The Fitness Guru

Two big studies came out last week, one from the good folks at Yale and the other from equally as noble folks at Columbia, in partnership with the Children’s Hospital of Boston.

Both studies took a look at the importance of infancy on obesity in adults. As I have mentioned, and as I am sure you know, the obesity epidemic continues to climb, with the new numbers released last week showing that over 30% of the residents in nine states are obesity– much higher figures than just ten years ago. Doctors, scientists and fitness gurus are all trying to figure out what can be done to stem the tide of unhealthy weight gain.

According to the Yale University study, an individual’s weight is set in the brain before birth. In other words, our size is being wired into our brains in utero. For many people, portions of the brain that would trigger satiety are just not firing properly, causing those individuals to eat more.

“It appears that this base wiring of the brain is a determinant of one’s vulnerability to develop obesity,” said Tamas Horvath, chair and professor of comparative medicine and professor of neurobiology and obstetrics & gynecology at Yale School of Medicine, who is also co-director of the Yale Program in Integrative Cell Signaling and Neurobiology of Metabolism. “These observations add to the argument that it is less about personal will that makes a difference in becoming obese, and, it is more related to the connections that emerge in our brain during development.”

Horvath also mentions that this cerebral wiring leads to other problems. “Those who are vulnerable to diet-induced obesity also develop a brain inflammation, while those who are resistant, do not,” he said. “This emerging inflammatory response in the brain may also explain why those who once developed obesity have a harder time losing weight.”

Meanwhile, over at Columbia, researchers studying births over a period of 14 years (and over a half a million births) found that babies who were heavier at birth were much more likely to become obese adults. The researchers worked with the premise that a healthy weight increase while pregnant was about 18-22 pounds. As the expectant mothers would put on more weight, so too grew the chances that the baby would be large, with the likelihood one and a half times with a gain of 40 pounds and more than doubled with a gain of 52 pounds.

“These are the most important nine months of life from the standpoint of development,” said Dr. David Ludwig of Children’s Hospital Boston. “Our cells, tissues, even brain structures are being formed and fine-tuned so that having too high blood sugar and other abnormal metabolic influences can affect that infant not just at the moment but potentially throughout life.

“For an adult to gain an extra 10 pounds and then maybe lose it doesn’t cause permanent changes in that individual’s biology,” Ludwig said. “But, for a fetus to gain too much weight during key [moments] may permanently alter the brain circuits that affect appetite and metabolism, fat tissues or other parts of the body that have a permanent role in body weight regulation.”

Didja know?? America’s pet population is growing– not in number but in size. I’ve mentioned that 67% of the US adult population is now overweight or obese and the numbers are equally as frightening for the child and adolescent populations. Now according to the American Journal of Veterinary Research, one out of three dogs and cats in America are now obese or overweight. One reason is that food manufacturers load food with fat to make it more appealing. But also sedentary owners lead to sedentary pets. So cut back on the amount of food you feed the little darling and take Fido for a run–for both of you!

(Cats? I don’t know about cats. You can try a leash and a quick run but….well……recipe for disaster….)

In a new study released in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, doctors have found that TV commercials are playing with our decision making process when it comes time to eat. Though that may not come as much of a surprise, just how much we are being toyed with might blow your mind.

Doctors took a look at 84 hours of prime-time programming and 12 hours of Saturday-morning cartoons broadcast over the major U.S. networks during one month in 2004. They then created a meal planned based on a 2,000 calorie-per-day base line. People eating the advertised foods were consuming 20 times the government’s RDA of fat and 25 times the amount of sugar. Let me repeat that: if you eat what you see on TV, you will eat an entire month’s worth of sugar in one day. ONE DAY! That basically turns the recommended food pyramid upside down, creating the largest portion of daily calories to come from fats and sugars. Oops!

The TV diet also provided less than half the RDA of fruits, vegetables, and dairy.

The 775 foods advertised on TV contained inadequate amounts of 12 essential nutrients, such as calcium, potassium, fiber, vitamins D and E, and magnesium. But the foods are not completely lacking: they do provide an abundance of saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium, which can lead to an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and stroke.

One of the study’s leaders, Michael Mink at Armstrong Atlantic State University in Savannah, Ga, believes that if TV advertising can lead viewers down a path to unhealthy choices, perhaps the same advertising can lead to healthier choices if they are about fruits and vegetables. However, studies have shown that past education campaigns that were designed to inform the public about the heart risks associated with diets high in cholesterol and fat and encourage consumers to choose low-fat versions of foods were not successful in getting people to change their eating habits.

Tobacco companies can’t advertise on TV. How is that foods that are as long term detrimental for one’s health may be splattered across the screen morning, noon and night?

McDonald’s held their annual shareholders meeting on May 20th. At the meeting, before an audience of very excited, supportive McDonald’s stock holders, CEO Jim Skinner announced that the corporation had no intention whatsoever of shelving the iconic clown, Ronald, from their promotions or advertisements.

If you follow the blog, you’ll remember that, not that long ago, a group called Corporate Accountability International starting petitioning for Ronald to go the way of Joe Camel. Their feelings were that the clown enticed children toward a lifestyle of unhealthy eating, adding to our national obesity epidemic.

“He is a force for good,” Skinner said, adding that the nearly 50-year-old clown is an ambassador for the McDonald’s brand and its Ronald McDonald House Charities. “He communicates effectively with children and families around balanced, active lifestyles. He does not hawk food.”

The overall response from all of you was that parents bear the burden of watching over what the kids are eating and, consequently, blaming a poor clown is unfair.

I’m not quite sure. Ronald certain plants a seed in the kids’ heads that the food is fun and playful, without any regard for the health aspects. It does become slightly more alluring that way. Parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids are eating. But to suggest that Ronald is a “force for good”? That’s just irritating. Its like suggesting that Joe Camel is ok because some of the tobacco money is now used for cancer research.

The shareholders booed the members of CAI when they suggesting retiring Ronald. “Ronald McDonald is a pied piper drawing youngsters all over the world to food that is high in fat, sodium and calories,” said Alfred David Klinger, a retired Chicago physician who volunteers with the organization. “On the surface, Ronald is there to give children enjoyment in all sorts of way with toys, games and food. But Ronald McDonald is dangerous, sending insidious messages to young people.”

Didja know??

According to Japanese scientists, vinegar may help in the battle to lose weight. The main chemical componant of vinegar, acetic acid, may help to switch on genes that produce fat fighting proteins, thus winning the battle of the bulge.

So?…..What are you putting on your salad for lunch?

In Santa Clara County, California, there is a new proposal to remove all toys from fast food meals that are deemed unhealthy. Believing that the toys help to lure children to meals that are high in calories, fat and/or sodium, the County Supervisor Ken Yeager wants the toys removed.

“People ask why I want to take toys out of the hands of children,” said Yeager, who is president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. “But we now know that 70% of the kids that are overweight or obese will be overweight or obese as adults. Why would we want to burden anybody with a lifetime of chronic illness?”

But the California Restaurant Association, which is against the ban, has run a series of newspaper ads, including one with a little girl with her hands cuffed behind her back as she clutches a stuffed bear. If County Supervisor Yeager “wants to take away the toys that are making kids fat, take away Xboxes, take away PlayStations, take away flat-screen TVs,” said Daniel Conway, spokesman for the industry group.

So what do you think?

 Loading ...

And now……the Top 10 Lamest Happy Meals….

I mentioned it yesterday in passing but apparently, I am behind the trend: how is it that Camel has to retire Joe Camel because of the ill effects he has on children, but McD’s can pitch fast food with Ronald McDonald? Corporate Accountability International, a watchdog group that helped retire Joe Camel, has now set its sights on Ronny. “For nearly 50 years, Ronald McDonald has hooked kids on unhealthy foods spurring a deadly epidemic of diet-related diseases,” said Deborah Lapidus, the senior organizer at Corporate Accountability International, as reported to CNN. “Ultimately the report makes the case that it’s time that McDonald’s stop directing fast food to kids. Really, Ronald deserves a break and so do we.”

McDonald’s counters that, not only does Ronald give talks to children about the benefits of healthy eating and physical activity, but he is also the ambassador for many of the company’s charities.

But therein lies the problem: though Ronald may make appearances at all these functions, his presence also drives kids (and their parents) to fast food outlets. And, in an age of increasing childhood obesity and related problems, that creates a paradox. It’s not unlike the tobacco companies spending billions on anti-smoking campaigns.

…….though the tobacco companies have been forced to do that by the courts…….and almost always choose to keep their names out of the campaigns.

Corporate Accountability International will be holding a mock retirement luncheon for the clown. No word yet on what they will be serving.

Finally. In an online preview of the journal Nature Neuroscience, researchers have discovered that the compulsive eating behavior in obese rats is similar to the behavior found in cocaine and heroin addicts. The doctors would give one group of rats an unlimited supply of chocolate, bacon and other assorted “junk” food. As the rats became heavier and heavier, they were far less likely to stop eating, even when knowing that going for the calorie-laden foods would result in an electrical shock to the paw. The doctors post a theory that the over-consumption of these ultra-palatable foods causes a addiction -like neuroadaptive response in the brain which then drives compulsive eating.

What does that mean?

It means that eating junk food is as addictive as any drug. I am so tired of hearing the high-and-mighty complain of a about the nation’s heavy population. But I am equally as fed up with the heavy lobby pushing the idea that being heavy is just fine. If you are addicted to these foods, there is only one way out: you have to admit your addiction and deal with it accordingly. But understand: its not personal weakness; its biochemical.

Junk food, sweets and the like are as addictive as tobacco, cocaine or any other substance that causes this sort of reaction in the receptors of the brain. I’ve been telling this to my clients for years. Though the resulting weight gain is frowned upon, for whatever reason the culprits, the horrible foods themselves, get away relatively free. Until this behavior is accepted as addictive and as dangerous as drugs or alcohol, the behavior will forever repeat itself.

But honestly……can you see the FDA restricting your access to Twinkies?

The only way out of the cycle?

The same way you’d have to quit drugs or alcohol. Go cold turkey. You’re going to go through a serious transition phase– the “sugar crankies” I call ‘em: you’ll be depressed, sluggish, irritable (I always recommend that you tell friends and family what you are up to because the mood changes can be intense) and you are going to crave a sweet– chocolates, orange juice, even baked goods.

It is especially important to keep in mind that, like any addiction, you are going to be prone to relapse. This behavior is one reason why people can lose a lot of weight and then put it back on. When an alcoholic quits drinking, that’s it. He or she knows that one drink can start the cycle all over again. And the same would be true of all the garbage that is out in the market place to gorge on. Companies can spend millions and millions of dollars designing foods that will specifically appeal to those cravings, and even more millions figuring out ways to get you to buy them.

And the percentage of the population most likely to feel the brunt of this “food science” and accompanying marketing genius? Our children.

We didn’t allow Joe Camel to pitch cigarettes to kids. How is it we’re okay with Ronald McDonald?

There ain’t no such thing as a healthy muffin top. And there ain’t no such thing as “just a little drink” when you’re alcoholic. Period.

Watch the video. Pass it on.

One of my favorite writers, Brian Wansink, has just released a new study. Brian is the author of author of Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think, a wonderfully funny and informative book that takes a look at just how much we eat on a day-to-day basis without even realizing it.

Well, it seems that Brian’s brother Craig is a theologian. They decided to take a look at paintings of the Last Supper created over the last millennium. Using an interesting measurement, plate/food size relative to the size of the figures’ heads, the brothers have concluded that the food portions being served are getting larger and larger through the years. Though the Bible only makes reference to wine and bread being served, the meals depicted seem to grow over the years to include lamb, fish and meat. The size of the main dish grew 69%; the size of the plate, 66%, and the bread, 23%, between the years 1000 and 2000. No verdict yet on the increase in calories, but, honestly, do they really need all that starch?

Is life imitating art, or vice versa?

The study, published in April’s International Journal of Obesity, has not been met with nods of approval. “ (It’s) not very meaningful science,” said Martin Binks, a behavioral health psychologist and a consultant at Duke University Medical Center. “We have real life examples of the increase in portion size—all you have to do is look at what’s being sold at fast-food restaurants.”

That’s very true, Dr. Binks. But its always fun to see where the Wansink Boys are wandering next. Jesus and Supersizing? Kinda reminds me of……

As a parent, I want what’s best for my kids. And I am pretty sure that almost all parents would agree with me. The idea of our children becoming unhealthy is, at best, terrifying. But, as the percentage of children battling weight-related problems continues to increase, weight itself is a harbinger of problems that can occur later in life. And, according to new studies and reported in the LA Times, major factors in children’s weight-related issues may be in place prior to birth.

According to a study from 2008 published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the odds of a 7-year old being overweight were 48% higher if his or her mother exceeded recommended weight gain guidelines during pregnancy. Another more recent study found that obesity risks rose with a weight to length ratio in the first year of life: if a child was in the 75% for length but 95% for weight, the risks for later weight-related problems increased. The  reasoning is that as the brain is developing, it may be programmed to expect more food in order to feel sated. And the study team found that obese children as young as three had higher levels of a protein marker for the inflammation that leads to heart disease.

We have many women pass through the Guru during pregnancy. Without question, they take the idea of health and nutrition very seriously and, with the help of their doctors, seek to maintain balance in their food choices. Yet there is always temptation and many women might choose to go crazy with “cravings”, reaching for the Snickers bar instead of a piece of fruit.

This pic has been photoshopped for dramatic effect. Don't bother sending me evil notes

I recall about ten years ago, I had a wonderful woman, then in her 70′s, who used to come to my aerobics classes. Blanche. Blanche would casually regail us with stories of the three children she had and her wonderful pregnancies. She was able to keep her weight down by using speed. Hey, she would say, it worked, and the kids were alright. This was the same period that expectant moms could also be found lighting up their ciggies if they were stressed out. It took a little time, but both speed and tobacco fell out of favor with expectant mothers.

I hope that the new trend will be the development of healthy eating habits, throughout pregnancy and infancy, allowing kids the opportunity to start off on the right foot.