Category: diets

A mind full of mindfulness—sorting out and lining up elements of change
diets · fitness

A mind full of mindfulness—sorting out and lining up elements of change

catherine w4 Comments

Last Sunday I went to off to a five-day workshop on mindfulness and behavior change at the Kripalu Center for Yoga and Health.  The actual title of the workshop is The Kripalu Approach to Diet: An Integrative Weight Loss Program, but it was really almost entirely about ways to incorporate mindfulness into our lives to promote our own health goals.

I am totally down with this.  For years I’ve been (trying to) incorporate mindfulness techniques for stress reduction around everything, including eating.  I took a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction course that incorporated meditation and yoga, and off and on I’ve used meditation CDs by Jon Kabat-Zinn,the originator of the program.

Lately, though, my meditation practice has been way more off than on.  Which has not been good.  Since returning from my sabbatical in Australia, I’ve been struggling with anxiety and sadness.  My long-term relationship ended over the past year, a body blow that’s taking a very long time to recover from.  I have wonderful friends and colleagues and community for support, which is a blessing.  I restarted yoga in January, thanks to my friend Norah and the lovely and welcoming  Artemis Yoga studio near my house (thanks to you, too, Liz!)  I’ve been back on the bike, training for the PWA Friends for Life Bike Rally, too.  All of this has helped.

But still I’ve been eating and  in ways that make my body feel bad, and not moving enough in ways that make my body feel good.  Enter Kripalu program as vacation from my stuck habits, in hopes of getting myself unstuck.

It worked.

Really?  What does that mean?

This:  we did a bunch of practices at Kripalu, uninterrupted by phone or internet (access and use are severely restricted).  No laundry or bill paying or dog walking or meal preparation or grading (actually, I finished submitting my grades while there– what can you do?) or driving, or any of those things that take up our time and head space.

Let me say that I am excruciatingly aware of the position of extreme privilege I was (and am) in.  This program is expensive and time-consuming, both very scarce and precious resources that almost all of the planet doesn’t have.  And I am grateful that I have what I have (another blog post on this issue later on).

The practices we did included daily yoga, meditation, movement, discussion and sharing in our group (18 women and one man), some powerpoint lectures on weight and nutrition (more on those in later posts), guided writing exercises, and mindful eating at exquisitely delicious meals.

Seriously, the food here is so unbelievably good (and mostly vegan and vegetarian), that I recommend a trip here just to chow down.  And the chef, Jeremy Rock Smith, gives cooking demos that are as hilarious as they are useful.  You can find a zillion of his yummy recipes here.

There is also a 5-week online followup component of the course, with online discussion, weekly phone meetings, and lots of opportunities to interact, reflect and write about the processes we are going through.

My biggest revelation from the past week is twofold:  1) I get full very quickly when I eat mindfully (that is, while not distracted).  Seriously, what seems to me like a small amount of food fills me up in a comfortable satisfied way.  Huh– interesting.  2) I get hungry 1–2 hours before the next meal, but the hunger isn’t painful or unpleasant or compelling.  It is a feeling that comes and goes, and once I eat, it goes away again.  I’m hungry right now while typing this, but it’s not a bad feeling at all.  I will get around to eating as soon as I finish the blog.

Right now, what’s in line for changes are a few things.  As best I can, get rid of artificial sweeteners in my diet.  I got back on diet coke and also artificially sweetened ice tea mix.  There’s some evidence that they are correlated with increased risk of weight gain, type I diabetes, and some other conditions, but the jury is still out.  However, I’m getting rid of them.  The diet coke is very bad for my acid reflux, so out it goes (again).

I’m also eating at least one meal a day silently, and working on eating more meals undistracted by phone, internet, TV, radio, or even reading.  At Kripalu every breakast was silent for everyone at the center.  Eating breakfast silently is super-satisfying. It’s not boring at all. I know you don’t believe me even a little bit. But that’s okay. I didn’t believe it either. Until now.

I’m also focusing on meditating each day, right after coffee and before breakfast. I simply cannot even countenance meditating right after waking up. I must be caffeine-fueled in order to focus on anything other than “where’s the caffeine”.  Don’t judge me.

I’m planning one week at a time. Right now the focus is movement—continuing bike training, and planning on activity during a conference this week. I fly to Dallas Wednesday for a conference, and fly home Sunday.  Maintaining movement and eating that is healthy-for-me is always a challenge while traveling.  I’ve put together a plan, with backup options.

As always, this is a work in progress.  So many things came up at this workshop that it’s going to take a long time to sort them out, line them up, and either put them in place or say “no thank you” to them.  So stay tuned.

Before you go, though, check this out:  Kripalu will, for the low low price of $30, take a photograph of your aura.  They have a machine for this.  Who knew?  🙂 So here’s mine– I’m all green (love) and blue (communication).  This machine definitely has my number.

Screen Shot 2016-05-14 at 12.03.25 PM

Namaste, y’all– have a great week.

 

 

 

diets · Guest Post · weight loss

Extreme Dieting and Metabolic Adaptation: The “Biggest Loser” Dataset (Guest Post)

savita13 Comments

Let me start by stating that I am NOT a fan of the reality show, “The Biggest Loser”. The idea of sentencing obese people to 30 weeks’ hard labour and extreme food restriction under intense public scrutiny in the name of losing weight is basically torture for entertainment.

I saw some of them on a trip to southern Utah some years ago. While my husband and I were hiking in the magnificent desert of Snow Canyon State Park, these poor souls were marching along the road, heads down, sweating, panting, and really not having fun.

But was it worth it in the end? Did their strict 30-week regimen instill in them the discipline to maintain their now lean and mean bodies? Surely their metabolism had improved, and they were now fat-burning machines as a result of the 5 hour/day intense exercise.

A recent paper in the journal Obesity (Fothergill et al 2016 Persistent metabolic adaptation 6 years after “The Biggest Loser” competition”) addressed that very question. The authors conducted a very interesting study in which 14 of the 16 original “Biggest Losers” were recruited for follow-up studies on their metabolism and body composition. They had collected data from these subjects at three time points: before the competition, immediately after the competition, and 6 years after the competition.

Here are what I think are the most interesting findings of the study:

  1. While the subjects did regain weight, there was a mean weight loss of about 12% of body weight, and 8 out of the 14 participants in the study (57%) maintained at least 10% weight loss over the 6 years. That’s actually a pretty great outcome compared to most weight loss programs, where most people regain all of the weight within 1 year. 10% is really important, because some metabolic parameters can greatly improve after that kind of weight loss. In other words, it’s a very meaningful and significant weight loss outcome.
  2. The subjects maintained their high levels of physical activity. This is important, because….
  3. ….their Resting Metabolic Rates (RMRs) dramatically decreased at the end of the competition, and did not go back up, even after 6 years of maintaining their exercise regimen. This is called “metabolic adaptation”. The more weight the subjects lost, the slower their RMRs became.
  4. The most surprising finding was that metabolic adaptation did not correlate with weight regain. In other words, despite regaining weight, their RMRs remaining low, meaning that these subjects would probably have a low RMR permanently.
  5. Finally, the decrease in RMR did not correlate with changes in hormones and metabolites. Much has been made about changes in the circulating levels of the hormone Leptin. By the end of the competition, plasma leptin levels dropped dramatically (from 41 ng/ml to 3 ng/ml), but by 6 years, levels were up to 28 ng/ml; not quite normal, but it was increasing. Leptin is a hormone made by adipose tissue, and is secreted to tell the brain that the body has had enough to eat (what we call a “satiety signal”). Other metabolic hormones, such as thyroid hormone, did not change from baseline, and cholesterol levels did not change.

So, to summarize, these people did maintain some weight loss, but at the cost of their resting metabolic rate. Their metabolism has been permanently altered. Or, as Dr. Yoni Freedhoff says, destroyed. http://www.weightymatters.ca/2016/05/the-lasting-damage-of-biggest-loser_3.html

This study also showed that exercise does NOT have much impact on RMR. So all that exercise did not alter their body weights’ “set point” value.

However, these subjects clearly showed that they had a tremendous amount of discipline in maintaining their exercise regimen, probably because they were under intense public scrutiny. And most of them did maintain a 10% weight loss over the long term. So perhaps “biology is NOT destiny”, and a disciplined approach to lifestyle changes really can result in sustained weight loss.

So if exercise doesn’t increase RMR, what about diet? It was expected that the RMRs would reset back to their original values once the weight was regained, but that didn’t happen. So the lowering of RMR after that kind of dramatic weight loss is persistent, and may be permanent. The implications are that the subjects would have to eat far less than the recommended 2500 calories per day in order to maintain their original degree of weight loss. You’ve heard that some subjects had an “800 calorie handicap”, meaning that they would have to consume no more than 1700 calories per day just to maintain their weight loss. That would mean that these people would literally be hungry all the time. That is the direct result of a persistently damaged metabolism.

My take on this is that is it far, far better to simply exercise and get healthy and strong no matter what your weight. The scorched earth policy of The Biggest Loser will result in some weight loss, but at the cost of a permanently damaged metabolism.

savita (1)

Savita is a scientist and professor in London, Ontario. When she’s not in the lab investigating the causes of diabetes, she’s in the pool trying to keep up with her Masters swim teammates, or in a nice downtown restaurant enjoying local food and craft beer.

body image · diets · fitness · weight loss

Imagine if size really didn’t matter. Can you?

Tracy I6 Comments

One of the most intriguing news items this week reported on a six-year study that measured what happened to the contestants who lost dramatic amounts of weight in Season 8 of the reality TV show we here at Fit Is a Feminist Issue love to hate: The Biggest Loser.

For those of us who have gained and lost, lost and gained, and lost and gained again, the most obvious result wasn’t a shocker. The contestants are heavier than they were when the show ended.  The season’s winner, Danny Cahill, went from 430 pounds to 191 pounds over the seven month period of the weight loss competition.

And he’s gained 100 of it back. According to The New York Times article “After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight,” the regain is despite his best efforts. “In fact,” the article goes on to say, “most of that season’s 16 contestants have regained much if not all of the weight they lost so arduously. Some are even heavier now.”

The study has been revealing, not because it told us what we already knew–that it’s hard to keep off lost weight–but because the researchers discovered just how hard the body fights to regain lost weight. The key: resting metabolism. We all know that the metabolism slows when we diet. But here’s the thing:

What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight.

Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.

The sad truth for the vast majority of people who try to lose weight and keep it off is this: “despite spending billions of dollars on weight-loss drugs and dieting programs, even the most motivated are working against their own biology.”

All of the contestants in the study burn hundreds fewer calories per day than expected for a man or woman their size.  The upshot seems to be that extreme dieting and weight loss permanently slows the metabolism.

There’s a lot more to the article reporting on this research, and you can read it here. But what I really want to consider now is how we are supposed to react to this news. I venture to say, from a quick look at the first few of the over 2600 comments (I know, I know), that people will look for an explanation that makes this group of people different.

The most frequent thing that was pointed out in the first few comments I read is that they lost the weight really quickly.  What about following the progress of people in, say, Weight Watchers? That’s a slower loss. Do they keep it off?  Actually, the answer is: no. Not really. Not many. Any WW promotional materials that include “success stories” will say “results not typical.”

So the first reaction people have is denial.  This can’t be representative. It’s hard to know why anyone who has tried to lose weight and keep it off would think this isn’t representative since, chances are, if that’s you, you gained it back too! Really, these findings should come as reassurance that we’re not all a bunch of weak-willed moral failures.

But instead, people find them threatening because they may show something that’s really hard to accept: that for most people, it just cannot be done. You can lose the weight, but your body will do its damnedest to regain what was lost.

Why should we recoil from this likelihood?  Because it’s really hard to imagine a world in which size doesn’t matter.

One of the comments I read said, “so can we stop fat-shaming people now?” But the groundswell of support for the idea that the Biggest Loser contestants just “did it wrong” suggests that fat-shaming is alive and well.

People with normative bodies–the right size, shape, colour–gain all sorts of social and economic benefits and privileges. They’re more likely to get jobs, high grades, good performance evaluations. They have a better chance of finding partners, earning more money, having friends, being acceptable to strangers. Their chances of suffering abuse and discrimination because of their size are lower; their chances of finding clothing that fits, of fitting into the seat on their next flight, and of being able to eat what they like without being judged are much higher.

In other words, being perceived as obese by others has enormous social and economic costs.  Our obsession with size is so far reaching and ranges over so many areas of life, that it’s hard to imagine what a world where size doesn’t matter would be like.

If size didn’t matter, people wouldn’t be denied employment because of their size. It wouldn’t be commonplace for people to police the food choices of others and to hide behind the claim that “I’m just concerned about your health.” No one would face abuse because of their size or be the butt of bad jokes. There’d be more roles for people of all sizes in movies, and fat people could be cast in roles other than “the fat friend.” Doctors wouldn’t zero in on weight when you go for a check-up. Weight-loss wouldn’t be a popular indicator of physical fitness. Fashionable clothes would be accessible to people of all sizes. No one would spend money on weight loss programs or special “diet” foods. And people wouldn’t post about their weight loss efforts on social media. A show like The Biggest Loser would hold no one’s interest. And the results of the study would be neither here nor there.

I’m sure not everyone believes the research results in this study are depressing. But for those who do, why do they? People want to keep believing that something can be done about being fat. Keeping this possibility alive supports continued discrimination and hate because it throws responsibility back on individuals who are larger than the normative standard.

It’s obvious from the number of people who are attempting to lose weight and keep it off themselves that it’s not only people with normative bodies who are fat phobic. Lots of folks have internalized the cultural messages and experienced the social/economic costs of being larger than what’s deemed okay.

When the costs are real, it can be challenging not to hold out hope for change. If there haven’t been enough other studies about set-points and weight regain and so on, by following a high profile group of “losers,” this particular study shows in sad detail that dieting can and does do serious and permanent metabolic damage to those who diet “successfully.” And that it doesn’t work.

The upshot is, though I would like to think the comment “so can we stop fat-shaming people now?” would win the day, sadly, that’s not about to happen. People are too invested in (1) despising fat and (2) making it up to individuals to make the right choices so they won’t be fat to accept what so many already know: dieting doesn’t work.

Can you imagine a world where size doesn’t matter? What does it look like?

diets · fitness

Six reasons this feminist isn’t giving up sugar

Sam B14 Comments

cupcakes

Tracy and Anita are giving up sugar. You can read all about it here.  I like a good challenge too but I won’t be joining them and here’s why.

First, they didn’t ask me! To be truthful, they knew I’d decline. And that’s okay. We don’t all have to agree. I’m offering up my reasons not to quit sugar to explain how I think about it. But I don’t mean to say that those who decide otherwise are wrong. YMMV.

To quote another popular saying, You do you!

We enjoy exploring areas of disagreement around here whether it’s biking (I’m keen, Tracy’s not), nutritional tracking (again, I’m keen and Tracy’s not) or now taking a break from sugar (Tracy’s keen and I’m passing.)

Second, I am usually not a moderate person but I aspire to be a moderate when it comes to food. Generally though if I like something, I like it a lot.  COFFEE!! Also chocolate, raspberries, bagels and croissants. Bike riding, dancing, Aikido, and boxing. And if I don’t like it, I want none of it at all. I don’t drink. I don’t watch network TV, hate shopping malls etc etc.

That said, I’ve been been aiming for more moderation in my life when it comes to my food choices. I eat dessert, but not with every meal, and not even every day. I eat vegan meals about half the time.

Third, I like my carbs fast and simple when I’m running or riding. That means sugar. Yes, of course you can eat dried fruit but gels and shot blocks and sports drinks are easy and efficient. My favourite are the maple syrup shots designed for sports. Other stuff takes time to digest and I like fast acting carbs when I want to go fast.

Fourth, it’s also beach body season! This whole thing smacks of the ritual spring diet to me. I strongly associate the “it’s spring, let’s give up sugar for our health for 30 days” with the quest for the better beach body. It’s a ritual in which I choose not to participate. I gave that up a long time ago. Like people who give up carbs for “health reasons” (what health reasons exactly?) this whole thing sounds like seriously restrictive eating to me. No thanks. Repeat after me: A beach body just is the body you take to the beach.

Fifth, I’ve read a bunch of stuff about sugar and I am very skeptical it’s the demon it’s made out to be. We as a society eat far too much of it. Yes, yes, yes. But I don’t see a need to give it up entirely. That’s the kind of all or nothing thinking about food that I try to avoid. I’ve got a partner with diabetes and so I’ve read lots about carbs, sugar, and insulin. Unless you’re going to give up fruit and other carbs, I don’t quite get the point. Jam sweetened with concentrated fruit juice isn’t that different from jam sweetened with sugar. See In Defense of the Sweet Stuff. Also in my own case I’ve had enough people look at my blood sugar levels to know that I’m at no risk for type two diabetes. Why fix what isn’t broken?

Sixth, and finally, joy and cupcakes! Human celebrations that involve delicious food aren’t trivial things. They’re deep and meaningful. And they bring joy to our lives. I already miss out on social times that involve alcohol and meat. I’m not about to miss out on birthday cake and pie for Pi Day. Come join me for a cupcake!

Additional Reading:

Sugar is not evil and you don’t need to avoid it entirely (unless told otherwise by your physician) nor should you eat it in copious amounts throwing caution to the wind. As in many cases, moderation is the key.

You don’t have to quit something altogether to improve your health. Are you going to be that much healthier if you never eat sugar versus if you cut your sugar intake way down but still can enjoy sweets sometimes? I think you know the answer to this question. Not depriving yourself altogether of a single nutrient can help your diet be more balanced and enjoyable. You won’t have to feel a sense of dread anytime you want an ice cream cone or when you’re out with friends; you can eat like a normal person and not try to find the lowest-sugar item on the menu which you probably don’t feel like eating anyways. Trying to avoid sugar in all situations can be more stressful than you imagine. Not worth it.

Sugar is one of our main sources of energy when broken down in to glycogen. We hold about 350g of muscle glycogen, 90g in the liver and about 5g circulating in our blood. We replenish it when we eat. Predominantly we break sugar down from carbohydrates (not just sugars) so grains, potatoes, vegetables, pasta and rice among other sources provide our dietary intake to keep us well stocked up on energy. Sugar is just classified as a carbohydrate- we were made to use sugars as an energy source, completely ignoring it as a way of producing energy you could argue is like driving a car with three wheels- it’s possible but it’s not exactly going to be a comfy ride and is going to cause some major damage to the road as well. – See more at: http://bossfitness.net/i-didnt-quit-sugar-and-you-shouldnt-either/#sthash.XGgzLPLT.dpuf

Vegan Cupcakes, http://thevietvegan.com/fluffy-vegan-vanilla-cupcakes/
Vegan Cupcakes, http://thevietvegan.com/fluffy-vegan-vanilla-cupcakes/

 

diets · health · nutrition

Eating Vegan: Not necessarily healthy, not necessarily unhealthy

Tracy I6 Comments

I don’t know why veganism creates such intense reactions in people. You’ve got your non-vegan folks who insist that vegans are undernourished–what the heck do they do for protein? Then, on the other side of it, you’ve got your so-called chefs who assume that grilled veggies make a sufficiently nutritious vegan meal.

There are those who insist that animals were put on this earth for our use, so we should just eat them. Or that plants have feelings too. Or that domesticated animals don’t have it so bad anyway. See a bunch of these arguments and responses to them here.

But today I want to address one issue and one issue only: is a vegan diet healthy or unhealthy?

That’s really a silly question, akin to asking if food is healthy or unhealthy. Some is, some isn’t. Whether your vegan diet is healthy or unhealthy depends on what you eat.

James Fell’s article, “Are Vegan Diets Healthy?” gives a clue as to what gets people’s backs up.  The author objects to “militant” vegans, but admits that only a small minority of vegans are militant.  Being vegan, I can attest to this fact. Most of us quite frequently dine quietly alongside, even with, people who are eating food that we think comes from an industry that promotes unnecessary animal suffering.

Then there is the even less political arm of veganism, those who won’t even use the term. They defer instead to the “plant-based” diet.  These are the folks most likely to be in your face not about the ethics of animal farming, but about the health benefits of eating a plant-based diet. They’re purists in a different sort of way, moralizing food choices for reasons that have nothing to do with animal ethics.

Obesity researcher, Yoni Freedhoff, is quoted in the article as saying:

There are some vegan organizations that like to tell people that this is the ticket to weight loss, but unfortunately that’s not always the case. You can have plenty of vegan calories as well. Going vegan does not necessitate a healthy weight.

I’ve blogged before about the sad truth that going vegan doesn’t produce a weight-loss miracle. And it doesn’t automatically mean you’re eating healthy foods, either. But it doesn’t mean you’re not.

Lots of people like to say that vegans can’t try properly because they can’t get enough protein. The article about vegan diet and health talks about endurance athletes who have forgone animal products with no negative impact (and sometimes, they say, a positive impact) on their athletic performance

The author goes on to say:

“Veganism is an ethical concept more than a health concept,” said Dr. Garth Davis, a weight loss surgeon in Houston, Texas and an expert in plant-based diets. “I don’t use the term ‘vegan’ with my patients. I prefer ‘plant-based.’”

Dr. Davis told me: “I think most vegans did choose it from an ethical standpoint, but it has changed and grown over time to include those who find they perform better at sports on plant-based diets.” He echoed what Lindsey Miller and Scott Jurek said that many choose it for health reasons because it makes you think more carefully about your food intake.

“You don’t have be vegan in order to be healthy, but being vegan is a very healthy way to live,” he said.

Notice the emphasis on the less political/ethical “plant-based.’ Here, the health benefits take centre stage.  Sure, if you focus on whole foods in your plant-based diet, you’ll make healthy choices. That’s probably the reason why so many people slide the two together. But vegan doesn’t mean only whole, low fat foods. I made an amazing vegan spiced pumpkin cake with a chocolate glaze yesterday and I’m glad I took it to an event where I wouldn’t have to contend with leftovers.  Despite containing pumpkin and being vegan, it wasn’t the healthiest thing to come out of my kitchen this weekend.

It should come as no surprise that James Fell, author of  “Are Vegan Diets Healthy?” concludes:

The takeaway here is that, yes, vegan can be a very healthy diet, as long as you do the work to ensure you do vegan well, and avoid the processed vegan “food.” From a health perspective, going vegan can make it so those who struggle with healthy eating are made to take their nutrition more seriously.

Because cutting out fast food burgers in favor of more plants is a good idea.

I’m the last person to discourage anyone from opting for a vegan diet and lifestyle, but the fact is that cutting out fast food burgers in favour of all sorts of other possibilities is probably a good idea.

And it’s worth saying that as with any approach to eating, you need to do a bit of research. One thing I’ve discovered, for example, is that vegans actually do need to make a point of getting their B12 because it is a necessary vitamin and occurs naturally in only a small range of plant foods. Most non-vegans get their B12 from meat products. For a vegan, plant-based “milks” as well as cereals are usually fortified with B12, and you can also get it from B12 supplements.

That’s just one factor. We’re not born knowing what constitutes a well-rounded diet that meets all of our nutritional needs. Whether you opt to eat a vegan diet or not, the simple fact is that whether your version is healthy or unhealthy depends entirely on the specific choices you make.

 

body image · diets · fitness · weight loss

Are People Really Happy for People Who Lose Weight?

Tracy I9 Comments

This topic of weight loss has come up quite a bit lately, even though we are a blog that professes (rightly) not to be about weight loss and definitely not about dieting.

I can’t even count the number of posts we’ve written over the years that say fitness is not measured by weight loss (recent case in point: Sam’s musing yesterday).

And anyone who knows me knows well that I do not compliment people on weight loss. Pretty much never, since that time Sam and I both remember all too well when we complimented someone who, in fact, had indeed lost lots of weight — because she had cancer! Yes, that ranks up there with the times in my life I wanted to crawl into a hole and hide.  And of course, Sam’s recent weight loss has a lot to do with having her thyroid removed because she had surgery for thyroid cancer in the summer.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “you’ve lost weight! you look great!” is not a compliment. Granted, lots of people are trying to lose weight. And, granted, those people probably like it when people notice (maybe?) because heck, they’re trying. Why isn’t it a compliment? Because it implicitly says, “and you used to look like shit, and guess what? I noticed that too!” And it implicitly assumes that everyone wants to lose weight, that losing weight is a good thing in and of itself, that being fat is not good (and looks awful), and that people are entitled to monitor the size of others’ bodies. And all of that is crap that we shouldn’t be assuming and doing.

But here’s something: I wonder whether people are actually happy when someone they know loses weight (not because of cancer, but because of effort)?  The reason I wonder is that at any given time, I would say a good 50% of the people I know are trying to lose weight or thinking about it, and more than 50% of those aren’t successful (not surprisingly, given this and this and this and this and oh so much more!).

So I’m going to go out on a limb here, and it may be a lonely limb that reveals me to be petty and small-minded: a lot of the time, people aren’t actually happy for you when you lose weight. First, there are the killjoy feminists like me who don’t really notice anymore when the people around them lose weight.  I consider the not noticing to be a personal accomplishment of mine.

But even more than that, there are those people who are battling the odds when the odds are heavily not in their favour. That would be the majority of people on a diet or weight loss program, actively trying to lose weight. I’m going to venture that a good portion of those people actually feel a little screw turn in their gut whenever someone they knows beats the odds and actually “succeeds” at that elusive goal: weight loss.

Seeing people who, for whatever reason (sometimes cancer, sometimes dieting, sometimes grief, sometimes — though not nearly as often as we’d like — exercise) drop pounds can start an internal monologue that, far from being thrilled for the person, quickly turns inward to self-flagellation and a sense of failure: If she can do it, why can’t I? What am I doing wrong? What’s wrong with me? I’m such a failure.

I’m happy for you if that’s never you. But if that’s sometimes you, join the club. Because I do go there, still today–my non-weight loss noticing-self can go there.

So I’m just going to put this out there and be totally frank. I really can’t stand it when people talk about their weight loss. I don’t care what the reasons. I don’t care if you’re trying or not trying. I don’t care if it’s for performance or for looks or just because that’s what friends, family, and strangers like to talk about.

You know, you can dress it up any way you like. But to me it’s such a personal thing that our social world has made into a public thing. And I’m always stumped about what we’re supposed to say. “Good for you!” even when someone is trying just goes against everything that feels right to me. It’s like encouraging something that I see ruin the lives of perfectly excellent people who think that weight loss will afford them something they need in order to feel good about themselves (or better about themselves). I just can’t have the conversation anymore, with anyone. [I like Carly’s suggestion of saying, “how does that feel for you?” but those don’t feel like my words]

So this brings me back to the question of whether people are really happy for people who lose weight. If you’re like me, you’ve read lots of stuff on dieting and weight loss in your time. And they always talk about the saboteurs. Those are the people who want you to eat another helping because they cooked it, or a piece of cake because it’s a special occasion, or chocolate because it’s Valentine’s Day, and therefore thwart your efforts at weight loss. Are they happy when their loved ones lose weight? Sometimes, the literature says, they feel threatened.

And then there are those people who are trying and getting nowhere. Are they happy for you? I’m not so sure. But I think it’s complicated. And that’s because successful weight loss is hard to square with the reality of how difficult it is to lose and maintain weight loss. And so when someone achieves it, we may be a little happy for them (maybe some people are super happy for them), but lots more people just use it as another reason to get down on themselves. And that’s the painful truth for many.

I don’t mean to be saying that that’s the only reason, or even the main reason, I don’t like to talk about weight loss (yours or mine). But it’s not a neutral subject, and it’s loaded with all sorts of cultural meaning that hooks into horrible attitudes that I don’t like to encourage. And even when someone’s reasons aren’t about that stuff, it’s still highly personal and that makes it at the very least an odd thing to advertise and go on about.

I can’t control what others want to talk about, but over the last little while, after a few conversations (with a few different people) that made me squirm and feel uncomfortable, I know for certain that I’m not taking part anymore. And for all of these complicated reasons, I’m going to be totally honest and say I’m happy for people about all sorts of things, but not super happy for someone simply because they’ve lost weight. I realize that makes me sound grumpy and petty, but there it is.

The newest weight-loss science we don’t need and can’t use
diets · fitness

The newest weight-loss science we don’t need and can’t use

catherine w12 Comments

What do we want?

Weight-loss with net gain of lean muscle mass!

When do we want it?

Now! (or within the course of a grueling four-week study that leaves us starving and food-obsessed)

Okay, that’s not very catchy.

But just yesterday the results of a new study came out, courtesy of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and authors Longland et al. comparing the results of higher vs. lower protein diets (plus rigorous exercise) on weight loss and lean muscle mass.  The popular fitness press and protein-supplement manufacturers couldn’t be more pleased, as they trumpet the results, saying “Losing fat while gaining muscle:  it’s possible with the right diet!”

A more measured description of the study is offered by science writer Gretchen Reynolds in the New York Times.

…the researchers rounded up 40 overweight young men who were willing to commit to an intensive weight-loss program and divided them in half.

All of the young men began a diet in which their daily calories were cut by about 40 percent (compared to what they needed to maintain weight). But for half of them, this consisted of about 15 percent protein, 35 percent fat and 50 percent carbohydrates.

The other 20 volunteers began a diet that mimicked that of the first group, except that theirs swapped the protein and fat ratios, so that 35 percent of their calories came from protein and 15 percent from fat…

All of the men also began a grueling workout routine. Six days a week they reported to the exercise lab and completed a strenuous full-body weight training circuit, high-intensity intervals, or a series of explosive jumps and other exercises known as plyometric training.

The routine had succeeded in incinerating pounds from all of the participants. The men in both groups weighed about 11 or 12 pounds less, on average.

But it was the composition of that weight loss that differed. Unlike most people on low-calorie diets, the men on the high-protein regimen had actually gained muscle during the month, as much as three pounds of it. So in these men, almost all of the 11 or 12 pounds they had lost over all had been fat.

Here’s the most interesting part of the study, though:

The diet and exercise routine continued for four weeks, by the end of which time, “those guys were done,” said Stuart Phillips, who holds a research chair in skeletal muscle health at McMaster University and oversaw the study. “All they could talk about was food.”

Of course they would.  They were starved for a month on a very low fat diet while made to exercise vigorously.  The study doesn’t say anything about follow up.  My guess is that much of that weight loss disappeared rather quickly in the stampede to the local Dunkin Donuts. This should probably dampen our enthusiasm for these results, to say the least.

upset.png

Let’s take a moment to look at who this research targets.  The participants were young men, ages 18–30.  The selection criteria for the study limited them also to BMIs under 27 and no more than 15% body fat.  No women were included in the study.  However,

They  [the researchers] plan, too, to study female volunteers and play around with the diets’ composition, to establish definitively that it is extra protein and not reduced fat that promotes muscle gains.

Oh, good.

More seriously, recent obesity research by David Ludwig, suggests that low-fat diets provoke hunger, triggering overeating.  There’s a nice op-ed here outlining some of his recent work.  He also has a recent diet book based on years of such research.  And Ludwig isn’t the only one paying attention to hunger.  Biologist Amanda Salis has also written a diet book based on her research that targets what she calls “the famine reaction”, which is a complex metabolic reaction to calorie (and fat) deprivation (full disclosure: I’m collaborating on a diet study with Salis and other colleagues now). a 40% calorie reduction diet is exactly the sort of plan that, according to Salis’ research, would also provoke extreme hunger with a risk of binge eating.

Of course, the researchers for this study know that this program isn’t designed for long-term use; not even the participants had any interest in continuing:

Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue. This type of extreme calorie cutting combined with intense exercise “is not a sustainable program in the long term,” Dr. Phillips said. “It’s more a kind of boot camp,” he said, manageable in the short term by people who are very committed and generally very healthy.

But wait a minute:  the actual participants, who agreed to be enrolled in the study, who were young men under 30 with BMIs under 27, good base cardio fitness, were all ready to head for the hills (or rather, the nearest McDonalds drive-thru) the second the study finished.  This suggests that such a program is “manageable in the short term” by no one, ever.

fail

This is simply not the kind of eating and activity research that is helpful for managing our own lives.  It’s 1) very unpleasant; 2) not sustainable at all; 3) not clearly applicable to almost all of the population; 4) potentially harmful in terms of provoking subsequent uncontrolled eating in response to deprivation.

So if we need a protest mantra, here’s one I would prefer:

end

 

diets · fitness

Behind the scenes at a no-nonsense for-real weight management course: wrestling demons

catherine w3 Comments

As we approach the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, we are pummeled with ads promising us that, if we just sign up for some new plan (however loony or expensive it may be), we will be renewed and transformed. Gone will be the extra pounds, the shame of unattractiveness, and the social rejection. In its place will be new-found confidence, social and professional opportunities aplenty, and inner joy. You can see for yourself right here:

new you

We’ll be posting a bit on this blog about the push to turn over a new leaf, start a new regimen, set new goals, and remake ourselves as soon as the calendar year turns over. And we also want to hear from readers, too, about how they are responding to the wave of self-improvement fever.

Not that I’m against self-improvement, or even against enthusiasm about new beginnings. The end of the year is a good time to take stock, reflect on what’s working in your life, what you want to change, and what goals you might want to pursue. However, doing a google search of images related to “new year’s resolution”, almost every image included the following:

lose weight

Sigh.

We all know (from great posts like these among other places) that losing weight may or may not be difficult, but maintaining weight loss over time is nigh unto impossible. But that doesn’t stop people from wanting it badly.

I do research on weight, weight stigma, health, eating and behavior change, have read and written lots about these issues.  But there is no substitute for hearing the stories of the struggles of real people as they try to make a more peaceful and accepting life that includes food.

Two weeks ago, I was invited to attend the last meeting of an 8-week course in Sydney, Australia on weight management run by Ginette Lenham, a counseler, therapist and support group facilitator specializing in weight management issues for women. She counsels women with complex sets of challenges ranging from fertility to gynecological to endocrine to psychological, working on how to respond to emotional eating and other triggers in their lives. Her website is here.

The stories these women shared were not surprising, but they were revealing. Here are some stories, and the underlying messages I am going to guard against as I face the new-year pull to remake myself in a more skinny image. These messages are powerful, but they are not true. The women in that room shared them in order to expose them for the falsehoods they are, and get some help in doing battle against them.

Message: Weight equals worth and status as a person

“You know, your position in a social hierarchy can change enormously with weight loss or gain. When you’re obese, people don’t see you as a person with control or discipline. My friends who have known me a long time (when I was thinner) have more confidence in me, in my abilities, than my newer friends (who only know me as fat). They think an obese person is a different sort of person, not a person like them.”

Message: Weight loss will fix any ailment

 “I joined a running club; it’s really helped my motivation and improved my performance. I was having trouble recently with getting blisters and talked with someone about it. She said, ‘oh—after I lost a lot of weight, I stopped getting them’. Argh! “

“One woman in our running club won an award; at the ceremony, all they talked about was how much weight she had lost.”

Message: There are ‘good’ foods and ‘bad’ foods, and it’s never okay to eat ‘bad’ foods

“I used to work as a waitress, and women were always apologizing for their orders. They would say to me, ‘I’ll have this cake but I won’t have any dinner.’”

Message: Eating “right” is a “natural” ability, which some have and some don’t

“I look at my kids to see how they are eating—what they eat and what they leave behind on the plate. I have no idea what to do, or how to eat intuitively.”

“Some people are just stronger and they know when to stop.”

Ginette’s approach is largely about helping people to identify these negative messages and then to set aside those harsh judgments, focusing instead on individual health and life goals. This is a long-term process, and is not about learning to love salad. There’s no gimmickry—no magic pill to swallow, no exercise machine to use. Will it result in weight loss? Maybe, maybe not. What she hopes for her clients is of course some solutions to their complex medical problems, some of which are weight-related, but more importantly, in her own words, “you can learn to be liberated from all the negative self-talk that is associated with your previous weight loss experiences.”

Now that’s a new year’s resolution worth making.

Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 10.11.57 PM

diets · fitness

Don’t get sucked in by the rhetoric of “eating clean”

Tracy I10 Comments

Just as holiday baking and the frenetic activity of the season descends upon us every December, so does its inevitable companion: talk of “clean eating.”

British chef Nigella Lawson rightly identifies clean eating as a fad diet that can be used to mask eating disorders. She also believes, as do I (see my post “‘You’ve Lost Weight, You Look Great’ Isn’t a Compliment”), that telling someone they’ve lost weight is not something we should regard as a compliment. See more about Nigelia and her new book here.

We’ve discussed clean eating a few times on the blog. I’ve talked about living clean without eating clean.  There’s also clean eating’s close cousin: the detox or cleanse.  Read about the ice cream detox here. And if you weren’t aware, everyone with a functioning liver detoxes constantly.

So let me just reiterate a basic truth: it makes no sense. It’s a silly fad that uses moralistic rhetoric to suck some people into feeling bad while others can be self-righteously good because they’re eating “clean.”

What is clean eating? There’s a whole magazine and website devoted to it, and here’s how they define it:

The soul of clean eating is consuming food in its most natural state, or as close to it as possible. It is not a diet; it’s a lifestyle approach to food and its preparation, leading to an improved life – one meal at a time.

They even have their rules (yes rules, not guidelines) for eating clean, including “know thy enemies.” This kind of thing is “red light talk” for me. You know, I’m a big fan of the idea that food is beyond good and evil. So when people start talking about food as the enemy, even processed food or food that is high in sugar and has no nutritional value, my guard goes up.

Because that’s when the moralizing starts, and that’s not good for us or anyone else:

When we moralize foods into good, bad, evil even, we deny ourselves permission and set ourselves up not just as failures, but as moral failures.

If the foods that made people feel so bad weren’t forbidden or “sinful” in the first place, they’d be less attractive and people would be less likely to eat more of them than is comfortable.

That’s what I said over two years ago and that’s what I still think today.

They like to say its not a diet.  But really?  Something qualifies as a diet, as far as I’m concerned, if there are forbidden foods that are “thine enemies.” For clean eaters, that’s anything processed or “not natural.” According the clean eating website’s article about the “7 golden rules of clean and lean eating,” clean eating is about whole, unprocessed foods like: fresh fruit, fresh veggies, legumes, nuts, and “farm-fresh eggs.”

You’re supposed to choose fresh over refined, stock up on protein, go for whole grains and natural sugars, “police” your salt and sugar intake, eat 5-6 small meals a day, “walk it off,” and of course, “don’t drink your calories.”

They say:

The main thing you need to understand to be able to successfully eat clean is to know what foods are processed and what foods are good for you.

But the dichotomy between what’s processed and “what’s good for you” is false. I’m not even going to get into details. But it’s not all that straight forward. Is bread processed or not? Is it good for you? Does processing something automatically make it bad for you? What about canned goods? Hummus?  These are processed but not necessarily unhealthy (which I take it is the main point here).

Red meat is natural, as are all manner of animal products, but are they good for you? Not if you read The China Study by T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II, and the many others who advocate a vegan diet.

So natural=healthy and processed=unhealthy is way too simplistic a way to approach eating. And to think of one as “clean” and the other as “dirty” is just nonsensical. To me, I’m eating clean if I haven’t dropped my food on the floor and picked it up again. I’m eating clean if I washed my apple before I bit into it. I’m eating clean if I got all the dirt off the celery sticks.

Clean eating as a “lifestyle” is just another way casting some foods as evil and others as good. There’s nothing wrong with eating whole foods. But let’s not get caught up in the rhetoric that makes us think of food in terms of the permissible and the forbidden.

Clean eating plans are diets. Don’t be taken in by their shiny allure. They’re just another fad. Temporary, potentially dangerous, and just another way of making us feel at times good about ourselves, and at times bad about ourselves. Your diet isn’t dirty. You don’t need to cleanse. You’re not full of toxins.

If you want to learn how to make Oreo soap, here’s a tutorial:

 

diets · eating · family

You do you, as the kids say

Sam B7 Comments

image

What does “you do you” mean anyway?

Urban Dictionary says it’s “the act of doing the things that you normally do. Nothing more, nothing less. Just being yourself and showing everyone who’s boss around here.
Person 1: Hey, I went to the mall and bought a YOU GO BAK today.

Person 2: You Do You, Pal!”

The New York Times opines that the expression perfectly captures our narcissistic culture:

“We don’t all partake of the same slang menu — you say “pop,” I say “soda,” and we’ll all get properly sorted on Judgment Day. Wherever you hail from, you’ll recognize “You do you” and “Do you” as contemporary versions of that life-­affirming chestnut “Just be yourself.” It’s the gift of encouragement from one person to another, what we tell children on the first day of kindergarten, how we reassure buddies as they primp for a blind date or rehearse asking for a raise. You do you, as if we could be anyone else. Depending on your essential qualities, this song of oneself is cause for joy or tragedy.”

And there is something conservative about the phrase. There’s an acceptance of the status quo and a refusal to engage in critical reflection. William Safire, also writing in the New York Times, called phrases like this, “tautophrases.”

“According to Safire, “It is what it is” has many tautophrasal relatives and ancestors. “What’s done is done,” “What will be will be.” The striking thing about his examples is how many of them preserve and burnish the established order”

But in our house, a busy house packed full of strong willed people with big, big, big personalities (where did that come from?) “you do you” is the liberal slogan used to end all arguments that are really matters of taste and opinion. I hear it used well among the kids in discussions of sexual orientation and relationship style preference but my favourite use of the expression concerns food and exercise.

We’ve got one formerly vegetarian child experimenting with chicken and another pretty much vegan. But that’s okay, because at the kitchen counter they’re all “you do you.”

It’s also stopped some sports nutrition arguments dead in their tracks. “Is that cereal you’re eating? Carbs at breakfast are a super bad idea.” “Hey, you do you pal.”

CrossFit versus heavy weights? You do you!

Running versus running makes you fat? You do you!

Paleo versus carbs are necessary fuel? You do you!

So while I’m sure there are areas of life where the slogan doesn’t apply, in my house, in matters of food and fitness, I’m a big fan of “You do you.”

Just don’t get me started on “It is what it is.”