December 23, 2009

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

RSS

Filed under: Research — Tags: — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:03 pm



December 21, 2009

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.

RSS

Filed under: Research, diet, fat loss — Tags: , — Jeff Thiboutot M.S. @ 8:44 am



December 16, 2009

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.

RSS

Filed under: Research — Tags: , — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 1:41 pm



November 18, 2009

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

RSS

Filed under: Research, health, weight loss — Tags: , , , — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 12:07 pm



November 10, 2009

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 orgahot dog applegatenic 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

frank hot dogsNo 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

trader joes 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.

RSS

Filed under: Research, diet, health — Tags: , , — Jeff Thiboutot M.S. @ 5:57 pm



November 4, 2009

Ketogenic Diets and Brain Tumor Growth

Leave your comments or questions below!

RSS

Filed under: Research — Tags: , — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 4:09 pm



November 3, 2009

Whats with all of those little numbers?

So far we have had many positive comments about our book. However, a few people have mentioned that the little numbers (in-text citations like this 1) are a bit distracting. They also don’t feel that they need to be there.

First, we want thank you all for buying the book and giving us some feedback. With respect to these little numbers there are a few important reasons why they are there.

As we mentioned in S.P.E.E.D. (Appendix A: What is quality evidence?) there are different types of evidence, each playing a role in the process of understanding a topic. However, there are certain types of evidence that can allow us to make solid predictions of cause and affect. For a more in-depth understanding of this aspect we suggest that you read Appendix A in the book.

The main reason the numbers are included is so there is a clear connection between what we say and the evidence supporting it. This allows anyone to check that we have represented the research properly. They are also there to give credit to the researchers and authors of the published papers. Lastly, although most people will not check our sources, we feel that authors of science-based books have an obligation to have proper citations. If a book that is based on “science” does not have in-text citations or a reference section that has the pages associated with the references or, at least, a reference section with the specific references used per chapter then we would suggest that you do NOT read it. This does not necessarily mean that the author’s statements are incorrect, but how can we check? This also does not mean that if the proper referencing is used the person is correct in their interpretations or recommendations. But, due to the prevalence of poor information that pervades the health and fitness field it is even more important to have proper citations so that the wave of half-truths, misinterpretations, and down right lies can be curtailed. Again, most people wouldn’t check the references but we feel this is not a valid reason for not supporting information in the proper manner.

This general lack of caring about where the information comes from and the validity of information speaks to a larger problem; scientific illiteracy. This will be further discussed in another post.

RSS

Filed under: Research — Jeff Thiboutot M.S. @ 4:31 pm



August 13, 2009

H.I.I.T For Fat Loss? Why?

High Intensity Interval Training is a complicated issue.  But, what it comes down to is the research is not sufficient enought to trumpet HIIT as the most effective exercise for fat loss purposes when combined with a calorie restricted diet.  You’ll find out more about this in our weight loss ebook, S.P.E.E.D.

RSS

Filed under: Research, body composition, fat loss — Tags: , , — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:35 pm



July 29, 2009

Understand Research for Weight Loss-Confimation Bias

Matt discusses the phenomenon of confirmation bias, how it applies to research and how the scientific community tries to avoid it.

We feel it’s important for people to understand what exactly it means to have our work supported by high-quality evidence.  This is why we think our weight loss ebook, S.P.E.E.D., will be so incredibly effective!

RSS

Filed under: Research, fat loss, weight loss — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:24 pm



July 27, 2009

HCG and Weight Loss: response to a YouTube comment

We received a comment at YouTube in response to our recent video entry regarding HCG.  Since YouTube limits the number of characters in the comments section, we posted our response here.  The comment and our response is posted below:

Quote from 1776in2008 : “You’re wrong. The diet ALLOWS the body to release fat, but the HCG causes your body to lose the right kind of fat while protecting LBM and structural fat. Without the HCG, it would be just water and muscle weight. In those so-called ‘trials’ that you site, they only compared the weight that was lost, NOT the type of weight that was lost. Sure, someone will lose around 20 pounds on a 23 day 500 calorie diet too, but it will be water and muscle weight, NOT actual fat, like on the HCG protocol.”

First we’d like to thank you for your comment.  I’ll respond to your post one issue at a time.

“You’re wrong.”

No I’m not.

“The diet ALLOWS the body to release fat”

I believe you mean that a 500 calorie/day diet will put just about anyone in a state of negative energy balance, which will most likely cause the loss of some tissue (fat or muscle for the sake of our discussion)

“but the HCG causes your body to lose the right kind of fat while protecting LBM and structural fat”

First, your use of the term structural fat is incorrect.  This term is antiquated and is only still being used in this way by those in the HCG camp who seem to read nothing but the HCG literature, which has remained largely unchanged since the original work of Dr. Simeons in the 1950s despite many advances in the understanding of the human body, and fat in particular, since then.  You can’t ask the scientific community to prove or disprove HCG’s effects on something that doesn’t even exist.  Why not ask them to disprove the existence of unicorns and Santa Claus while we’re at it?  The term “structural fat” is now typically reserved for the use of fat in cosmetic surgery.  Please begin using the terms visceral and subcutaneous fat and others (brown adipose tissue, white adipose tissue, etc) that have been adopted by the current scientific literature (by current, I mean the last 2 or 3 decades!).

Terminology aside, HCG is not necessary, or proven, for these effects of muscle-sparing and visceral fat targeting.  Exercise has been proven to do this time and again (unlike HCG).  (Hill, Tsuzuku, Layman, Kay)

“Without the HCG, it would be just water and muscle weight.”

This statement is laughable.  It would all be water and muscle weight lost?  A person would lose 20 pounds of water and muscle?  This reveals a gross misunderstanding of basic human physiology and a stern belief in HCG folklore.  In the metabolic ward study by Hill et al., obese women who DID NOT exercise and ate an 800 calorie/day diet lost an average of 57% of their weight as fat after 5 weeks. Exercising women lost almost 75% of the weight lost as fat.  Where is the evidence to support your claim of “water and muscle” loss without HCG?

“In those so-called ‘trials’ that you site, they only compared the weight that was lost, NOT the type of weight that was lost”

Why is trial in quotations?  They are trials.  That’s what they’re called.  And, by the way, they’re the gold standard of proof of causal relationships when performed correctly.  Trials like these are what have allowed the scientific community to distinguish the bad from the good, the lies from the truth.

Yes, these trials compared the amount of total weight lost. And, actually, in addition to weight lost they compared the ability of HCG to affect the subjects’ feelings of hunger, feelings of well-being, anxiety and depression, not to mention HCG’s ability to promote fat re-distribution.  All were found to be negative.

Show me a study that proves HCG promotes positive changes in body composition better than placebo. And if you would be so kind, please also explain the mechanism behind this effect, because the ‘re-setting the hypothalamus” mumbo-jumbo has no merit in relation to your body composition argument, if it ever had any in the first place.

It seems, based on your comment, that the HCG camp is changing their tune regarding what HCG is supposed to do.  Since it’s been shot down on all the original claims (increased weight loss, reduced hunger, anxiety, depression, increased feelings of well-being, the ability to take fat away from ‘problem areas’) now you must say it changes the composition of the weight lost, that it targets the “right kind of fat while protecting LBM and structural fat”.  Well, the onus is on you to provide evidence that it works.

Dr. Simeons even stated in the forward to his original manuscript:

“Thus, when I make what reads like a factual statement, the professional reader may have to translate into: clinical experience seems to suggest that such and such an observation might be tentatively explained by such and such a working hypothesis, requiring a vast amount of further research before the hypothesis can be considered a valid theory.”

Where is this vast amount of research? If you can provide real proof that HCG does anything it’s purported to do in regards to body composition and weight loss, I’ll post a video trumpeting the benefits of HCG for body composition, Jeff and I will edit our HCG special report to reflect the new information and I’ll admit I was wrong.  Go ahead, show me proof.  Scientific proof.

These are scientific references, providing proof for claims made above.  You can get your own at a library near you:

Hill, J. O., Sparling, P. B., Shields, T. W., & Heller, P. A. (1987). Effects of exercise and food restriction on body composition and metabolic rate in obese women. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 46(4), 622-630.

Layman, D. K., Evans, E., Baurn, J. I., Seyler, J., Erickson, D. J., & Boileau, R. A. (2005). Dietary protein and exercise have additive effects on body composition during weight loss in adult women. Journal of Nutrition, 135(8), 1903-1910.

Kay S.J., Fiatarone Singh M.A. The influence of physical activity on abdominal fat: a systematic review of the literature. Obesity Reviews. 2006;7: 183–200

Simeons ATW. Pounds and inches-a new approach to obesity. Rome, privately printed 1967.

Tsuzuku S, Kajioka T, Endo H, Abbott RD, Curb JD, Yano K. Favorable eVects of non-instrumental resistance training on fat distribution and metabolic proWles in healthy elderly people. Eur J Appl Physiol . 2007;99:549–555

RSS

Filed under: Research, fat loss, weight loss — Tags: , , — Matt Schoeneberger M.S. @ 2:48 pm