens next is that our diet soda drinkers reach for something to satisfy that sugar urge, and they overindulge. Not convinced? Then ask yourself why the discrepancy in physicality. Why are diet soda drinkers anything but emaciated? Hmmmmm….

Since soda–diet or regular–is garbage, and it’s contributing enormously to the obesity problem (and consequently, outrageous health care costs), then why not tax it? We tax tobacco, alcohol, and mary jane (oh yeah, not yet), why not the simple syrup? Americans drink enough soda that a tax would generate an estimated “100 to 200 billion dollars over a 10-year time frame.” Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Listen, health care cost are significantly related to lifestyle behaviors. If you want to socialize health care, then don’t just punish everybody across the board; tax those most negligent. Tax the smokers (I’ll pay my share), the boozers, and the junk food junkies. My position has always been, “Don’t just single out the fast food restaurants; nail the soda manufacturers too.” That’s fair–and accurate. Bingo.

And I’ll be pleasantly surprised if they ever get how much the chronic pharmaceutical drug users cost us–you know, people who prophylactically or habitually take statins, antidepressants, or any other drug that doctors are pushing on the public like the sky’s the limit. Yeah, tax all those negligent people involved in making our system “broken”.

The Secret to Slim

By On · Add Comment · In ATP, calories, sleep, sleep deprivation, weight loss
Want to stay slim? There’s a secret regimen that far too few people are taking advantage of these days–it’s called sleep. You got it–catching enough z’s is yet another way to keep your body lean and mean.

A recent study conducted by the European Center of Taste Science in Dijon in central France has found that people who are sleep deprived had greater feelings of hunger than people getting adequate sleep; and these same sleep deprived people went on to satisfy their hunger by consuming an additional 550 calories (equivalent to one large hamburger).

Another separate study conducted at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that children who got less sleep in puberty than when they were younger gained more weight compared to children whose sleep patterns did not change.

To me these findings make sense. Since we replenish our energy stores and ATP stockpiles during sleep, not getting enough leads to lower energy. It would appear to me that the body would attempt to increase its energy through any means possible, including increasing calorie intake. But is that efficient?

The bottom line here is that the sleep process is essential to many functions from energy production to wound healing to cognitive function. It’s one of the six keys to optimal health. When we rob the sandman the global health takes a hit. And now we know sleep deprivation contributes to weight gain–definitely not efficient. So get your rest and stop burning the candle at both ends–you might see you waistline shrink as a result.

Don’t Give Up Exercising

By On · Add Comment · In calories, exercising, fat, insulin resistance, lose weight, metabolism, physical fitness, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, type 2 diabetes

A message that I try to get out in my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, is that exercising for purely aesthetic reasons is a sure to lead to frustration and disappointment for many. It’s the best way to guarantee an abandoned physical fitness program when things don’t turn out the way you’ve fantasized. I think a much better approach is to exercise for the myriad of physiological or health benefits you will surely enjoy if only you can keep up the effort.

I think what happens is that people want to lose weight and “get ripped.” Nothing wrong with either of these desires. But what happens when it doesn’t occur over night, or in a few months? Well, many people end up frustrated, and say, “This isn’t working.” They then come up with all kinds of implausible excuses why it’s not working for them: genetics, slow metabolism, or the old, “I work out all the time, but I never seem to lose weight.”

Well here’s good news this week out of the University of Michigan: Fat metabolism speeds up in just one exercise session. That’s right! Just one workout and fat burning increases. This lowers your chance of developing insulin resistance–the hallmark of type 2 diabetes–and increases your ability to burn fat in the future. How? Exercising increases the ability to store fat in the muscle tissue as triglycerides, which makes it available for quick energy; much quicker than the fat filled adipose tissue we store around our bellies, butts and hips.

So even if you find that you “never seem to lose weight” no matter how much you exercise, just know that despite what seems to be slow going, you’re doing yourself a great physiological and health service by working out regularly. If what you say about working out all the time is true, then you might need to be honest with yourself and cut the calories you’re ingesting everyday in the form of food, booze or soda. But you can be sure that your metabolism is working faster and burning fat more efficiently if you are exercising. And even if that’s the most you get out of it, you are still doing your body a world of good.

Weight Loss: All in the Mind

By On · Add Comment · In appetite, brains, calories, eating habits, nerve cells, nervous system, neurotransmitter, nutrients, regulation, serotonin, weight loss
Weight loss is all in the mind, you know. Well maybe not all in the mind, but mostly in the mind, it’s true. According to some fascinating new research, your nervous system, not your eating habits have the biggest role in determining whether you are fat or thin.The study conducted at the University of California, San Francisco, looked at serotonin levels in the nervous systems of worms. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter, which means it conducts messages across and among nerve cells. The researchers found that serotonin regulates feeding and calorie burning independently of each other. In other words, serotonin regulates not only how much you eat and want to eat (your appetite), but also what your body does with food once it has been consumed.

In worms, serotonin levels are a function of food availability. When resources are low, serotonin levels decrease and the worms go into fat storage mode. Interestingly, low serotonin also leads to decreased appetite in worms. Makes sense, when food availability is tight, worms get less hungry–after all, no food, no need to eat. They also become more efficient at storing energy as fat for the long haul. A perfect feat of optimized neural regulation. On the other hand, when food resources are high, serotonin levels increase and worms get hungrier and become more efficient at burning fuel. If we could only all be so lucky. Humans actually experience the opposite effect: when food resources are low, serotonin levels decrease, which causes appetites to go up and, unfortunately, fat to accumulate.

So why does this matter? This study shows is that although our eating behaviors–what we eat and how much of it–are important, they do not tell the whole story. The body actually has a very sophisticated neurological regulatory system which is more instrumental in our propensity to take in and store fat. The nervous system gauges nutrient availability (really folks, you’ve got to read The Six Keys To Optimal Health, it’s all in there) and determines whether to burn when in excess or hold on to when deficient in nutrients. In plain language, you can starve yourself on tofu shakes all you want, if you are not getting the right nutrients in the proper amounts, your body will increase your appetite–through lowered serotonin levels–to ensure that more nutrients come in.* And low serotonin means increased fat storage.

What makes these findings interesting to me is that I am certain that we have direct control over our neurology. And we have this control through our minds. How is uncertain right now, but findings like these only strengthen my convictions. If the nervous system is the information superhighway between our brains and our bodies**, and if we can find a way to influence serotonin regulation–and I don’t mean through the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, either–through specific mental processes, then weight management could be under our individual control in the near future. I do believe it’s possible, naysayers. Just a matter of time before we figure out how. Findings like these always get my intellectual juices flowing, and I can’t help but imagine what future innovations lie ahead in this regard. Whatever that may be sure looks promising to me.

*Your body just wants nutrients; it can only get those nutrients from food, and doesn’t know whether you’ll be feeding it broccoli or Cheetos; all it can do is increase the appetite and wait.

**And don’t forget that the ultimate way to optimize and maintain your delicate nervous system is through safe, natural chiropractic care.

Popular Diet Shows Promise for Epilepsy

By On · Add Comment · In anti-convulsant drugs, Atkins Diet, calories, carbohydrates, diets, epileptics, John's Hopkins School of Medicine, low-carb diet, remedy, seizures, sugar, weight loss

Strange thing, diets. What’s touted as a cutting-edge weight loss remedy may actually have benefits extending beyond a slim trim. New reports show that a modified Atkins-like diet may actually decrease the amount of seizures suffered by epileptics. Very interesting, yes…

A study performed at the John’s Hopkins School of Medicine fed 30 epileptic subjects a diet restricted to 15 grams of carbohydrate a day. The rest of their calories came from fats such as eggs, meats, oils and heavy cream. In addition, the subjects were free to eat as much protein and no-carb drinks as they wanted. After one month on the diet, half of the subjects (15) experienced 50% less seizures. Remarkable!

Right now scientist are unsure of exactly what causes the reduction in seizures, but it is good news particularly for epileptics who respond poorly to anti-convulsant drugs. The subjects in the study all had unsuccessfully tried two medications in the past, and were having ten seizures per week on average. The low-carb diet has already been established as a valuable seizure control in children, but researchers wanted to see if the benefits extended to adults as well.

The one negative of the study is that only two-thirds of the participants stuck with the diet for longer than three months, finding it simply “too restrictive”. This is not surprising coming from a culture where carbohydrates make up a large portion of its calorie intake. Putting things into perspective, 15 grams of carbohydrate are:

  • one slice of bread
  • half a round pita bread
  • one small apple, pear, peach, plum, orange, or ½ banana, or ½ grapefruit
  • 2.5 ounces of peanuts (approximately a package)
  • 3 cups of popcorn

And they could only have one of the above…per day! I know, I know–to prevent seizures most everybody would say they’d do anything. But if you’ve never tried to eat that little carbohydrate, you don’t know how hard it can be. Without a doubt, it’s still way worth the effort; but I’m sympathizing anyway–I’ve changed enough habits to understand the challenge. I guess it just comes down to prioritizing one’s values.

I think the most important thing we can all pull out of this is to remind ourselves how carbohydrate-heavy (read: sugar) our western diet is. If you want to get the most from your health, start cutting down the carbs and sugar now, while you’re still healthy. And definitely don’t start the habit with your children. These eating patterns are learned behaviors; they can certainly be unlearned, but much easier to not learn them in the first place. We all need carbs, no doubt; but we definitely don’t need them to the excess that many of us consume. So be smart–chill on the carbs a bit; you’ll do wonders for your health as a result.

A Welcomed–If Not Temporary–Victory

By On · Add Comment · In calorie content, calories, fast-food, nutrition, real food

Yay! A judges ruling last week has allowed New York’s fast food restaurants to ignore posting calorie and fat counts on their menus. Basically, a pre-existing federal law takes restaurants that voluntarily provide this information off the hook. As long as they provide nutritional information somewhere–on tray papers or Web sites, for instance–they cannot be restricted in how they comply with city law.

Thank goodness. As I’ve said in earlier posts (here, and here), nothing is dumber than the government stepping in where individual discretion is warranted. Do we really need the government to tell us what’s junk and what’s real food? Please. All that would do is hurt businesses that provide a product the public wants–junk food. And it takes the responsibility away from the individual. We’ll never see an increase in national health until people become responsible for theirs, plain and simple.

Interestingly, this is being proved by yet another recent study. Researchers have found that people consistently underestimate the calorie content of foods served at restaurants they consider healthier, like Subway, for example. In the study, researchers asked people who had just finished eating at Subway or McDonalds to estimate how many calories they had just consumed. On average, Subway diners underestimated their calorie intake by 151 calories–that is, they mistakenly believed they were eating less calories by eating a 12-inch turkey sandwich than by eating a Big Mac, although both have exactly the same amount of calories. What this then led to was the Subway diners ordering more sodas and cookies than the McDonalds diners, giving them actually more calories overall. This meant that, on average, Subway diners wound up consuming 1,011 calories, compared to 648 calories for the people eating McDonalds. Whoa. Get it? People make assumptions about food, and these assumptions lead to poor food decisions.

But wait, if calorie and fat content is posted won’t it lead to people making better decisions? Not necessarily, because only fast food restaurants would be required to post such information (more on this concept here). So, in my opinion, people will go to the local Whole Foods and pig out because they assume it’s healthier. Should Whole Foods then post calorie content? How about Spago? I’ve got a better idea: How about understanding two basic principles instead:

  1. Fast food is junk that should only be eaten periodically
  2. How much one eats is as important as what one eats

Got it? Eating too many carrots, falafel, or soy veggie burgers is just as detrimental to the health as an occasional Big Mac. True, carrots have a greater vitamin and nutrient content, but people aren’t using this as their criteria yet.

I just don’t see calorie reporting at fast food restaurants as being the answer, and worse, I think it will lead people down the wrong road. Just understand the basics about food, and practice prudent principles. Don’t know what they are? Get yourself a copy of The Six Keys To Optimal Health–it’s all in there–and you’ll be sure to make the right decisions.

Which One Is The One?

By On · Add Comment · In Atkins Diet, burn, calories, diet, exercise, fitness, Jenny Craig, South Beach, supplements, The President's Council on Physical Fitness, The Zone, weight loss, Weight Watchers

Atkins, South Beach, The Zone, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig – which diet is the best? Well, if you listen to the latest flavor-of-the-month diet guru, then their diet is the best. Want to know one of the quickest ways to riches – write a diet book, open a weight loss clinic, or market your trim slim miracle supplements to a desperate culture. That’s it – instant millionaire.

Just ask Dr. Phil. Or Kevin Trudeau. Ask them about the biggest scam “they don’t want you to know about”. Yup, Dr. Phil discontinued his weight loss program – guess he wanted to keep some sort of credibility. The other guy? He doesn’t care. Trust me – he doesn’t care. To quote Mr. Trudeau, “It’s always about the money.” Uh huh, yeah, whatever.

Here’s the skinny: To lose weight, you need to burn more calories than you take in. To gain weight, you need to take in more calories than you burn. To break even, your calorie intake must equal exactly what you burn. Simple mathematics.

Yes, some diets work for some people. But no diet works for all people. And according to a recent study, many diets work about the same – which is, not very well. Never thought I’d do it, but if I’ve got to endorse a diet, it would be Weight Watchers. Their protocol is to control, or watch, the amount of calories one takes in on a daily basis. Duh! Makes sense to me. And…they offer coaching and support, something I think is absolutely essential.

You can’t do it without exercise either. There are metabolic reasons for this – you can read about them in detail in my upcoming book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health -but suffice it to say that without a fitness routine to help you burn calories, you won’t find success by dieting alone.

See what the The President’s Council on Physical Fitness has to say about it.

Oh the Irony…

By On · Add Comment · In adverse drug reactions, calories, fast-food, fat, health, junk food, nutrition, obesity, saturated fat, trans fat, unnecessary surgeries
The American Medical Association has said it wants fast-food restaurants to post nutritional factson their menus as a means to combat obesity. These facts should include calories, grams of fat, grams of saturated fat, and grams of trans fat in each fast food item.You probably already know how I feel about this notion if you’ve read my June 18th post, Barking up the Wrong Tree. Not only do I think it’s ludicrous to penalize fast-food chains (what about pizza parlors, ice cream shops, candy stores, Chinese restaurants and burger stands, like Fat Burger and every other junk food supplier?), it ain’t gonna do diddly if people don’t value there health to begin with.

“No, you’re wrong Campos. People will make better choices if they can see how many calories they’re consuming.” Poppycock! This information has been on food packaging for years at our country’s biggest supplier of junk food – the good ol‘ fashioned grocery chain. That’s right, the American institution known as the grocery store is the largest pusher of junk food in the world, and they’ve been advertising calories and fat counts for ever. It hasn’t stopped people yet from stuffing their faces full of Dinty Moore Beef Stew. And neither will it help people choose between the Double Quarter Pounder and the MacSoy Melt.

I find it especially hysterical that the AMA is promoting this idea. Wait. I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t fast-food restaurants include this information on the back of their receipts in technical language and with the smallest print the human eye can distinguish – just like they do with prescription medications? That’ll at least put them up to par with the medical/pharmaceutical industries as responsible informers.

And here’s another good idea: why not have medical offices post the number of deaths associated with adverse drug reactions (also see here) and unnecessary surgeries (and here, and here) in their waiting rooms so that people know just what they’re in for. Think the AMA will push for that kind of responsible advertising anytime soon?

More links on unnecessary surgeries:
Life Extensions Magazine,
Dr. Joeseph Mercola
New York Times

Google unnecessary surgeries or adverse drug reactions and get blown away.

Obesity and Malnutrition

By On · Add Comment · In calories, energy, malnourished, malnutrition, nutrients, nutrition, obese, vitamins

Some people mistakenly believe that malnutrition is a condition restricted to the underfed and starving. The truth is that anyone can be malnourished regardless of body shape and size. Malnourishment means simply–lack of adequate nutrition. Case in point: Experts in Britain have disclosed that 2 million obese people in that country are also malnourished.

Total calories is not the definitive factor in the amount of nourishment – energy, nutrients and sustenance – a body receives. To be healthy, and to function adequately, the human body needs calories (for energy), vitamins and minerals (for metabolic processes), and enzymes and antioxidants. If one takes in a large amount of nutrient poor foods – like most processed fast foods – then malnutrition, and obesity, will result.

As I point out in my upcoming book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, obesity can actually be countered by adopting a diet high in nutrient rich foods. By making sure the body is getting adequate nutrients, one can actually stave off the hunger response, which, along with other things, can then lead to a decrease in weight.

WARNING: OVERUSE OF SPORTS CREAMS CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

On another note, many chiropractors, including me, use sports muscle cream to massage sore, stiff and spasmed muscles before administering a chiropractic adjustment. They are very useful in working out those tense, tight areas and they feel good, giving the client a warm soothing feeling for about a half an hour following treatment.

A story has just broke of 17-year-old girl in New York who has died following the overuse of such creams. It seems that the girl, a cross country runner, was using the creams “to excess” according to the medical examiner, which included spreading the cream on her legs, wearing adhesive pads, and also using an unspecified third product. These products contain methyl-salicylate, an anti-inflammatory and pain reliever (or analgesic).

As this story gets more attention, please don’t be afraid to have this product used occasionally. As with any medication, it’s overuse that causes problems – addictions, toxicity, death – and not moderate use. Having this lotion used as an adjunct to massage is totally safe, as was pointed out by the medical examiner in the case, this was “the first time that her office had reported a death from using a sports cream”. And another important aspect to the story is just because a medication, spray, salve or ointment is sold over the counter doesn’t mean it is safe to be used indiscriminately. Read labels and use medical products MODERATELY. Nuff said.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.