Saturated Fat and Heart Disease
A meta-analysis shows there is no significant evidence for saturated fat being associated with CVD.
Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010. published ahead of print.
Filed under: Research — Tags: CHD, CVD, heart disease, saturated fat — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 1:31 pm
Skechers Shape-Ups for Weight Loss?
Skechers’ new stab at a fitness product is a shoe with a large sole, purported to tone muscles (whatever that means), reduce body fat, improve circulation, aerobic conditioning and exercise tolerance, and improve posture while relieving muscle tension and back/joint problems.
WOW!
Skechers provides research on their website to back-up these claims. Let’s take a look.
1. One study shows that leg muscles are used more with Shape-ups than with standard sneakers. From this, they infer that Shape-ups will tone muscles, improve aerobic capacity and reduce bodyfat… haha, ok Skechers, good one.
Wait, you’re serious? Oh, man!
This study had only 10 subjects and the specifics are not provided. I could not find the study published in a peer-reviewed journal, so I contacted the lead researcher who referred me to Skechers. After a few communications back-and-forth, I’ve been unable to connect with Skechers to discuss the research.
2. The second study shows electromyographic analysis of muscle activity at different speeds with Shape-ups and normal shoes. Shape-ups scores higher at every speed.
“Wearing Shape-ups increases muscle activity, which leads to higher energy consumption compared to normal shoes, so exercising for a long time (walking) will burn subcutaneous fat and visceral fat, and effects such as firmer buttocks may be expected. This varies between individuals.”
Higher energy consumption by how much? 50% more? 1000% more? And, what are the raw numbers? Because the calorie burn numbers produced by walking for any sane length of time may turn out to be negligible in a weight loss effort.
Exercising for a long time will burn subcutaneous and visceral fat, eh? Just how long are we walking for here? Nothing burns fat like low-carb, restricted calorie eating. Nothing.
3. The third study is a 6-week trial at a Chiropractors office where some of his patients were given Shape-ups and told to continue exercise and diet as normal. Average weight loss is said to have been 3.25 lbs. and improvements in glutei strength and low back endurance were found.
This can barely be considered research. There is no control whatsoever and since that data are not published anywhere significant, this all basically means nothing.
In one article I read while trying to find the research, it was said that the women who wore Shape-ups in this trial reported improved posture. Well, a real research study has shown that simply telling people you’re investigating effects of a program on their posture improves their posture (2005 Harman)
These shoes are much like the Massai Barefoot Technology shoes that have been tested in better conditions and published in peer-reviewed journals… for physical therapy purposes, NOT for weight loss. (Romkes 2006, New 2007)
The sad part is people are buying into this as the thing that will help them finally achieve the body they’ve always dreamed of, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only are these shoes practically worthless in terms of weight loss, but even worse, they’ll distract people from what they should really be doing to stay on the path to their ideal body. Instead of meticulously tracking their food intake and setting goals, staying active and getting enough sleep, people will mindlessly strap on their Shape-ups and begin their never-ending stroll down the road to nowhere…. and it pisses me off.
But not you. You’re following S.P.E.E.D. You’re reading this blog. You know better. Good for you!
Matt
Filed under: Product Review, Research — Tags: shape-ups, shoes, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 12:01 pm
54 Week Fast, Weight Loss: 276 lbs.
54 weeks of fasting! Can you believe that?
*Please do not try a long-term fast on your own. Fasts of this duration have not been deemed safe!*
It seems unbelievable, but the subject of the paper referenced below didn’t eat a single thing for 54 weeks! He lost 276 lbs. total.
Here’s something I forgot to mention in the video. The fast took place in 1968 and the paper wasn’t published until 1973. At that time, he had gained back only 6 lbs, from 190 to 196.
References:
Stewart WK, Fleming LW. Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days’ duration. Postgrad Med J. 1973: 49;203-209.
P.S. – Here’s the link to the BBC Documentary :
Filed under: Research, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 11:27 am
Kettlebells: A Unicorn in the Weight Loss Industry
I don’t believe in unicorns. I don’t believe in kettlebells either.
Kettlebells have grown become popular over the past few years but they’re often promoted with ridiculous claims of near magical qualities. While kettlebells can be a great tool for the exerciser looking for something new, the real benefits garnered from a kettlebell workout have little to do with apparatus itself and more to do with the exercise protocols used.
The ACE newsletter, “Fitness Matters” January/February issue has an article titled “Kettlebells: Twice the results in half the time?”
A group of researchers at the University of Wisconsin performed a study for ACE investigating the effectiveness of kettlebells. Actually, they investigated the effectiveness of a workout routine, that happened to be performed with kettlebells. It could have also been performed with a dumbbell or barbell, or any other implement that provides loading for a snatch (the exercise used).
The workout was this: 5 minute warm-up; 15 seconds of snatches performed with the dominant hand, 15 seconds of rest, 15 seconds of snatches with the non-dominant hand, 15 seconds of rest, repeated for 20 minutes; 5 minute cool-down.
SAFETY
That is a great exercise protocol, minus the exercise choice. Performing a ballistic movement like snatches for this type of protocol is a bad idea for the average gym-goer for these reasons:
1. Fatigue of spinal stabilizers – I’m not a member of the “never bend forward at the hips” camp, but the torque on the lumbar spine caused by the combination of loaded flexion and the rotation caused by the fact that it’s a one-arm snatch is risky at best. This is true considering a fresh set of muscles. Fatigue those muscles with 20 minutes of activity and you’re asking for trouble in the general population.
2. Fatigue of shoulder stabilizer – do you like your rotator cuff the way it is? I do, and I’m not about to have my clients start throwing weight over their heads in a fatigued state.
KETTLEBELLS – NOT MAGICAL
Aside from the safety aspect I feel it is misleading to imply that the benefits one might receive from this type of protocol are garnered due to the use of kettlebells. If you performed the same routine with a dumbbell or barbell (still not a great idea), you’d see the same benefits. Kettlebells are not some magical instrument that burn more calories or raise your heart-rate any differently than would a heavy stone (and stones happen to be far less expensive).
In fact, similar results have been accomplished through cycling exercise with similar protocols in research settings. Trapp, Chisholm and Boutcher exposed trained and untrained subjects to cycling sprints of different lengths for 20 minutes. The short-sprint protocol involved 8 second sprints with 12 second recovery periods while the long-sprint protocol involved 24 second sprints with 36 second recovery periods.
TAKE-HOME POINTS
Kettlebells are a great exercise tool, but they’re not magical and there is nothing special about them.
The type of protocol used in the ACE study may not be safe for the average gym-goer, and much safer methods are available.
References:
Trapp EG, Chisholm DJ, Freund J, Boutcher SH. The effects of high-intensity intermittent exercise training on fat loss and fasting insulin levels of young women. Int J Obes 2008; 32(4):684-91.
Filed under: Exercise, Research, weight loss — Tags: Exercise, kettlebells, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 11:28 am
The Biggest Loser Show – Very Misleading!
The Biggest Loser show – 34lbs lost in ONE week? Really!?
The 9th season of the Biggest Loser show on NBC started on Jan 5th and had its first “weekly” weigh-in at the end of the show. One of the contestants, Mike, lost 34lbs. First, that is great that Mike lost this amount of weight. However, when you do the math the numbers just don’t add-up. Basically, as you will see below, it is almost impossible for a person of Mike’s size (524lbs) to lose 34lbs in one week.
The following is the breakdown.
First, I subtracted 10lbs of the weight loss as pure water (a rough estimation and likely on the high side)
That leaves a 24lb lose of fat (probably not only fat, but some lean tissue also)
Divided by 7 days = 3.4 lbs a day
The caloric amount of 24lbs of fat equals approximately 84,000 calories (1 lb fat ~ 3,500 calories)
Therefore, to lose 24lbs of fat, Mike would theoretically have to have a deficit of 84,000 calories for the week.
Could this happen in a week? Not likely.
Mike’s approximate BMR is 4,066, meaning he will burn this amount of calories everyday without exercise.
His total calories for the week from his BMR ~ 28,462 calories
Total calories needed to burn to lose 24lbs of fat ~84,000
Total calories burned for the week from his BMR ~ 28,462
That leaves a balance of ~ 55,538 calories that still needs to be burned from exercise
Keep this in mind; at no point do I have Mike eating anything. He is not consuming any calories!
Let’s divide the 55,538 calories by 7 days to see how many calories Mike would have to burn per day from exercise
That results in 7,934 calories a day that needs to be burned from exercise per day
To burn that amount of calories a day, Mike would have to do ~ 5 1/2 HOURS of moderate cycling each day. Remember, he is doing this and NOT eating anything and most likely out-of-shape.
The numbers just don’t add up and I took out 10lbs for water loss. What I think is happening is that the time frame is 10 to 14 days. What really bugs me is the lack of transparency with the Biggest Loser show. Why not give specifics on exactly how much the contestants are eating and exercising and what the real time frame is between weight-ins? I am glad that people are losing weight, and a lot of it, but it gives the false impression if the details are not correct or available. I do not intend to be so negative, but until a logical explanation is given I will content that there is likely something fishy going on.
Additionally, the clinical research that has been done on very low calorie diets and complete fasting of very obese individuals does not support that this amount of weight loss will occur this quickly. Two particular studies are very relevant to this subject matter.
The first study was done in 1968. A 450 lb man went on a medically supervised fast (means he did not eat any food/calories) for 1 year and 2 weeks and lost 245 lbs and had no major complications (Stewart et al, 1973). This would average about 4.7 lbs a week, which is nowhere near the 34 lbs that occurred with Mike who started at a weight that was fairly close. Yes, Mike did some exercise and the person in the study did not. But, as discussed earlier, the amount of exercise to attain this type of weight loss is very high.
Another study, just published last year, followed 5 obese individuals (average weight of 469lbs), in an in-patient setting, for 11 weeks, that were eating a bit less than 900 cal/day and exercising 30 minutes 1-2 days a week lost on average 7.72 lbs a week (Huerta et al, 2009). The rate of weight loss was fairly consistent. These results from a very controlled study also do not support such a large weight loss depicted in one week from the Biggest Loser contestant Mike. What these results tell me is that the spectacular weight loss of 34lbs in one week is highly suspect. Again, I am glad that Mike and the other Biggest Loser contestants are losing weight but I would really like to know how they can do this.
References:
Stewart, W.K. & Fleming, L.W. (1973). Features of a successful therapeutic fast of 382 days’ duration. Postgrad Med J; 49: 203-209.
Huerta, S. et al (2009). Feasibility of a supervised inpatient low-calorie diet program for massive weight loss prior to RYGB in superobese patients. Obes Surg; DOI 10.1007/s11695-009-0001-x.
Filed under: Quick Thoughts, Research, nutrition — Jeff Thiboutot M.S. @ 2:15 pm
Moderate Protein Intake for Weight Loss
Research Review:
Layman DK, Evans EM, Erickson D, et al. A Moderate-Protein Diet Produces Sustained Weight Loss and Long-Term Changes in Body Composition and Blood Lipids in Obese Adults. J Nutr. 2009;139(3):514-521
Filed under: Research — Tags: weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:03 pm
HCG Challenge – Show us the quality evidence!
This is where the discussion on the validity and usefulness of the hormone HCG for weight loss will take place (the YouTube post area limitations make it very hard to make clear and thorough points). Our position is there is no quality evidence that the use of HCG increases fat loss, or helps maintain muscle tissue, or has any other physical or psychological benefits besides a placebo affect. This position is based on the number of studies that have been done on HCG. Although a number of studies may not be perfect, the weight of the evidence that is currently available supports our position on HCG. Therefore, we do not feel it is a useful tool for weight loss. A more complete discussion is in our HCG Report.
Our challenge, to anyone, is the following: “Show us the quality evidence that HCG works and how it works and we will change our position on the use of HCG for weight loss” For any practitioner that recommends this hormone, you should have this type of information at the tip of your fingers.
Protein Intake for Muscle Maintenance for Weight Loss
“Increased Protein Intake Reduces Lean Body Mass Loss during Weight Loss in Athletes”
This is a short-term study on the effects of increased protein intake when dieting on lean athletes. First, let me say that, as always, this is only one study. Recommendations and practice should be based off a body of evidence.
Here’s what you need to know:
Two groups dieted with calories at 60% of weight maintenance for two weeks. One group ate 35% (about 2.3 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight) of their calories from protein, while the other group at 15% (about 1 g of protein per kg of bodyweight) of their calories from protein. We’ll call them the PRO group and Control group, respectively. Here are the body mass stats (simplified):
PRO – Total Mass Lost – 1.5kg, Lean Mass Lost – .3kg, Fat Mass Lost – 1.2kg
Control – Total Mass Lost – 3kg, Lean Mass Lost – .1.6kg, Fat Mass Lost – 1.4kg
So, as you can see the PRO group lost roughly the same amount of fat mass but much less lean mass. That’s a good thing, especially in this population. Think about a wrestler who needs to make weight but obviously needs muscle to perform. This type of research has been performed in obese/overweight populations with similar results.
Notice that the PRO group’s intake is about 2.3 grams of protein per kg of bodyweight. In S.P.E.E.D., we recommend 1.5 kg in S.P.E.E.D. and other researchers advise that up to 2.5g PRO/kg is acceptable without any risk. (Layman)
S.P.E.E.D.
I could go deeper into this study, and I will if you all want me to. If so, leave a comment and I’ll post an update later. Remember, each study needs to be read with a large amount of skepticism and scrutiny. We’ve used over 250 references in S.P.E.E.D., many of them are studies like this one. Now think about all the studies we read that didn’t get used in the book. We’ve done our homework to make it easier on you. I would honestly like to charge hundreds of dollars for our book because I know that’s what it’s worth. But, the market says $19.95 so that’s what it’ll cost you.
Remember, let me know if you’d like more info about this study!
Mettler S, Mitchell N, Tipton KD. Increased Protein Intake Reduces Lean Body Mass Loss during Weight Loss in Athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Post Acceptance, 13 November 2009.
Layman DK. Dietary Guidelines should reflect new understandings about adult protein needs. Nutr Met.2009;6:12.
Filed under: Research — Tags: protein, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 1:41 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.