- The Authors
Jeff Thiboutot
Matt Schoeneberger
Food, Inc. A documentary on food production – A must see
I rented Food Inc. this weekend. It’s a recent (2008) documentary on how most of the food in the U.S. is produced. I was aware of most of the information covered, but still found it educational. It definitely got me thinking again about the many problems with how food is typically produced and that it is clearly not the best method available. I would recommend everyone watch this video. I rented it @ Blockbuster. Let me know what you think of it after you watch it.
Filed under: Environmetn, Uncategorized, health — Tags: environment, health — Jeff Thiboutot M.S. @ 4:12 pm
Alternate Day Fasting Succussful for Weight Loss and Heart Health
Research Review:
A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition shows some support for the ability of modified alternate day fasting (ADF) to facilitate weight loss and modify markers of heart health.
Subjects ate 25% of energy needs on fast days and ate ad libitum (at will) on alternate days. On fast days, subjects were instructed to consume all calories between noon and 2 p.m. This pattern continued throughout the study. Subjects were also able to meet with a Registered Dietician (RD) (explains the horrible food choices they were provided on fasting days during the first 4-week period – chicken alfredo? really?) once per week.
The cool thing about the study’s design is that for 4 weeks, the subjects were provided a meal for each fast day, and for another 4 weeks were left to complete the program without prepared food. Adherence rates remained high for subjects who completed the study, which means ADF may be a valuable tool for weight loss and health in the real-world. One drawback was that 2 people withdrew from the study due to their inability to comply with the protocol – that’s 10% of the original subject pool. I guess ADF isn’t for everyone, although that’s not surprising.
Average weight loss over 10 wks (8 wks on weight loss diet – 2 on control diet) was about 5.8% or 5.6kg (12.3 lbs). Also decreasing were BMI, body fat percentage, total and LDL cholesterol, and triaglycerol levels. Systolic, but not diastolic, blood pressure was also lowered.
This study gives us a little more evidence that ADF or intermittent fasting (IF) might be a great tool for weight loss and health interventions. However, there are some drawbacks to this study. 20 subjects is a rather small sample size, so more studies with larger samples are a must. The fact that subjects had weekly meetings with a coach (RD) most likely affected the adherence in a positive way. It would be interesting to see a study that compared an ADF plan with coaching to one without.
On a side note, the lead researcher Dr. Krista Varady commented on the subjects eating less than expected on ad libitum days and said “”I think it’s probably because their stomachs kind of shrunk.” Let’s get this straight. Stomachs don’t shrink. Feelings of satiety (fullness) change, but the physical size of the stomach does not shrink. Ugh… I can’t believe she said that.
Varady KA, Bhutani S, Church EC, Klempel MC. Short-term modified alternate-day fasting: a novel dietary strategy for weight loss and cardioprotectio in obese adults. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90:1138-43.
Harding A. On-off fasting helps obese adults shed pounds. Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5AB4HM20091112
Filed under: Research, health, weight loss — Tags: fasting, heart health, Research, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 12:07 pm
What’s the deal with hot dogs?
When eating a low-carb diet it is useful to find quality protein sources that are quick and convenient, not to mention good for you. Surprisingly, there are certain types of hot dogs that qualify. You must be thinking “You must be kidding, hot dogs!?” Please read-on.
There is no doubt that the hot dogs are a ubiquitous food in the U.S. and so is the thought that eating hot dogs is unhealthy. However, it is not that simple and there are a number of misconceptions about hot dogs. Just in case you are wondering, we are not being paid by the national Hot Dog and Sausage Council (yes this is a real organization, see http://www.hot-dog.org/) to write this. There are typically three arguments used to support the idea that hot dogs are disgusting and unhealthy. These three arguments relates to; the quality of the meats used to make them, the amount of fat in them, and the preservatives, sodium nitrites or sodium nitrates, used in them.
Let’s first look at what hot dogs are made of. The following is a good overview of what hot dogs are made of, which is from http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/06/10/11/what-is-really-in-a-hot-dog-and-how-unhealthy-are-they.htm
On to the million-dollar question: what are hot dogs made of? According to the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council:
“All hot dogs are cured and cooked sausages that consist of mainly pork, beef, chicken and turkey or a combination of meat and poultry. Meats used in hot dogs come from the muscle of the animal and looks much like what you buy in the grocer’s case. Other ingredients include water, curing agents and spices, such as garlic, salt, sugar, ground mustard, nutmeg, coriander and white pepper.”
However, there are a couple of caveats. “Variety meats,” which include things like liver, kidneys and hearts, may be used in processed meats like hot dogs, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture requires that they be disclosed on the ingredient label as “with variety meats” or “with meat by-products.”
Further, watch out for statements like “made with mechanically separated meats (MSM).” Mechanically separated meat is “a paste-like and batter-like meat product produced by forcing bones, with attached edible meat, under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue,” according to the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
Although the FSIS maintains that MSM are safe to eat, mechanically separated beef is no longer allowed in hot dogs or other processed meats (as of 2004) because of fears of mad cow disease. Hot dogs can contain no more than 20 percent mechanically separated pork, and any amount of mechanically separated chicken or turkey.
So if you’re looking for the purest franks, pick those that are labeled “all beef,” “all pork,” or “all chicken, turkey, etc.” Franks labeled in this way must be made with meat from a single species and do not include byproducts (but check the label anyway, just to be sure. Turkey and chicken franks, for instance, can include turkey or chicken meat and turkey or chicken skin and fat in proportion to a turkey or chicken carcass).
As you will see from the few brands highlighted below there is no problem with the quality of meats used. In fact, the organic grass-fed beef hot dogs are a very high quality meat which is better than any “regular” cut of meat you will get in almost any grocery store. Therefore, if you stick to the brands that use “all beef”, or “all chicken”, and particularly the organic or natural meats, there should be no concern with what the hot dogs are made from.
The second issue is the fat content of hot dogs. This really stems from the common, but misplaced fear about fats, particularly animal fats. There are many aspects of this issue but are beyond the scope of this article. For now, realize that a low-carb diet will be a higher fat diet, from both plants (avocados, walnuts, coconuts, etc.) and animals (beef, eggs, salmon, etc). Therefore, eating foods with fat in them is fine. The amount of fat in a particular hot dog will vary so you will need to read the nutrition facts label to know how much is in a specific one and how many you can eat to stay within your goal intake. Additionally, the grass-fed hot dogs will contain a good amount of omega-3 fats and CLA, which both have health and weight loss properties.
The third concern is the preservatives sodium nitrite or nitrates. These can lead to the formation of nitrosamines which are carcinogens (can produce cancer). These have been linked to cancers in the digestive tract. However, recent evidence for this connection has shown that typical intakes of these preservatives are not likely to lead to an increase in cancers (Powlson et al). Additional recent research is finding that food sources of nitrates and nitrites, particularly from vegetables, may be health promoting (Hord et al). There is more about this topic and, in fact, there have been a number of recent papers published on this topic so I will discuss this in greater detail at another time. For now, however, this topic is really not applicable if you eat hot dogs that are not preserved with sodium nitrite/nitrates. All of the following hot dog manufacturers listed below do not use this preservative. Therefore, these hot dogs do not contain nitrites or nitrates and the concern about ingesting cancer causing agents, which is not definitive anyway, is not a valid reason avoid eating this product.
Here are a few examples of healthy hot dogs; hopefully you no longer think that statement is an oxymoron.
Applegate Farms – The great orga
nic uncured hot dog
No nitrates or nitrites.
Made from 100% organic grass-fed and finished beef, these lean hot dogs are bursting with old-fashioned classic hot dog flavor—juicy, flavorful and delicious! These dogs have only 8 grams of fat compared to the average 15 grams in most brands, and because they’re made from grass-fed beef, they’re also high in omega-3 fatty acids (the good fat). Great on the grill or steamed on your stovetop any time you’re craving a taste of summer.
Ingredients:Organic Grass-Fed Beef, Water, Contains Less Than 2% Of The Following: Sea Salt, Organic Spices, Organic Garlic Powder, Organic Paprika, Celery Powder, Organic Onion, Lactic Acid Starter Culture (Not From Milk).
Let’s be Frank – Uncured Beef Frank
No nitrates or nitrites.
Made from 100% Grass-fed Beef
These snappy dogs are loaded with flavor, not junk! Using premium cuts from cattle raised on pasture in California (naturally high in healthy Omega 3 fatty acids!) and organic spices, we’ve crafted a delicious dog that’s lower in fat, calories and sodium than conventional franks. No nitrites, nitrates, hormones, or antibiotics, ever
Ingredients:Grass-fed beef, water, sea salt, organic evaporated cane juice, organic spice, organic garlic powder, natural flavor (celery powder, spice extract, paprika extract), spices, lactic acid starter culture, in a lamb casing.
Trader Joe’s – All Natural Uncured All Beef Hot Dogs
No nitrates or nitrites.
Ingredients: Beef, water, contains less than 2% of the following; allspice, celery juice powder, evaporated cane juice, garlic powder, ginger, honey, lactic acid starter culture, mustard, nutmeg, onion powder, paprika, pepper, sea salt.
In conclusion, the belief that all hot dogs are bad to eat is not supported by the evidence. If you eat a quality hot dog there seems to be no good reason that they cannot be part of a healthy diet, whether high-carb or low-carb. The benefit with a low-carb diet is that you can eat more of them! One way that Matt and I like them is lightly warmed-up with a bit of organic mustard and with a side of baby carrots or a small apple; how easy is that!
References:
Hord, N. et al (2009). Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: the physiological context for potential health benefits. Am J Clin Nutr; 90: 1-10.
Powlson, D. et al (2008). When does nitrate become a risk for humans?J Environ Qual; 37: 291-295.
Can or should you eat carrots on a low-carb diet? This will largely depend on how low you are keeping your carbs. If you are keeping them in the 20-30 g/day range (ketosis) then probably not, but if you are keeping them in the 70-80g./day range then it is probably fine to eat some. Here is the breakdown of half a bag of organic baby carrots, which equals 2½ servings:
| Food |
Serving size |
Total Carbs |
Fiber |
Net Carbs |
Protein |
Fat |
| Baby carrots |
½ bag (8 oz) |
20 |
5 |
15 |
2.5 |
0 |
As you can see, a fairly large serving of carrots does not have a high amount of useable carbohydrates. For comparison, a 1 cup (8oz) serving of brown rice would have about 
40 net carbs.
A final thing about carrots is how fast the carbs in them get digested. This is referring to its glycemic index (GI) rating, which for carrots is about 40. 1 This is a low to moderate ranking (rankings run from 20 to 100). It is typically thought that carrots have a high GI, but recent research has over turned this. 1 As we mentioned in S.P.E.E.D., it is good, for weight loss and health, to keep the overall GI of your diet low. So, the conclusion here is that eating some carrots is okay as long you do not go over you specific carb intake goal.
1-Brand-Miller, J. (2008). International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes Care; 31(12): 2281-283.
Filed under: diet, fat loss, health, weight loss — Jeff Thiboutot M.S. @ 12:00 pm
Introduction and 1st Chapter of S.P.E.E.D. Available…
…if you’re a fan of our Facebook page.
www.tinyurl.com/SPEEDonFacebook
We’ve decided to release the Introduction and 1st Chapter of our weight loss ebook early, before the rest is edited for release… for FREE! All you have to do is become a fan of our Facebook page. So, follow the link and become a fan. Tell your friends to become a fan as well!
You won’t believe what the first chapter has to say…
Filed under: diet, fat loss, health, weight loss — Tags: book, facebook, fat loss, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 3:13 pm
Exercise Tip – Pick Multi-Joint Movements for Effecient Workouts
When exercising, pick movements that require the use of more than one joint.
For example, consider the bicep curl. Only the elbow is moving so only the muscles around the elbow are working through a range of motion. Now consider the row. The elbow is performing the same movement as in the bicep curl, called flexion (the wrist is getting closer to the shoulder) but at the same time the shoulder is moving as well. This exercise uses the muscles around the elbow as well as the muscles around the shoulder.
Multi-joint exercises: more work, less time.
Filed under: Exercise, Quick Thoughts, Uncategorized, health — Tags: Exercise, resistance training, weight loss, weight training — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 12:36 pm
Meal Frequency – Boosting Your Metabolism: busted as promised
A few weeks back we sent out a challenge to our blog readers and newsletter subscribers to send us more traffic. They’ve answered the call, partially. Our blog traffic has gone up considerably, so we’d like to bust one of the myths we promised. This is really like getting a sneak peak at one of the most interesting sections of S.P.E.E.D.
Myth: I have to eat many small meals throughout the day to “boost my metabolism”.
Fact: Meal frequency has been shown to increase weight loss in some studies, due mostly to curbing hunger and helping the subjects adhere to the diet and not due to an increase in metabolic rate. (Smeet) However, research shows that when eating diets essentially identical in calories either through three or one meal(s)/day, the 1 meal per day group showed positive changes in body composition compared to the 3 meals/day group. (Stote) Metabolic rate has been shown to be no different between feeding patterns of 7 and 2 meals/day. (Verboeket-Van De Venne) Intermittent fasting (reduced meal frequency) with caloric restriction has been shown to have positive effects on life span and brain chemistry. (Mattson) So, there is no need to eat 6+ meals/day and it might just be more health promoting to eat less frequently, like 2-4 meals/day.
Mattson, M. P. (2005). Energy intake, meal frequency, and health: A neurobiological perspective. Annual Review of Nutrition, 25, 237-260.
Smeets, A. J., & Westerterp-Plantenga, M. (2008). Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency. British Journal of Nutrition, 99(6), 1316-1321.
Stote, K. S., Baer, D. J., Spears, K., Paul, D. R., Harris, G. K., Rumpler, W. V., et al. (2007). A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85(4), 981-988.
Verboeket-van de Venne, W. P., Westerterp, K. R., & Kester, A. D. (1993). Effect of the pattern of food intake on human energy metabolism. The British Journal of Nutrition, 70(1), 103-115.
Here’s a little something I wrote a while back. More musing than anything….
Exercise is boring. Exercise is a waste of time. Exercise is dying. Exercise is dead.
Living a healthy lifestyle requires motivation. It’s easy to slip into a cycle of laziness and gluttony, to let your health take a back seat to any number of other things. With schedules full of responsibilities, full of chores and tasks, it can become daunting to add exercise to the list. After all, we know we feel better when we exercise, but that fact alone is rarely enough to get us in the gym after a stressful, tiresome day.
The Common Cure for Motivation
What if there was a cure for this motivation problem? What if we could simultaneously add joy, fitness and long-term health to our lives all while making it easier to find the motivation for gym-going? Well the truth is we can, it just takes an adjustment in the way we approach exercise.
Exercise is a replacement for levels of activity our distant ancestors achieved through survival activities. We used to need to hunt and gather, to build shelter, protect our families, and to travel long distances by foot. Modern life has made these activities largely unnecessary, so we have invented ‘exercise’. Our distant ancestors, however, partook in one form of activity that exists today, and has existed in many different species for many years; play. We adapted play to our modern lifestyle and sport was born. Sport, or play, is the key to our new motivation.
Sport
We all need heroes or role models to look up to. As children, we often look to athletes as role models, as someone to model ourselves after, to make us work harder and excel in sports as well as other areas of our lives. When we grow into adulthood, we often continue to admire sports figures. We devote chunks of our time and energy into our fanaticism, all while letting our own athleticism slip away. This is our mistake, our wrong turn on the path to health and happiness. We stop playing.
The excitement we feel when watching one of our favorite sports teams or athletes compete is little compared to the feeling of our own involvement in competition. The ‘butterflies’ prior to competition, the level of unparalleled focus during competition and the feeling of satisfaction after playing your hardest and knowing you performed to the best of your ability are rarely felt by many of us after childhood. These feelings of accomplishment and involvement are important for health and happiness. The athlete inside of us demands increased performance each time we compete and this is our new motivation, our source of drive.
Exercise is Dead
Exercise is an activity for regular people. Exercise is regular people’s modern day replacement for survival activities of the past. Exercise is their means to an end they know they need, but have no real desire to achieve. Health alone is rarely a motivator. We, as athletes, do not exercise. Athletes train.
The difference may be undetectable to some, but training is worlds apart from exercising. Training involves a focus, a drive, a desire that is fueled by the need for performance, for victory. Training allows you to achieve feats you never thought possible and acquire confidence that carries over to all other aspects of your life. Our natural competitiveness makes getting to the gym after a stressful, tiresome day a no-brainer, a non-decision. We’re already there. We’re athletes. We train.
Becoming an Athlete
We, as adults, sit and remember the games we played as children and file these memories away, not realizing we could capture that excitement all over again. There are recreational leagues for many sports and many age groups. If we feel we’re not in shape to begin playing in a local league, our time in the gym should be focused on regaining the athleticism needed to compete at the most basic level, while adding sport-specific practice (i.e. shooting baskets for basketball) as part of our routine. Once able to join the games, our training focus shifts to increasing performance for our sport and position. Training continues as long as we improve, and for as long as we continue to play at any level.
Remember, we’re athletes. We train. Get to it.
New recreational sports league:
For more about training:
Low Carb Eating – A Quick Overview
By Jeff Thiboutot
Low carbohydrate (CHO) food plans/diets have been around for a long time. For instance, William Banting, in 1864, wrote a book on low CHO eating called Letter on Corpulence (Bowden). Additionally, there have been a number of populations, such as the Eskimos (Inuit) of Alaska and Masai tribe in Africa, that have been eating a low CHO diet for thousands of years and have been exceptionally healthy. Ever since then there have been surges of popularity in this type of eating (i.e., Atkins, South Beach, etc.). The question is; is this type of eating healthy and does it help with weight loss? The simple answer is an overwhelming yes!
Eating a low-CHO diet, often considered to be 10-40% of caloric intake as carbohydrates, has been extensively researched over the past three decades. However, there has been some published research on low CHO eating as early as 1926. The 1926 article, titled “The effects of an exclusive long-continued meat diet”, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The results of this long study showed no harmful effects from eating a very low CHO, med protein, and high fat diet (Lieb et al). Another early study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1953, demonstrated positive effects on weight loss and no negative health effects were noted (Bowden).
Back to today. There have been dozens of studies on low CHO diets. The collective result from all these studies is the fact that this type of eating, relative to higher CHO, low protein, low fat diets, has much better effects on appetite control, fat loss, and blood markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, such as HDL, triglycerides, insulin, and blood sugar (Volek et al, 2005; Volek et al, 2004; Volek et al, 2002; Meckling et al, 2007; Foster et al, 2003; Golay et al, 1996; Accurso et al, 2008). Most recently, July 17, 2008, a paper was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The paper was the result of a 2 year study on the effects of three different diets; low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, and low-fat diet. The results from this study demonstrated that the low CHO diet had the best results regarding weight loss and metabolic markers of CVD risk. All the diets induced weight loss, and some improvement in CVD markers, but the low CHO diet induced the best changes (Shai et al, 2008).
To continue to state that a low CHO diet is ineffective and harmful is a red flag of ignorance on the subject (Manninen). This does not mean that everyone needs to eat this way to improve their weight and health. However, from the currently available evidence, it certainly seems that it typically is the most efficient and effective method. Also, eating a low CHO diet may not have to be followed forever. When a goal weight and other health markers are achieved some people can start to increase their CHO intake. However, others may need, for weight and health issues, to eat in a similar fashion continually. The amount of CHO that can be increased will depend on the person, but eating a diet that is up to 50% CHO is certainly possible and not unhealthy. As CHO increases, fat intakes will need to decrease proportionally and protein intake may decrease a little also.
One last point on a low CHO diet, it is not really a high protein diet, but is actually a high fat diet. The typical ranges for macronutrient ratios, based on the percentage of calories, are; 10-40% carbohydrates, 20-30% protein, and 40-60% fat. For a 1,500 calories diet this would equate to 38 – 150 grams of carbohydrates, 75 – 115 grams of protein, and 66-100 grams of fat. Typically, the intake of these macronutrients should be spread out over 3 or 4 meals a day. There are times when more or less frequent meals should be utilized but that is outside the scope of this article and will be dealt with on another occasion.
This article is meant to give a brief overview of low CHO diets regarding weight loss and overall health. For more detailed information on low CHO diets I would recommend the Nutrition and Metabolism Society (www.nmsociety.org) and any of the references used for this article. Also, there is a low carb food pyramid handout that is a good compliment to this article. It is available at L.E.A.N. U.
References:
Accurso, A. et al (2008). Dietary carbohydrate restriction in type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome: time for a critical appraisal. Nutrition and Metabolism. 5:9
Bowden, J. (2005). Living the low carb life. New York. Sterling.
Foster, GD. et al (2003). A randomized trial of a low carbohydrate diet for obesity. NEJM. 348: 2082-2090.
Golay, A. et al (1996). Weight loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 20: 1067-1072.
Lieb, C. et al (1926). The effects of an exclusive long continued meat diet. JAMA. 87(1): 25-26.
Manninen, A. (2004). Metabolic effects of the very low carbohydrate diets: Misunderstood “villains” of human metabolism. J Inter Society Sports Nutr. 1(2): 7-11.
Mechling, KA. & Sherfey, R. (2007). A randomized trial of a hypocaloric high-protein diet, with or without exercise, on weight loss, fitness, and markers of the Metabolic Syndrome in overweight and obese women. Appl Physiol NutrMetab. 32(4): 743-752.
Shai, I. Et al (2008). Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. NEJM. 359(3): 229-241.
Volek, J. et al (2002). Very low carbohydrate weight loss diets revisited. Cleveland Clinic J Medicine. 69 (11): 849-862.
Volek, J. et al (2004). Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition and Metabolism. 1:13.
Volek, J. et al (2005). Corbohydrate restriction improves the features of Metabolic Syndrome. Metabolic Syndrome may be defined by the response to carbohydrate restriction. Nutrition and Metabolism. 2(31).
The nutritional information in this material is for educational purposes only. The information is not offered to treat, mitigate or cure disease, and should not be used as a substitute for sound medical advice. This information is designed to be used in conjunction with the services of a trained licensed healthcare practitioner.
