WHAT (OR WHO) SHOULD YOU REALLY BE “FED UP” WITH?

 HISTORY OF FOOD IN AMERICA AND WHY YOUR HEALTH WAS NEVER ON THE GOVERNMENT’S AGENDA. (AND WHY IT IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. UNLESS……)

          ________________________________________________________________
By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

Probably like many professionals who work in the field of nutrition and health I was impatiently awaiting the release of the much talked about movie "Fed Up". And, as it oftentimes happens, I was pleasantly surprised by some important and critical points that the movie brought up, but that had never been talked about before (at least not in the main media), while at the same time disappointed by so many issues that didn't even get mentioned or got somewhat twisted around.
Let me explain......

First, I have to admit that I originally felt compelled to do what many critics do: talk about the pluses and minuses of the movie. But then I read a few blog posts from nutritionists and various writers from the world of health (trainers, fat loss specialists, bloggers, etc.) and it made me rethink what I really wanted to talk about.

For the sake of clarity though, and as a springboard to our discussion, I am going to mention a few important points that, I think, the movie got right, and a few crucial ones that it missed completely. 

1. "A CALORIE IS A CALORIE". Not.

When it comes to calories we were finally told that a notion of "a calorie is a calorie" is completely false - a HUGE kudos for the movie.      

In simpler terms, when subjected to the same 300 calories coming from a very different source (for example, processed and therefore very easily digestible food like a soda drink versus a whole food like vegetable or fruit containing fiber) the body behaves completely differently than we previously thought. That's why a person who eats the same amount of calories from a diet of processed foods will have a much higher chance of becoming overweight or obese over time than a person eating a diet of whole foods. The 300 calories from processed food not only get almost completely absorbed since the body doesn't have to do any work to break it down, but they also cause an entirely different hormonal cascade than whole food. [The hormonal responses to food (a very broad subject) are far beyond the scope of this article due to their complexity.] But apart from the varied hormonal response between processed and whole foods, an important, and rather simple, fact to mention is the law of thermogenesis. It takes the body more calories and effort to deal with whole foods than something highly processed, simply because it has to do all the job of breaking it down to smaller particles, digesting it and then assimilating and absorbing nutrients. So while all 100 calories in Coke will get straight into your system (and your hips), only a part of 100 calories from protein like chicken breast or a vegetable like broccoli will, simply due to the calories it takes your body to "deal with" it. Protein has the highest thermogenesis effect of all foods since about 30% gets "lost" in the process of digestion. Taking the above chicken breast as an example, only about 70 of the 100 total calories would actually get absorbed. (I would highly recommend not taking this fact as an incentive to eat more protein just because you are not absorbing all of it. That's the way scientific facts usually get misunderstood when humans want to interpret them to fit their own needs.) J So, CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE - we finally  got that.   
    

2. THE ISSUE OF CALORIE BALANCE.

So, as much as sugar is to blame for a lot of our obesity and metabolic problems, it is NOT the only villain and it is NOT entirely true that total calories don't matter. Unfortunately, they do. I can attest to that with my 20+ years of experience as a trainer, holistic nutrition and lifestyle coach. And while my first goal with clients has always been teaching them to eat whole foods rather than count calories, when it comes to weight loss (in most cases) one has to look at overall calories as well. There is just no way around it, especially when dealing with people who have no, or limited, nutritional knowledge. Learning about portion sizes and portion control and how many calories certain foods contain is still an important part of nutrition education, at least at the beginning of the process. And this becomes especially important with restaurants portions currently being as oversized as they are.

Interestingly, it is also later on in the process, when clients want to lose the infamous "last 10 pounds" and get really lean, that we are often forced  to look at this issue again. At that point, it often really IS about the calories in versus calories out and various necessary calculations, since then we are dealing with the necessity to create a very subtle (to prevent muscle loss and under-eating), but specific calorie deficit to cause not only weight loss but, more importantly, fat loss. So while I do think that we as humans (it's not only Americans anymore) eat way TOO MANY CARBOHYDRATES (just for the record, I am not paleo or anti-carb!), and SUGAR ESPECIALLY is a huge problem, it is NOT the only one. We eat TOO MUCH OF EVERYTHING.

And although it is not really true that you will gain 100 pounds over 5 years eating one 200-calorie cookie every day, (that's what a simple arithmetic would have you believe) simply because your body just doesn't work this way and has many different mechanisms to keep itself in check, how many calories we eat in total still matters and that will never change. Can I eat more vegetables and fruit than chips and soda without gaining weight? Probably. A lot more? Not really, if you're looking strictly at equal amounts of calories (most people simply wouldn't be able to do so anyway because of the volume created by extra fiber). So, an important point here that was missed by the movie, in my opinion, is that TOTAL CALORIES STILL DO MATTER. The so called "energy balance" is difficult for many people to understand and implement in their daily life, but it is not impossible. It requires knowledge, consistency, a strong resolve and patience. And that's where the movie gets it wrong.

3. SUGAR MAKES PEOPLE TIRED AND LAZY.

The issue of BEING TIRED AND LACKING ENERGY TO EXERCISE AND EAT WELL due to the EFFCTS OF SUGAR ON OUR HORMONAL SYSTEM is portrayed correctly (thank you Dr. Robert Lustig), but makes too general of a statement, in my opinion, by excusing people from exercise and healthy lifestyle habits. Unhealthy lifestyle habits, lack of energy and lack of exercise are the results of many factors, NOT just too much sugar. It is unfortunately also a fact that some people simply do not wish to eat better or exercise because it puts too much responsibility on SELF. And that's not comfortable.

 4. THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.      

 And this brings me to an important point and closer to what I wanted to talk about in the first place - the movie seems to absolve us all of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. This is something I have a real issue with. When it comes to food, like many other things in life, we almost always have a choice. Sometimes it might not be the best choice, but it is still a choice between better or worse. And trust me, I am far from talking about perfection here. The movie seems to convey an overwhelming message that we are powerless; powerless against the food industry, big corporations, and fast food manufacturers in particular. So my question to you is this: When did you ever lose that power? Who took it away from you? Who told you to buy junk food when you can go to the farmers market and get healthier food instead? Yes, I know cost* is an issue, but I think a bigger issue is that you want convenience, you don't want to cook, you don't want to be bothered and want a quick solution and it's just too much effort to be healthy. And yes, I am talking to YOU! I always loved the saying that "if you don't spend time and money on your health now, you will spend it later on illness". There is so much truth to this. How often do you ever think about it this way? Why are humans so short-sighted? When I talk to my clients about their goals I always remind them that they have a choice. What they do every day, how they plan their day, when and what they eat, who they keep as their role models and who they socialize with, all those factors are entirely in their control. I often get strange looks when I say this as if it was some huge surprise. But the truth is, you do have a choice. The question is: how important is that choice for you? And what are you willing to do to make that choice and reach your goals? So, if you care about health at all, maybe that's where the whole discussion needs to start. YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE AND YOUR HEALTH IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY - the movie misses this point entirely. Worse, it makes us think we have no say in what we buy and what we eat.  

*A quick digression on the cost of healthy food.......I find it amazing that it is often the most well to do people who shiver at the idea of spending more money on healthier and slightly more expensive food choices while they have no problem driving around in their Bentleys and owning multiple homes. Maybe we have our priorities upside down? Or maybe we just prefer to spread our oversized cheap-food-fed bodies in luxury cars while driving to multiple doctors' appointments for more medications to control our various ailments, most easily preventable, if those priorities were in the right place to begin with? And don't get me wrong, I do feel for those that are on very tight budgets and have to try to save anyway they can. I feel enraged that in a country as advanced as America we seem to be incapable of making sure that people have good AND HEALTHY food to put on their tables at a reasonable cost , and that so many people go hungry.  But for most of us, it IS about priorities.

5.  THE FOOD INDUSTRY'S MISGUIDED AGENDA

Now let's get back to the title of my article and talk about the history of food in America. It is only since the industrial revolution that food supply has slowly become so adulterated, but much more so in the last 30-40 years. Due to post-war shortages the emphasis was on producing cheap food in large quantities. The fifties and sixties were all about convenience and cutting cost, not about quality, and advertising stressed how easy your days and meals would be if only you "dined" at McDonald's and ate canned and frozen food at home on a daily basis. But many families still cooked meals at home and what manufacturers put into food was actually food to a big degree (strange as it may sound). But with time and growth of food corporations, which were quickly becoming financial giants, (as well as advancements in technology), there was an ALL-OUT DRIVE FOR PROFIT. And the best way to increase it was to decrease the quality of food, put more junk, preservatives and chemicals into it, and process it more, so the shelf life would be extended forever and ever. No loss, all gain. Or was it? It was loss for American citizens, gain for corporations and their ridiculously high compensated CEOs. But long-term loss for citizens unfortunately most often becomes a loss for governments. We are paying dearly as a country for what we have done to our health: the sky- rocketing cost of healthcare, the ever increasing epidemic of obesity and other serious diseases, the future of our kids and our nation.

So......is it really a loss? Wait......it's another gain! Now with the above problems we have created.......

6. .......a HUGE PROFIT FOR THE DRUG INDUSTRY. And it's doing well. Really well. And we are quietly (and not so quietly) contributing. Yes, you and me, unless we decide to do something about it. As our country's health gets worse, we will only be more and more dependent on various medications. That's heaven for the drug industry. We have just single-handedly secured their financial future. And we have only ourselves to thank for it.

7. IS GOVERNMENT REALLY ON YOUR SIDE?

So first it looked like it was a loss for governments, too. (I am using plural here since it is quickly becoming not only an American problem). Our government talks about the cost of healthcare. They talk about disease. You think they really care about your health? Think again.

And here I am finally coming to the main point I wanted to make after seeing the movie (yes, finally). :)

No matter how one looks at it, in the end it all comes down to money. Money that is accepted by politicians from interested lobbying groups/corporations to secure their successful elections and positions they so dearly want to keep. Unless we get rid of the lobbying system in this country, nothing is ever going to change because money speaks louder than anything. I would go as far as saying that the country where lobbyists are allowed to contribute to politics is not truly a democratic one. Everything and everyone can be bought and sold. No exceptions.

Here's a smart quote from President Johnson's State of the Union address in 1906. There is no more appropriate time in history than now to take this advice seriously.

"I again recommend a law prohibiting all corporations from contributing to the campaign  expenses of any party. (....) Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly."

So, let's break it down a little by looking at who really controls our food system.......

8. WHO SHOULD YOU REALLY BE FED UP WITH?

A few simple facts:

It is no secret that the all-powerful food and drug industry lobbyists have huge influence on government (and not only) policies and guidelines. The movie gives many examples of how far and deep reaching this influence really is; how much good research gets silenced, including that of seemingly independent organizations like WHO (World Health Organization). This particular example should have everyone roaring in disbelief and outrage. Their conclusion on the necessity to limit sugar consumption worldwide to 6-9 teaspoons per day never got published in their new guidelines due to the threat from the US representative (Bush administration) of withholding over 400 million dollars of financial support to the above organization. Hmmm.....Surprised? Don't be. This is how policies, at least in this country, (but not only) are made. MONEY CONTROLS EVERYTHING (politicians, more than anything, want to get re-elected and people in powerful positions want to hold on to them).

Organizations like A.N.D. (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics - previously ADA) are hugely influenced by the biggest food corporations. Those actually provide continuing education courses for the A.N.D. members. (This is one of the reasons why I never wanted to become a Registered Dietitian or have anything to do with this organization.)

American Academy of Family Physicians, an institution supposed to promote health, partners with Coca-Cola and the like. Even a healthy "Let's Move" campaign, initiated by Michelle Obama, is sponsored by Nestle, General Mills and Kellogg. Seems crazy? Not so much. This is how things are done (or should I say: this is how nothing gets done).

USDA is responsible for both public health and promoting agriculture, which becomes a real oxymoron. It subsidizes crops like corn, driving down the cost of sugar. The result? Sugar has become one of the cheapest food commodities around. This only makes it easier to use sugar as one of the main ingredients in food production today. The movie even makes an accusation that this is the direct way the American government subsidizes obesity. I couldn't agree more.

People who used to work for the food corporations now work for the USDA and vice versa. The same goes for the FDA.

Misleading marketing campaigns are specifically geared towards kids, with no government oversight or regulations.

American schools are probably some of the worst and least healthy places to eat and they have no budget for better, healthier food. Who has the biggest say in how school budgets are made? And who stands to benefit from this oversight the most?

Most food research is funded by food companies - where is the neutrality necessary in real science? The movie shows some "experts" unabashedly trying to convince Congress and various committees that ketchup or French fries should count as a vegetable or that sodas can easily be a part of a healthy, balanced diet. Have we totally lost our minds??? How are these people even allowed to speak publicly and their opinions considered as anything short of ludicrous? (Well, I guess we have freedom of speech. Oops.)

Dubious scientific technologies are used to adulterate our food even more. When you have to involve scientists and chemists to figure out how to modify natural foods to make them more  palatable, and ADDICTIVE to humans, and what chemical substances need to be used to accomplish this, we have a problem. A huge problem.

I am a huge fan of modern technology, but I have always believed that when it comes to food it's not so smart to fool with Mother Nature. And why would we? Seems we always get it wrong in this regard. We can't outsmart her, as much as we try. When it comes to our food supply, there is something about the inherent wisdom of nature that no inventions will probably ever be able to improve upon. At least without the negative effect on human health. (And this is coming from a daughter of a scientist whose research gave the beginning to stem cells and cloning, and which I whole-heartedly support. So you know I am not against progress done right, as long as it is done with due respect to human health).

We, as a nation, have let others take over our food supply. We have let food giants control our taste buds and our brains. We have been putting money in the pockets of food corporations and their profit-hungry executives by eating out all the time, and eating cheap, bad quality food. We have given up buying fresh food and supporting our farmers, cooking family meals made from real whole foods, and helping the earth do what it does best - feeding us with its natural bounty.

So instead of blaming everybody else (and I am NOT defending food companies here - far from it!) maybe we should finally look at what part WE ourselves actually play in this whole scenario? What is OUR role in this? How much are WE contributing to the problem?

Maybe we could make an effort to get to the farmers market once or twice a week and buy some healthy produce that actually tastes like food? Maybe we could try to cook at home a few times a week, and involve our kids in the process to teach them the importance of cooking with whole foods? Maybe we could actually teach kids to eat adult real food? It's a complete fallacy that kids need "kid food". No country in the world has ever come up with something so stupid. Kids should be taught to eat everything when they are young so their taste buds are accustomed to normal foods instead of processed junk loaded with sugar. Maybe we should insist on nutrition education in schools early on (done by REAL nutritionists) so kids would acquire this much necessary knowledge early on? Maybe we should seek out restaurants that are committed to sustainable cooking by buying local foods and supporting local farmers in the process? Maybe we should support organic grocery markets that are trying to make a change? Maybe we should sign petitions to tell our politicians what we really think?

Maybe......maybe......maybe.....

But will we??? What does it take for us to understand that we are destroying the planet, destroying our health and that of our kids, while at the same time contributing to the plush lifestyles of those few we so love to hate? Wake up America! You always think you are so great. But, for the most part, you' re only good at talking. We need action, not talk, so do something, however small, to make a difference. Don't be afraid to stand out from the crowd and be unpopular.

Others will join you. That's how big changes start. So get out there and buy fresh, natural food instead of sugar and junk leaden crap that doesn't even resemble food. JUST EAT REAL FOOD!!!

It's that simple. Vote for better food with your money. Make your voice heard. YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE.  MAKE THE RIGHT ONE.  And yes, I am talking to YOU!

 
To learn what you can do to help, please visit the "Fed Up" movie Take Action page at: http://fedupmovie.com/#/page/take-action
  

THE LATEST “BREAKTHROUGH” WEIGHT LOSS RESEARCH

THE LATEST “BREAKTHROUGH” WEIGHT LOSS RESEARCH – one of the “pearls” of recent nutritional “science”

HOW THE MEDIA AND STUPID SCIENCE PLAYS WITH YOUR MIND

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

The Daily Mail newspaper in England recently published (online version, June 26^th, 2012) the conclusions of a study done at Tel Aviv University which bluntly states that eating dessert for breakfast helps you lose weight. The study, for obvious reasons, made for the BIG NEWS. But before you jump into eating doughnuts and cake for breakfast again, maybe you should at least try to dissect it a little bit further and see if the facts really hold up.

The article starts with: “Good news for dieters – having a sweet treat for breakfast can actually help you lose pounds and keep them off longer” – PERFECT advice! Have some processed sugar, Stupid!

It goes on to say: “Although both diets (there were 2 groups) had the same amount of calories (….) - one included a large breakfast with a sweet treat such as a doughnut, while the other allowed  for a larger meal later in the day”. What an ingenious statement that a bigger meal in the morning makes you fuller and more satisfied for the rest of the day, while being hungry all day and eating most of your calories at night keeps you fat. Did they really need to waste money on research to figure this out? Really???

The author of the study states that “The goal of a weight loss diet should be not only weight reduction, but also reduction of hunger and cravings, thus helping prevent weight gain”. Yes, indeed, that’s a smart statement, but how on earth did they draw the conclusion that you can (or should even attempt to) reduce hunger and cravings with extra sugar is beyond me.

In my holistic nutrition coaching practice I always suggest clients eat at least 25% (if not more) of their daily caloric intake for breakfast. The reason is simple and logical: your body needs most of the calories during the day to maintain a certain level of energy, not at night when it rests. No surprise here. So, if you starve it for the first part of the day, it will slow down its metabolic rate to conserve calories. This will result in fewer calories burnt overall and more calories stored. No surprise here either.

Unless you have been on a ketogenic diet for quite some time (meaning you have been eating mostly protein and fat, with minimal amount of carbohydrates, and your body has had a chance to switch to using body fat as fuel almost exclusively), you will still need some carbohydrates. Depending on your Metabolic Type you will need a lot, a little, or somewhere in between, but you will need them nonetheless for your body and brain to function properly. In the study, the subjects in the group that regained the weight were given not only 50% fewer calories, but of those calories only 13% were from carbohydrates – way too little even for Protein Types. The group that lost more weight was given double the amount of calories, more calories coming from carbohydrates (40%), AND a higher total amount of protein. (By the way, even in that group the ratio of 40% carbohydrates, 30% protein and calculated 30% fat still kept that group in a moderate carbohydrate/high protein classification – a perfect Zone Diet.)

Why is it then a wonder that the results came out the way they did? One has to be completely blind to not be able to figure out why the higher carbohydrate diet worked better. So, simply speaking, the bigger meal satisfied the body’s energy needs better, by providing more satiating protein, more energy producing carbohydrates, and a sufficient amount of fat to keep the participants’ blood sugar under control. In addition, higher amounts of protein and carbohydrates created a higher level of thermogenesis (amount of heat produced and calories burnt in the process of digestion, assimilation, etc.) since they take more energy to break down and digest than a low-calorie breakfast, whose 52% of calories came from fat, a nutrient with a minimal thermogenic effect.

At this point, I start to wonder why anyone would even undertake a study whose outcome is not only obvious, but at best unhealthy, and dangerous at worst. And who could possibly pay for a stupid science like this? The sugar industry? I would be curious to check the sources that funded it, and I probably wouldn’t be very surprised with my findings.

Another important point, if you haven’t figured it out already, is the fact that the same effects could have been achieved by substituting some high quality, high fiber carbohydrates: vegetables, fruit, whole grains like old-fashioned slow cooking oatmeal, dairy (whose big % of calories come from carbohydrates, e.g. yogurt, etc.), and even small amounts of healthier sweeteners like organic raw honey or unprocessed maple syrup for the "dessert treat". I bet the researchers knew the outcome would have been exactly the same, or better, but the study wouldn’t have made big news.

What bothers me most, is that this is exactly what companies that fund dubious studies like this one count on – masses of readers or listeners, who have absolutely no idea how to evaluate scientific research, and who take whatever is fed to them by the media (and sponsored by the food and drug industries) at face value. If it’s research from some university, it must be valid.

With the overwhelming obesity epidemic in the US and (thanks to commercial CRAP food production driven exclusively by money) spreading quickly to other countries, the last thing we need is scientists telling us to eat more sugar in order to lose weight.

Funny though, the researcher’s conclusions are correct, for the most part:

1. Timing of the meal is indeed an important factor in weight loss success (here having a bigger meal in the am),

2. Diets higher in protein reduce hunger by giving the feeling of satiety,

3. Carbohydrates make people feel full.

But here’s the conclusion I have a real problem with: “dessert kept sweet and fat cravings under control”. Any half-reliable nutrition source will tell you that dessert (or any sugar for that matter) does anything BUT that. As a matter of fact, in most cases, it does the exact opposite: spikes your blood sugar causing your body to release massive amounts of insulin, then making the blood sugar plummet and increasing the cravings for sugar even more.

One thing that researches did not mention is just exactly how many carbohydrate and fat calories in the whole meal came from dessert, were they only from dessert, or were they just a small addition to other, better carbohydrate options – an important factor in the whole equation that should not have been omitted.

By the way, the only reason why sugar might satisfy sweet and fat cravings (though in case of just sugar it is only a short-lasting effect) is when your diet is seriously out of balance, you have nutritional deficiencies, candida or parasites, or you have been working out long or hard without replenishing your glycogen stores by consuming adequate amounts of carbohydrates afterwards. A comment here on sweet breakfast: many people (including yours truly) do not feel like eating meat and vegetables in the morning and would rather have something “sweet”. But that’s when natural foods like fruit, yogurt, oatmeal, wholegrain minimally processed breads, nut butters, honey and low-sugar 100% fruit spreads come in, if that’s what you crave. Dessert, in a true sense of the word, should hardly be a main option for breakfast as part of a healthy diet.

So what conclusion will most readers draw from reading the headlines (which is the only thing a majority of people read these days anyway)? That not only is it OK, but downright advisable, to have sweets for breakfast, because it will help them with their battle of the bulge. And, of course, they will be dead wrong and most will find themselves in even deeper trouble following such an insane advice.

The science and resulting lengthy advice on what to eat for breakfast is beyond the scope of this article (and it will differ from person to person), but one thing is for sure: DON’T TAKE WHAT YOU READ IN THE MEDIA AS GOOD ADVICE, EVEN IF IT CLAIMS TO BE A SCIENTIFIC STUDY (AND ESPECIALLY IF IT DEFIES COMMON SENSE), AND LOOK FOR MORE RELIABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION WHEN YOUR HEALTH IS AT STAKE. This, however, is a whole other endeavor, and a whole other story, since most sources you have been told are trustworthy unfortunately are not.

When it comes to your own health, do the research, and take your own responsibility. The results are worth it.


Here’s the link to the original article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2164976/Dessert-breakfast-HELPS-diet-beating-cravings.html

JACK LALANNE, APOLO OHNO, DR. DANIEL AMEN – Part 1

THREE INCREDIBLE PEOPLE, THREE INCREDIBLE LIFE STORIES

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

Jack LaLanne's wife, Elaine with me at the IDEA World Fitness Convention

 Recently, I attended the biggest annual event in the fitness industry – the IDEA World Fitness Convention, in Los Angeles. I have been a fan of the convention for many years, with its amazing array of lectures, workshops and workouts, as well as a large scale expo showcasing everything new and hot in the fitness world.

IDEA Health and Fitness Association will be celebrating its 30-th anniversary next year. I am proud to be a member of the organization that has helped bring the status of health and fitness professionals of every specialty to a completely new and higher level. The organization has 55,000 members worldwide and 5000 of them were present at the recent convention. It is not only inspiring to see so many like-minded people under one roof, but more than anything, it is uplifting and heartwarming to see that so many people of all ages, from all over the world, are committed to spreading the word about health through exercise. Now, more than ever before, the world needs us, as obesity epidemic, as well diabetes, heart disease and other lifestyle related diseases, have reached alarming proportions.

“INSPIRE THE WORLD TO FITNESS” is the recent initiative undertaken by IDEA. It has met with great enthusiasm on the part of all of us who see the devastating results of the health crisis worldwide. Each year, during a special keynote address, the organization honors individuals who, in some special way, have inspired the world to fitness and health. This year, IDEA bestowed an inaugural Jack LaLanne Award, though posthumously, to Jack LaLanne for introducing the country to weight training and helping to spread the knowledge about the importance of regular physical activity.

JACK LALANNE was 97 years old when he died of complications from pneumonia. His sudden death came almost as a shock since he was always a symbol of eternal health and longevity. A sickly teenager, who lived on a diet of sweets,  in rather poor health, whose doctors did not predict a long life, was so inspired by a lecture by one of the famous nutritionists of the 1930-ies, Paul Bragg that he changed his diet almost instantaneously and started working out on a regular basis. Within a short period of time, he realized that his life had changed forever. The incredible strength, vigor and energy, and almost inhuman acts of endurance he became known for, were well documented by the US and world media for many years. He was the first person to have an exercise show on TV. He opened the first real weight training gym in Northern California. He was the one to develop many of the exercise machines currently used in health clubs. He was a spokes person for healthy nutrition and daily exercise, often before doctors knew much about either one. In the early years, many of them spoke furiously against him and his recommendations. He was the one to prove, year after year, that one’s age doesn’t matter when it comes to working out – whether you are young or old, a man or a woman. He showed that exercise, and especially strength training, has amazing anti-aging benefits: being old doesn’t have to mean being weak, sick, and dependant. He set out to prove, by his own example, that if one pays attention to good nutrition and takes care of one’s body, one can remain youthful, energetic, and full of stamina well into the 90-ies and beyond. He worked out every day in the early morning to remain in great condition until his death. His contribution to the health of Americans (and most likely many other people around the world who had heard of him), has been enormous.

Jack’s wife Elaine accepted the award on his behalf. At 85 years old, she is one vibrant and spunky lady. After giving her acceptance speech and sharing some jokes and interesting stories about Jack, she dropped on the floor and started doing push-ups to standing ovation from the audience.

 Jack LaLanne will always remain a symbol of health and, one might say, immortality. But in my mind, more than anything, he will remain a symbol of inner strength and strong motivation it takes to make the decision to be healthy. All of us are capable of it, yet so few of us chose this path. It is not easy, and sometimes requires sacrifices, but in the end it can bring everlasting rewards.

If all of us take care of our own health, there will be so much less suffering in the world; fewer diseases and debilitating conditions; less money spent on health care; more quality time to spend with our families and friends; and more time to enjoy life for all it has to offer.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN HEALTH. YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION TO BE HEALTHY. YOU’VE ALWAYS WANTED TO DO IT. NOW IS YOUR CHANCE.

 The story of Apolo Ohno – an Olympic athlete with zero regrets – coming in the next blog post.

CAN YOU JUST TELL ME WHAT TO EAT?

FROM THE SERIES “ASK THE TRAINER”

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

Well, not exactly. And yes, it is possible, but I like to teach my clients about their bodies and encourage them to experiment with themselves and observe how they are feeling on a daily basis. If I were to just give clients a menu to stick to, it might be OK for a short period of time but it will make them slaves to a particular plan. I like to know that my clients are educated enough about food that they can make good healthy choices no matter where they are and what situation they find themselves in. Giving menus can be very helpful when trying to bring someone’s weight down quickly in a very serious way – let’s say for a bodybuilding competition, but those guys usually already know what they are doing (which is not to say it’s always healthy!). It also sometimes helps for a short period of time, when a client needs to understand what a certain amount of food will look and feel like, or more specifically – what appropriate portion sizes are and how can they actually be sufficient. But in general, I am very against telling people what to eat, because it takes the power of their own choice and responsibility away from them and that usually backfires long-term, when there is nobody to hold their hand and be accountable to. Your health is your own responsibility and I like to teach my clients this simple truth from the very beginning of our relationship.

THE SLEEP-WEIGHT CONNECTION

SLEEP LESS – GAIN WEIGHT: HOW THE AMOUNT OF SLEEP AFFECTS YOUR HORMONES AND YOUR PANT SIZE

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter, CPT, LWMC, HLC 2

Every day we are faced with troubling statistics about the health of Americans. We are the fattest nation on Earth, with 65% of us being either obese or overweight. We all know that this very fact increases our susceptibility to so many diseases: heart attacks, strokes, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and insulin resistance, asthma, high cholesterol, metabolic syndrome, cancer, etc., etc. The list goes on and on.

We take more medications than ever in our history, yet we struggle more, not less, not only with diseases, but also depression and, as recent statistics show us, insomnia, or just plain lack of sleep.

Could this fact somehow contribute to our ever-expending waistlines? Could we become slimmer just by sleeping more?

Recent research shows that the answer is YES. A few of the hormones produced by our body are responsible for predisposing us to weight gain when the body is faced with sleep deprivation.

One of them is leptin – a hormone released by the fat cells that tells your brain you’re full and signals satiety. The other one is ghrelin – a peptide secreted by the stomach that stimulates appetite. When people get 7 hours of sleep or more, on average, the amounts of these hormones in the blood remain at their normal levels. With lack of sleep, however, the levels of leptin go down and the levels of ghrelin increase, causing you to be less satisfied after you eat, perceive that you’re still hungry, as well as eat more since your appetite is stimulated. Translation: weight gain.

Interestingly, in the study done on subjects whose sleep was restricted to 4 hours per night for 6 days, the level of plasma leptin so drastically decreased that it was comparable to restricting calories by 900kcal/day for 3 days. These subjects received the exact same amount of calories and had similar levels of physical activity as when they were fully rested (1), which means that the lowered leptin levels signaled a state of famine to the body, even though there were plenty of calories available. Whenever our bodies perceive famine, they start conserving energy and storing calories instead of expending them. Translation: weight gain.

Studies done at the University of Colorado and at Stanford University in California, that measured the levels of the above hormones in sleep deprived people, showed that not only did cravings for high carbohydrate, high calorie foods increased by 45% in the test subjects , but their body fat percentage was also higher. The level of body fat was inversely correlated to their sleep patterns. The weight was the highest in subjects getting the fewest hours of sleep.

The other hormones that may affect your pant size just as much are insulin and cortisol. With sleep deprivation, your body’s ability to use insulin effectively deteriorates, causing insulin resistance and resultant storage of fat. Translation: weight gain.

The findings from a Dutch study conducted by Esther Donga, director of Leiden Medical Center in the Netherlands and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM), showed that partial sleep restriction during a single night reduced some types of insulin sensitivity by 19 to 25 percent. (2)

"Our data indicate that insulin sensitivity is not fixed in healthy (people), but depends on the duration of sleep in the preceding night," the author wrote in the study.

"In fact it is tempting to speculate that the negative effects of multiple nights of shortened sleep on glucose tolerance can be reproduced, at least in part, by just one sleepless night."

In a study conducted by U.S. scientists published in 2009, people who slept less than six hours a night were 4.5 times more likely to develop abnormal blood sugar readings in six years compared with those who slept longer. In fact, studies on glucose levels in sleep deprived people show that “….less than 1 week of sleep restriction can result in a prediabetic state in young, healthy subjects”. (3) Translation: weight gain.

Hormone cortisol, or stress hormone, as it is commonly known, might have something to do with our expending waistlines as well. Cortisol generally has the tendency to make the body store fat, especially in the abdomen area.

Recent studies looked at the impact of chronic partial sleep deprivation on hormones, metabolism and immune function. The first documented effect of partial sleep loss was an increase in the early evening levels of cortisol. (4, 5) This is likely the direct cause of the development of insulin resistance, a huge factor in both diabetes and obesity. (6) Translation: weight gain.

On the other hand, thyroid-stimulating hormone, or TSH, was hugely decreased during the night in sleep deprived subjects, with the overall mean levels reduced by more than 30%. The result would be a drastically decreased metabolic rate and a much smaller amount of calories burnt. Translation: weight gain.

The secretion of Growth Hormone, or GH, which has anti-insulin like effects, was also altered and might therefore adversely impact glucose tolerance. Most likely translation: weight gain.

It turns out that lack of sleep has much more profound influence on metabolic regulation than previously thought. So make sure you get at least 8 hours of good quality sleep each night and you might find that your struggle with weight is going to get much easier. If only we could just wake up 5 pounds lighter……oh well, at least we can dream about it.

References:

1. Spiegel K, Leproult R, L'Hermite-Baleriaux M, et al. Leptin levels are dependent on sleep duration: relationships with sympatho-vagal balance, carbohydrate regulation, cortisol and TSH. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:5762-5771. Abstract

2. Esther Donga, Marieke van Dijk, J. Gert van Dijk, Nienke R. Biermasz, Gert-Jan Lammers, Klaas W. van Kralingen, Eleonara P. M. Corssmit and Johannes A. Romijn. A Single Night of Partial Sleep Deprivation Induces Insulin Resistance in Multiple Metabolic Pathways in Healthy Subjects. Departments of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases (E.D., M.v.D., N.R.B., E.P.M.C., J.A.R.), Neurology (J.G.v.D., G.-J.L.), and Pulmonology (K.W.v.K.), Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, doi:10.1210/jc.2009-2430 Vol. 95, No. 6 2963-2968

3. Prigeon RL, Kahn SE, Porte D Jr. Changes in insulin sensitivity, glucose effectiveness, and B-cell function in regularly exercising subjects. Metabolism. 1995;44:1259-1263. Abstract

4.Spiegel K, Leproult R, Van Cauter E. Impact of sleep debt on metabolic and endocrine function. Lancet. 1999;354:1435-1439. Abstract

5. Leproult R, Copinschi G, Buxton O, et al. Sleep loss results in an elevation of cortisol levels the next evening, Sleep. 1997;20:865-870.

6. Eve Van Cauter, PhD; Kristen Knutson, PhD;  Rachel Leproult, PhD; Karine Spiegel, PhD. The Impact of Sleep Deprivation on Hormones and Metabolism.. Medscape Neurology and Neurosurgery > Insomnia and Sleep Health Expert Column

1.     Spiegel K, Leproult R, Van Cauter E.

EXERCISE IS MEDICINE

EXERCISE IS MEDICINE

CALLING ALL PHYSICIANS: GET ON BOARD!!!

By Monika Tarkowska-Carter CPT, LWMC, HLC

What do YOU think about exercise? Is it fun and play or pain and suffering? Simple discomfort that needs to be endured or the necessary evil? Something boring you just go through mechanically or something you look forward to? But have you ever thought of exercise as medicine? Well, maybe you should.

Did you know that in 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 365,000 deaths in the US occur annually from poor diet and lack of physical activity? Two-thirds of US adults are either overweight or obese. More than half of US adults do not meet the recommended levels of physical activity. Almost one-fourth of US adults have no leisure-time physical activity at all (1). Maybe it’s time to think about prevention.

Studies repeatedly show that exercise and physical activity can help prevent obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and other chronic conditions. Together, sedentary lifestyle and poor diet contribute to the current obesity epidemic as well as increased morbidity and mortality. However, overweight or obese people are not universally at risk for metabolic or cardiovascular diseases and other associated chronic conditions. Many of these people (about one-third) do not show any clinical or subclinical risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as dyslipidemia, hypertension or elevated blood sugar. The strongest predictor of CVD risk is low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness (1).

Earlier this year I attended the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) Health and Fitness summit in Austin, TX where Steven N. Blair, Ph.D., FACSM (past President of ACSM) gave a standing ovation lecture to fitness professionals entitled: “Fitness or Fatness: Which is more important to health?” Dr Blair has done a tremendous amount of research on the subject showing that the fitness level of an individual is a much greater predictor of disease and mortality than overweight or obesity alone. Obese individuals who are fit have much lower risk of mortality than lean individuals who are unfit, and low cardiorespiratory fitness in overweight or obese people is as hazardous as other risk factors. He went as far as suggesting that no papers should be published, nor research project funded, on obesity and any health outcome unless physical activity/fitness has been accurately measured and taken into account in the analyses (2).  Dr. Blair published over 450 scientific papers, many of them on the subject of physical activity and its prevention of various diseases. One of them showed that physically fit women were less likely to die from breast cancer (3).

At the same conference, Ted Mitchell, MD, FACSM (President and CEO of the Copper Clinic) showed how many conditions were affected by the lack of fitness. Among them were: joint pain, fatigue, headaches, heartburn, snoring, decreased sex drive and sex problems, stress, anxiety and depression (4).

With all the research available on the subject why isn’t more being done about prevention? We live in a disease driven society. Disease is a lot more profitable than health. Drug companies make huge profits on medications and medical treatments. Don’t get me wrong – they are needed and often life-saving but prescribing medications for every condition that could have been easily prevented in the first place is becoming more and more prevalent. Prevention involves lifestyle changes, not just diagnostics. Everyone can and should practice prevention in the form of a healthy lifestyle. It is free and available to all. Better nutrition and higher levels of physical activity don’t increase cost but bring a huge payoff in terms of lower health-care cost, increased productivity and greater quality of life. The main keys to health, longevity and disease prevention are: getting more active, eating a little healthier and incorporating some kind of movement into your everyday life. In a very real sense, exercise is medicine. At this point, however, little is being done by organized medicine to increase physical activity among patients.

As a member of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and a professional in the health and fitness community, I am committed to encouraging physical activity for the health benefits it brings to all people. Exercise and physical activity are powerful medicine helping prevent and treat numerous chronic conditions. Significant health benefits can be achieved with at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity most days of the week.

A recent survey by ACSM reveals that, while 4 out of 10 physicians talk to their patients about the importance of exercise, they don’t always offer suggestions on the best ways to be physically active. According to the same survey, nearly 65% of patients would be more interested in exercising to stay healthy if advised by their doctor and given additional resources.

A CALL TO PHYSICIANS

If there was a drug that could so powerfully fight America’s obesity epidemic and the health implications it brings, prevent and treat dozens of diseases would you prescribe it to your patients? Certainly.

This is the impetus behind Exercise is Medicine, an initiative from ACSM. One objective is to encourage YOU, the physician, to “prescribe” exercise during patient visits. Please, talk to your patients about exercise and, as appropriate, refer them to qualified fitness professionals. Counseling patients on the benefits of physical activity in their long-term health and well-being is critical and should be a standard part of your practice.

On November 5, 2007 the American Medical Association (AMA) partnered with ACSM to bring the above initiative into fruition. However, this is just the beginning. A lot more needs to be done and we rely on you for help and active participation. There is a great need to merge the fitness industry with the healthcare industry. Why do these two worlds so seldom interact? All healthcare practitioners “…must insist that the world healthcare systems make as big (or bigger) commitment to getting patients active as they make to getting them to take medications or submit to various procedures that have less scientific evidence supporting their benefit. With a wealth of evidence in hand, it is time for organized medicine to join with fitness professionals to ensure that patients around the world take their exercise pill. There is no better way to improve health and longevity” (5).

You can find additional resources about the initiative at: http://exerciseismedicine.org/physicians.htm. Additional information about the American College of Sports Medicine is available at: http://www.acsm.org/. On May 3, 2010 the National Physical Activity Plan was launched in Washington DC as a result of cooperation between many health organizations. More information about the plan can be found at: http://physicalactivityplan.org/index.htm. To find a qualified fitness professional in your area please go to: http://www.ideafit.com/fitnessconnect?gclid=CMPR2cOpoaUCFQoBbAodJxvlKA. IDEA Health and Fitness Association is the biggest educational body in the fitness industry and has recently published an online listing of certified professionals. Their certifications, insurance status and CPR/AED skills have been verified so you can be assured that they are qualified. You can search either by zip code and a type of professional you are looking for or check a particular professional by their last name.The highest rated ones appear at the top. If you would rather contact the certifying organization directly here are a few most reputable ones:

1. ACSM (American College of Sports Medicine) - http://www.acsm.org/

2. NASM (National Academy of Sports Medicine) - http://www.nasm.org/

3. NSCA (National Strength and Conditioning Association) - http://www.nsca-lift.org/

4. ACE (American Council on Exercise) - http://www.acefitness.org/

A CALL TO PATIENTS

Please, ask a few questions about your health status the next time you visit your doctor. Are you at a healthy weight? Taking your current health status into consideration, what types of exercise are best and safest for you? Is there a certified trainer you should hire to improve your health?

 *For more information on what to look for when hiring a personal trainer, please refer to my article from November 8, 2010: “Personal Trainers – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”.

A CALL TO PARENTS

Please, give your children the gift of lifelong wellness by being a role model and supporting them in establishing a habit of lifelong physical activity. Have fun being active as a family.

DON’T UNDERESTIMATE EXERCISE – IT’S A POWERFUL DRUG!

References

1. Jan Warren-Findlow, PhD and Steven P. Hooker, PhD. Disentangling the Risks Associated With Weight Status, Diet and Physical Activity. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009 October; 6 (4): A 135

2. Steven N. Blair, MS, PED; Dept of Exercise Science and Epidemiology/Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, Univ. of South Carolina. “Fitness or Fatness: Which is More Important for Health?” – a lecture presented at the ACSM’s 14^th Health and Fitness Summit and Exposition, April 2010, Austin, TX.

3. Peel, J .Brent; Sui, Xuemei; Adams, Swann A.; Herbert, James R.; Hardin, James W.;  Blair, Steven N.  A Prospective Study of Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Breast Cancer Mortality. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 41(4):742-748, April 2009

4. Ted Mitchell, MD, FACSM; President and CEO, Copper Clinic. “Aging with Attitude: The Impact of Exercise on Quality of Life” – a lecture presented at the ACSM’s 14^th Health and Fitness Summit and Exposition, April 2010, Austin, TX.

5. Sallis, Robert J, MD. Exercise is medicine and physicians need to prescribe it! Br. J. Sports. Med; 2009; 43; 3-4.