Monday, November 13, 2017

Is It Ever OK To Cheat On My Diet?

This is a question I get quite often from my weight loss clients. Not only is it OK to splurge now and again, I actually insist on it!

There are lots of reasons why it is perfectly fine to go off your diet a few times each week:

1) You don’t need to be perfect on your diet to attain your weight loss and health improvement goals. If you are good 90% of the time, you will do awesome. If you eat 21 meals a week, being good 90% of the time leaves 2 meals a week to have some fun.

2) There are times in your life where eating junk food is just fun and appropriate. When I am at a Jets or Islanders game, I am not eating a can of black beans with nuts and a piece of fruit. It is just not going to happen.

3) It is not realistic to be perfect on your diet, so why set yourself up for failure? A big part of my weight loss program is strictly limiting refined carbohydrates like bread, white rice, pasta and desserts. If I told a client that they could never, ever eat any of these foods again, even the most motivated of them would last a few weeks or at most a few months. However, knowing you can have these foods a few times a week makes it much easier to stay on the program long term, which is necessary if you want to hit your goals. At the end of the day, being able to go off your diet twice a week significantly improves long-term adherence.

4) Having the ability to go off your diet gives you options when you are not in control of your food choices. For example, being invited to a wedding or a dinner party can be a big problem if you are trying to be tight with your diet. You don’t really know what you are going to be served. Using one of your splurge meals at the event will allow you to eat whatever is there and not worry about going off your plan.

5) It may even help you to lose weight to overeat a bit twice a week. While I have seen no hard research data on this at all, I feel that overeating a few times a week may relax your body’s natural defense mechanism to a chronic decrease in calories.

I do have just a couple of rules for my clients when it comes to splurging:

1) These are splurge meals, not splurge days. In other words, these are not 10 hour affairs, just 1 meal.

2) No back to back splurges. Keeping a stable blood sugar is the key to long-term calorie reduction. Splurging two days in a row can really throw off your blood sugar and kick start hunger and cravings. I have my clients have a splurge meal midweek on Wednesday and another on Saturday.

3) I have my clients avoid sugar even on splurge meals. It is just too addictive for most people who are trying to lose weight. However, sugar free desserts are permitted on splurge meals for those who have a sweet tooth.

Protein Supplements And Weight Maintenance

The Study
Increasing dietary protein has been shown to improve satiety and decrease subsequent energy intake. Some studies have shown that increasing protein as a percent of calories results in more weight loss when compared to lower protein diets. However, the role of protein supplementation in weight maintenance is not known. After an eight-week weight loss period, 220 subjects consumed a supplement of 45 grams per day of whey protein, whey protein plus calcium, soy protein or maltodextrin (which served as the control group). Subjects were followed for weight regain for a period of 24 weeks. By the end of follow-up, there were no significant differences in weight regain among the 4 groups. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017; 106:684-97.

Take Home Message
Protein serves a lot of really important functions and it is important to include a lean source of it at every meal.  However, it looks like aiding in weight maintenance is not one of these functions. There is no need to supplement with protein shakes. Just get your protein from whole food sources, as nature intended.



Glycemic Index, Satiety And Subsequent Energy Intake

The Study
Thirty-seven children between the ages of 9 and 12 were given a variety of different breakfasts for 3 consecutive days on separate occasions. One of these was a low glycemic index breakfast and another was a high glycemic index breakfast. After each meal, satiety was measured and the students had access to an all you can eat lunch buffet. The results were fascinating. Compared to the low glycemic index breakfast, subjects consumed 145 more calories at lunch when they ate the high glycemic index breakfast. Hunger was significantly greater after the high glycemic breakfast on 2 of the 3 days measured. Pediatrics 2003; 112:e414-19.

Take Home Message
This is an older study that I came across while researching my 4th book and it is a powerful one. What is really interesting to me is that both the high and low glycemic index breakfasts that they served these kids had the same number of calories. The fact that the students ate that much more after the high GI meal is a powerful example of how important carbohydrate quality is to subsequent energy intake.

In my opinion, a low GI approach to weight loss is by far the most effective strategy. I have been using it successfully with clients for almost 2 decades. A one meal difference of 145 calories is absolutely huge. If this happened 3 times a day for a month, you’ve got an excess of over 13,000 calories, which theoretically would result in a 3.7 pound weight gain, each and every month. 

Keeping your blood sugar stable with a low glycemic load diet is essential if weight loss is your goal. To do this, focus on fruits, vegetables, legumes and whole grains for your carbohydrates while limiting bread, pasta, white rice and sugar. Also make sure to add in healthy sources of protein and fat at every meal. You’ll be amazed at how much less hungry you are in between meals.

Product Review: Stamina 1690 Power Tower

Most of us are too busy to get to the gym every day, so working out at home is the key to working out consistently. You don’t need a lot of equipment or space to set up a serviceable home gym. When I was in grad school in Boston, I had a foldable bench, a Bowflex adjustable dumbbell system and a Gazelle Edge elliptical trainer. All of this equipment could be stored in the closet of my studio apartment.

However, if you have a basement or a garage as a dedicated workout space, you have the luxury of adding a few pieces of equipment that can really add variety to your at-home workout. Now that I live in a house in the suburbs, I have a nice sized basement with plenty of room for fitness equipment.

Today I’d like to review a great piece of equipment for those that have a little more space to dedicate to their home gym. It is called the Stamina 1690 Power Tower. This is a simply designed multi-station home gym that allows you to perform a variety of body weight exercises.

Pros
1) Inexpensive. The Power Tower is currently available on Amazon for $89.99. This is an amazing value.

2) Easy to put together. I put this together myself in a short amount of time and without any help. 

3) Versatile. You can perform a lot of different exercises with this system, including; pull-ups, chin-ups, dips, neutral grip push-ups, and a number of ab exercises.

4) Very sturdy.

5) Looks sharp

Cons
1) The only con I can come up with is that it takes up a fair amount of space. You have to make sure your ceiling is high enough to accommodate the 81 inches from ceiling to floor. I could do this comfortably in my basement, but I had to measure first.

Do I Recommend The Stamina 1690 Power Tower?
Absolutely. If you have the space, the Stamina 1690 Power Tower will make your home gym feel a lot more like an actual gym. Muscle confusion is key to a proper resistance training program. The more exercises that you have to choose from, the better your results are going to be.
If you want to pick up the Power Tower, it is available on Amazon.com, here is the link

Disclosure: I am not affiliated with the company that makes the Stamina 1690 Power Tower and make no money if you buy it.


Thursday, September 14, 2017

Individual foods and risk of mortality

The Study
We have known for decades that our dietary choices can positively or negatively impact our long-term risk of chronic disease.  A recently published meta-analysis summarizes the results from hundreds of studies that investigated the association between different food groups and all-cause mortality. The results were interesting:

Foods that reduced risk of mortality
1 serving per day of nuts reduced risk of mortality by 15%
1 serving per day of legumes reduced risk of mortality by 10%
1 serving per day of whole grains reduced risk of mortality by 9%
1 serving per day of fish reduced risk of mortality by 7%
1 serving per day of vegetables reduced risk of mortality by 6%
1 serving per day of fruits reduced risk of mortality by 6%

Foods that increased risk of mortality
1 serving per day of red meat increased risk of mortality by 16%
1 serving per day of processed meat increased risk of mortality by 12%
1 serving per day of sugar sweetened beverages increased risk of mortality by 7%
1 serving per day of eggs increased risk of mortality by 7%
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017; 105:1462-73.

Take Home Message
The take home message here is pretty simple: eat more of the foods that decrease mortality risk and less of the foods that increase it.  It is easy to focus solely on results when you are trying to lose weight and lose sight of the long-term health consequences of your dietary choices.  Many popular fad diets are guilty of this.  The goal is to eat in a way that helps you lose weight and reduces your long-term risk of chronic disease. This way you’ll have a lot longer to enjoy your fit new body!


Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Is intermittent fasting healthy?

The Study
Fasting or skipping meals has become a popular strategy for losing weight. However, the long-term health effects of this practice are not known. A recently published investigation in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looked into this question. In this crossover trial, 17 normal weight subjects underwent 3 separate 24-hour interventions: a day that they skipped breakfast, a day that they skipped dinner and a day that they ate three conventional meals.  Energy was measured in a respiration chamber and calories were kept constant on each of the three days. Blood glucose, insulin and inflammatory factors were measured throughout the study protocol. The results were quite interesting. Compared to 3 normal meals per day, when subjects skipped breakfast, they showed signs of disturbed glucose homeostasis and increased inflammation. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2017; 105:1351-61.

Take Home Message
This is the second recent publication that has shown a disturbed glucose homeostasis with meal skipping or fasting. Disturbed glucose homeostasis has the potential to increase risk of type 2 diabetes. The increased inflammation found in this investigation with breakfast skipping is also problematic as inflammation has been associated with many chronic diseases. 

I don’t recommend meal skipping or fasting as a weight loss strategy to my clients. Besides the negative health consequences outlined in this study and others, it has also been shown to slow down metabolism in a recent investigation. When metabolism slows down, the risk of weight gain increases because you are burning fewer calories each and every day. 

If weight loss is your goal, eat 3 nutritious meals each day. In addition, hit your cardio goals and lift weights at least twice per week. Be patient with your rate of weight loss, there are no quick fixes.

Diet soda and risk of stroke

The Controversy
A few weeks back, just about every major newspaper ran a headline that diet soda consumption causes stroke and dementia. The papers were referring to an investigation that was recently published in the journal Stroke.

The Study
In this study, 2,888 older men and women from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort were followed for 10 years (Reference 1). Beverage intake was measured by means of a food frequency questionnaire that was filled out 3 times during the 10 year follow-up. When compared to subjects that never drank diet soda, subjects that had one or more diet sodas daily had a 296% greater risk of ischemic stroke and a 289% greater risk of Alzheimer’s disease. These are very big increases and the media went crazy with the headlines. But in typical fashion, the newspapers did not tell the whole story here. 

There are some pretty big problems with the methods in this study and a far better designed study performed the same analysis and came up with very different results.

Let’s start with some of the problems with the methods in the Framingham investigation:
1) For a prospective cohort study, this was a pretty small investigation that included only 2,888 subjects and 97 cases in the stroke analysis. The dementia analysis included 1,484 subjects and only 81 cases.

2) There was significant loss to follow-up. Only 72% of subjects completed all 3 food frequency questionnaires.

3) The subjects who drank a lot of diet soda were not nearly as healthy as those that did not. They had a higher waist to hip ratio, body mass index, had more hypertension, lower HDL cholesterol, more diabetes, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular disease, exercised less and consumed more saturated fat. This would not be a problem if confounders were well measured and adequately controlled for. In my opinion, they were not, which brings us to points 4 and 5.

4) There was an incomplete measurement of confounders, particularly those related to diet. 

5) I believe there were some problems with the modeling in this investigation.

For me, these 5 factors really hurt the generalizability of this study. Harvard University published a study on diet soda consumption and risk of stroke that was much better designed and came up with a very different result (Reference 2). Let’s see some of the ways that this second study was better designed.

1) The Harvard study included 84,085 women from the Nurses Health Study for 28 years of follow-up and 43,371 men from the Health Professional Follow-up Study for 22 years of follow-up. This is compared to only to 2,888 subjects in the Framingham study. The Harvard study included 4,354 strokes while the Framingham study had only 97.

2) Follow-up rates for the Harvard Study were 96% in men and 97% in women. In the Framingham cohort, only 72% of subjects completed all food frequency questionnaires.

3) The Harvard study measured and controlled for many more confounders than the Framingham study. Here is a list of confounders that the Harvard group included that the Framingham group left out of their study: consumption of red meat, poultry, fish, nuts, whole and low fat dairy, fruits and vegetables, cereal fiber, alcohol, parental history of myocardial infarction, trans fat, multivitamin use, aspirin use, vitamin E use, and menopausal status. The Framingham study controlled for diet by including a variable that measured how closely subjects followed the 2005 dietary guidelines. To me, this is inadequate because the guidelines from 2005 don’t really reflect all that can be healthy about one’s diet.

4) The Harvard study included every possible variable in the final model. In other words, they controlled for every potential confounder in the statistical model that they presented in their final results. In the Framingham study, the researchers did not include waist to hip ratio in their final model. This is a major confounder of the relationship between diet soda consumption and risk of stroke because people who are overweight have a much higher risk of stroke and people that are overweight are often more likely to drink diet soda (in an effort to lose weight). I’m not quite sure why this was left out, but the fact that they did not measure for all potential confounders and did not include weight in their final model leaves open the strong possibility of residual confounding in this study.

The Harvard study found a 16% increased risk of stroke for those that consumed 1 or more diet sodas per day when compared to those that did not drink diet soda. This is a far cry from the 296% increased risk found in Framingham. In my opinion, the Harvard results are much more in line with the true association between diet soda consumption and risk of stroke. 

Conclusions And Recommendations
I apologize if this post is a little long or technical. The media has a way of just running with a headline without really understanding the methods or limitations of the study in question. This causes a lot of confusion in my field.

Let me get one thing straight, I am not an advocate for diet soda. It is much better to drink water than any type of soda. I view diet soda the same way as I think of foods like bacon, butter, steak or cheese:  If you eat a ton of these foods, they can cause problems for you. If you have them only occasionally, they are not a major problem. For those that don’t eat sugar at all, an occasional diet soda once or twice a week can be a real treat. 

Incidentally, this level of consumption was not associated with stroke in the better designed Harvard study. In fact, in the discussion section of the Harvard study, the authors mention that the slight increase in risk of stroke with daily diet soda consumption should be interpreted with caution. They mention that there is no known mechanism between diet soda and incident stroke and that in previous analyses in the Harvard cohorts, diet soda has not been associated with weight gain, heart disease, or type 2 diabetes.

References
1) Pase MP, Himali JJ, Beiser AS, et al. Sugar and artificially sweetened beverages and the risks of incident stroke and dementia. Stroke 2017 DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.016027.

2) Bernstein AM, de Koning L, Flint AJ, et al. Soda consumption and the risk of stroke in men and women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2012; 95:1190-9.