Search Weight Loss Topics:

Page 274«..1020..273274275276..280290..»

Home » Diets that Work » Page 274

I'm a food addict. We all are. Our brains are biologically driven to seek and devour high-calorie, fatty foods. The difference is that I have learned how to control those primitive parts of my brain. Anyone can this if they know how. In this article, I will share three steps to help you counteract those primitive parts of your brain that have you chasing high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods. But before you can update your brain's biological software, you've got to understand why it developed in the first place.

Calories = Survival

The brain's desire to binge on rich food is a genetic holdover from the days of hunter-gatherers. Given what scientists know today about our early ancestors it makes sense that our brains are hardwired to fixate on high-calorie foods. It's a survival mechanism. Eating as many calories as possible, whenever possible, allowed our ancestors to store excess calories as fat and survive lean times. That approach worked well for 2.4 million years, but today it's making us sick and fat.

That's because our brains haven't evolved as fast as our food environment. The human brain evolved over 2.5 million years. And, with the exception of the last 10,000 years, people only ate animals they could hunt and wild plants they could gather. Imagine if you could only eat what you caught or picked! The variety of foods hunter-gatherers ate paled in comparison to the 40,000 different food items we can buy in the average big-box grocery store today (1).

No cinnamon buns for them!

And whereas we have easy access to food 24/7, drive-thru meals were not an option for hunter-gatherers. Not to mention that hunting and gathering was hard work. Early humans expended lots of calories acquiring their food, so they needed to eat high-calorie foods to offset the loss. The average hunter-gatherer got up to 60 percent of his calories from animal foods, such as muscle meat, fat, and organ meat, and the other 40 percent from plants (2).

That balance between protein and carbohydrates in the diet is where the problem lies, but it's not what you think. Carbohydrates have gotten a bad rap, but they are the single most important nutrient for long-term health and weight loss. But I'm not talking about bagels and donuts. I'm talking about plant foods that more closely resemble what our ancestors ate. Hunter-gatherers ate fruit, tubers, seeds, and nuts. These are whole foods. They are full of fiber, vitamins, minerals and disease- and weight-busting colorful phytochemicals. They also take time to digest. Therefore, they raise blood sugar slowly, which balances metabolism and offers a steady stream of energy. Whole foods have all the right information and turn on all the right genes.

But the past 10,000 years saw the advent of both agriculture and industrialization. And, in the blink of an eye (by evolutionary standards), the human diet got turned upside down. Today, 60 percent of our calories come from things that hunter-gatherers wouldn't even recognize as food. The bulk of those items -- cereal grains, sugary drinks, refined oils and dressings -- are simple carbohydrates (3). The primitive brain sees an endless supply of easy energy. Left unchecked, our bodies pay the price. The result is a two-fronted epidemic of obesity and diabetes in our country -- what I call diabesity.

The Blood Sugar Cascade

When you eat simple carbohydrates, whether as sugar or as starch, they pass almost instantaneously from the gut into the bloodstream. Within seconds blood sugar levels start to rise. To counter the increase in sugar, the body releases insulin. Insulin is the key that unlocks the cells and allows sugar to enter. As sugar enters the cells, the amount of sugar in the blood declines and the body restores homeostasis.

Read the original:
Mark Hyman, MD: How to Rewire Your Brain to End Food Cravings

A new study shows that junk food may have effects beyond expanding your waistline and upping your sodium levels -- it might also be sabotaging your mental health.

A new study in the journal Public Health Nutrition shows that regularly eating commercial baked goods -- including doughnuts and croissants -- as well as fast food -- pizza, hamburgers and hot dogs -- is linked with an increased depression risk.

Researchers from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and the University of Granada found that the people who regularly eat these foods are also more likely to be more sedentary, smoke, eat other not-so-nutritious foods and work 45 or more hours a week.

"Although more studies are necessary, the intake of this type of food should be controlled because of its implications on both health (obesity, cardiovascular diseases) and mental well-being," study researcher Almudena Snchez-Villegas said in a statement.

The study included 8,964 people who didn't have depression (and weren't taking any antidepressant drugs) at the start of the study. Their depression statuses and diets were tracked for an average of six months.

At the end of the study period, 493 people were depressed or were taking antidepressants. The researchers found that the ones who ate the most junk food were 51 percent more likely to develop depression, compared with people who ate the least of these foods.

The Mayo Clinic reported on a previous study also showing a similar link. That study showed that people whose diets are high in fried foods, processed meats, desserts and high-fat dairy had an increased risk of depression symptoms, compared with people who eat lots of fruits, veggies and fish.

And earlier this year, a study in the journal PLoS ONE showed that there may be a link between eating trans fats -- common in a lot of junk foods -- and being irritable and aggressive.

The researchers of that study, from the University of California, San Diego, found that greater trans fats intake seemed to predict whether a person was more aggressive. The finding held true even after taking into account factors like sex, age and ethnicity.

Also on HuffPost:

Here is the original post:
Junk Food Linked With Increased Depression Risk: Study

PetitPlat/Flickr

It landed on the desk at Science-ish headquarters with a thud: the 482-page Carb Sensitivity Program by Natasha Turner, a naturopathic doctor who penned the bestseller, The Hormone Diet. The skeptic in Science-ish was aroused. And after an inner battle about whether the book deserved any inkeven of the digital sortits promises to help readers discover which carbs will curb your cravings, control your appetite and banish belly fat called out for a debunking.

Now, this isnt about picking on easy, pseudoscientific targets. The reason for the urgency is this: we too often hail new miracle diets without questioning the shaky (at best) evidence supporting them. Just look at the list of reputable news outlets that have already covered Turners work.If carbs truly were the enemy, Yoni Freedhoff, an evidence-based obesity-focused doc, rightly pointed out, When one in seven Americans was on the Atkins diet in the early 2000s, we would have seen the obesity epidemic go away.

But lets examine some of the claims Turner makes in the book. First, she begins with irresistible questions readers will no doubt identify with: Do you have a sweet tooth? Do you get sleepy or mental fogginess after meals? Do you feel bloated, especially after meals? Do you have a very large appetite or an obsession with food? According to Turner, this means youre probably carb sensitive. According to Science-ish, this means you are probably human.

Still, Turner has the answer. A carb rehab program that will repair your metabolism so you become symptom free and lose belly fat. For beginners, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that targeted fat loss is possible. (Check out Tim Caulfields book The Cure for Everything!) So any time you see a magazine or book promising to help you bust the belly fat, chuck it. Its a bold-faced lie.

Turner also suggests a supplement regime to aid detoxification. The detox concept should sound alarm bells in any thinking persons mind. There is reams of evidence-based literature on why the notion of a detox is bunk. But this group of scientists did a good job of summing it up: Detox has no meaning outside of the clinical treatment for drug addiction or poisoning. People are not full of toxins that can be expunged from their systems by systematically eliminating one food groupthough its an appealing concept. The body can deal with the everyday chemicals it encounters and it certainly doesnt need the Clear Detox hormonal health packsupplements from Turners own wellness boutiquethat she prescribes in the book.

Unscrupulous peddling aside, people who follow the diet in the book may indeed lose weight. But, carb-sensitive or not, anyone who consumed what Turner is suggesting for a typical dayone fruit smoothie in the morning, a carb sensitivity shake as a snack, immunity-boosting Ginger Chicken for lunch, and cauliflower and kale soup with turkey breast for dinnerwould shed a few pounds.

Like the followers of many fad diets, Turners readers may attribute weight loss to her design. Just keep in mind what Caulfield told Science-ish: These fad diets cause you to pay attention to what youre eating for a specific amount of time, which forces you to concentrate on your food, and the result is weight loss. You attribute this weight loss to a magical return on your investment in the book. Its not. (You lost weight) because you paid attention to what youre eating.

Now, Science-ish has shown before that comparative studies have found that just about every diet works to the same degree when it comes to losing weight. (See this trial and this one for more good evidence of that.) If it were as simple as following a fad diet, like the one Turner is selling, wed all be thin. But, as this recent survey found, women have tried over 60 diets by the age of 45 in an effort to keep trim. Were still overweight.

This should not be depressing news, however. Its freeing. We can stop putting money on diet books and lining the pockets of deceitful peddlers of pseudoscience, and get on with life.

Read more here:
‘Carb Sensitivity Program’: The dumbest diet book?

The Forsyth County Health Department has been picked to run a nurse-family partnership program that advocates say will reduce infant mortality and improve child health and the lives of mothers pregnant with their first child.

The Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust has awarded the county $2.5 million over five years to carry out the program.

The program focuses on low-income first-time mothers. They will get help with prenatal care, improving their diets and reducing any use of cigarettes, alcohol or illegal drugs.

The program works by pairing the mother-to-be with a registered nurse, who will make home visits that continue through the child's second birthday. A national group, Nurse-Family Partnership of Denver, developed the program and authorizes local agencies to run it.

Bob Whitwam, the environmental health director of the Health Department, said the agency has been getting ready to run the program for a couple of years.

"Nurse-Family Partnership can substantially reduce infant mortality rates," Whitwam said. "The target is first-time moms, making sure they understand what the doctor tells her, developing parenting skills."

The program is not a cure-all for infant mortality because there are other causes, and the new program addresses only first-time mothers, not women with other children.

"It is a little piece of a complex infant-mortality issue," Whitwam said.

Forsyth has the highest infant-mortality rate among the 10 most populous counties in the state, health statistics show.

Whitwam told the Board of Commissioners on Thursday that he wants the program to start work July 1, when the new budget year starts. Staffing would include four nurses to be home visitors as well as a data entry position and a nurse supervisor.

More here:
Program will aid first-time moms

Editor's Note: Daily Courier reporter concludes the 11-week Highlands Hospital Health Challenge.

Old B horror movies sometimes closed with "The End." That's how I feel about the Highlands Health Challenge. The jumpstart has ended, and the experience created two monster exercise enthusiasts, Bryan and me.

This week marked the final weigh-ins of the challenge. The team-based contest lasted 11 weeks, from Jan. 19 until Thursday. The first week established our base weights. The new challenge is to individually keep the weight off through late September.

Challenge organizers ended this phase with facts on fad diets and healthy weekends.

When I was young, my mom had a book by comic Totie Fields (1930-1978), called "I Think I'll Start on Monday: The Official 8 1/2 Ounce Mashed Potato Diet." The only thing I remember about the book is an illustration of bathroom graffiti that included this: "Jean Nidetch sneaks Pop-Tarts." Nidetch founded Weight Watchers.

Fields fought obesity all her life, and once said, "I've been on a diet for two weeks, and all I've lost is 14 days."

Her act often centered about her weight and wild efforts she tried to become slim. For those of us embarking on the long, strange trip of lifetime wellness, fad diets do not belong.

A handout called "Why Are Fad Diets an Unhealthy Way of Losing Weight" put them into perspective. "In most cases, only 5 percent of dieters manage to keep their lost weight off," reports the American Council on Exercising. "The tried-and-true method of weight loss, followed by most of the 5,000-plus members of the National Weight Control Registry -- a group of successful dieters who have kept off an average of 66 pounds for at least five years -- is calorie restriction coupled with regular exercise."

I once fasted in high school for religious reasons but have never tried a fad diet for weight loss. I do remember some friends' mothers (never fathers) trying the liquid protein diet and felt alarm when news reports said the nutrient-deficient diet had killed some people. None of my friends' moms died, but I don't remember them keeping weight off, either.

Challenge organizing committee member Marcy Ozorowski has tried fad diets. "I tried the skinny soup diet and ones that had you eating only one food a day then switching to another. They were awful and didn't work."

Read more from the original source:
The end is here and she loses more than 11 pounds

Hundreds pack into new Whole Foods store

By John Wolcott SCBJ Freelance Writer

LYNNWOOD Whole Foods Market opened its first Snohomish County store in Lynnwood on March 15 with a bread-breaking ceremony that symbolized the store's focus on breaking bread with the community, said the store's team leader, Mindy Jahn. We've had a wonderful welcome here.

Nearly 300 people showed up for the opening. Dignitaries who helped break that loaf of bread included Jahn, Whole Foods Market regional vice president Tee Ayer, regional president Joe Rogoff, Lynnwood Mayor Don Gough and Shannon Affholter of Economic Alliance Snohomish County.

Founded in Austin, Texas, in 1980, Whole Foods Market has 315 stores in North America and the United Kingdom with 64,000 employees, or team members as they're called by the chain. Fortune magazine has named the business one of the 100 Best Companies to Work For in America for 14 consecutive years.

Whole Foods Market is the nation's leading retailer of natural and organic food and the first nationally certified organic grocer. Health Magazine has named it America's healthiest grocery store. Its motto, Whole Foods, Whole People, Whole Planet, reflects its mission and goals of ensuring customer satisfaction and good health.

Customer comments have been wonderful, Jahn said. We've also had suggestions about how to improve, which is how we operate, seeking customer feedback. Right now, we're still experiencing the early crowds of a lot of smiling people who are glad we're here. In a while, we'll be settled into a more regular operation. We've been so busy since the opening that we've set up a valet service for customers to help handle the crowds.

Jahn said the store's location at 2800 196th St. SW, a former Circuit City store near Alderwood mall, is a perfect location.

We were attracted to Lynnwood by its location, near the intersection of I-5 and I-405, but also by the way Mayor Don Gough and people at Economic Alliance Snohomish County wanted us here and helped us so much, she said.

Whole Foods Market seeks out the finest quality natural and organic foods that meet the highest standards in the grocery industry, store executives said. That means marketing nutritious foods that lack artificial additives, sweeteners, colorings and preservatives.

Visit link:
2012 Market Facts

Important pollinators, both bumblebees and honeybees have trouble functioning after being exposed to pesticides, two new studies say. Industry experts question several aspects of the work.

A common class of pesticide is causing problems for honeybees and bumblebees, important species already in trouble, two studies suggest.

But the findings don't explain all the reasons behind a long-runningbeedecline, and other experts found one of the studies less than convincing.

The new research suggests the chemicals used in the pesticide designed to attack the central nervous system of insects also reduces the weight and number of queens in bumblebee hives. These pesticides also cause honeybees to become disoriented and fail to return to their hives, the researchers concluded.

The two studies were published online Thursday in the journal Science.

Just last week activists filed a petition with more than a million signatures asking the government to ban the class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it is re-evaluating the chemicals and is seeking scientific help.

For more than a decade, pollinators of all types have been in decline, mostly because of habitat loss and perhaps some pesticide use. In the past five years, a new mysterious honeybee problem, colony collapse disorder, has further attacked hives. But over the last couple of years, that problem has been observed a bit less, said Jeff Pettis, leadbeeresearcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's lab in Beltsville, Md.

Other studies have also found problems with the pesticide class singled out in the new research. These "strengthen the case for more thorough re-assessing," said University of Illinois entomology professor May Berenbaum, who wasn't involved in the new studies. "But this is not a slam-dunk indictment that could compel a ban. It's complicated."

In the honeybee study, French scientists glued tiny radio transmitters to thebeesmanaged for orchard pollination. Thebeeswere tracked when they came and left the hive. Thebeesthat were dosed with neonicotinoids were two to three times more likely not to return.

In the bumblebee study, British researchers dosedbeeswith the pesticide and moved their hives out into the field. After six weeks, they found the pesticide-treated hives were 10 percent lighter than those that weren't treated. And more important, the hives that had pesticides lost about 85 percent of their queens.

Read the rest here:
Are pesticides responsible for bee deaths? (+video)

Mar 27, 2012 5:00pm

Some people cant get enough of the painful pleasure of spicy foods. Now, new research on hamsters suggests that those who like it hot may get some added heart-health benefits from capsaicinoids, the compounds that give chili peppers from jalepenos to habaneros their kick.

Scientists from the Chinese University of Hong Kong studied how capsaicinoids capsaicin and its chemical relatives affected the blood vessels of hamsters. Researchers fed hamsters diets high in cholesterol, and spiced up the food for some groups of the animals with varying levels of capsaicinoids.

The hamsters fed any capsaicinoids had lower levels of cholesterol in their blood, particularly LDL or bad cholesterol. They also had decreased plaque in their arteries compared with the hamsters that got no capsaicinoids.

The findings were presented today at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in San Diego.

Zhen-Yu Chen, a professor of food and nutritional science at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and one of the studys authors, said the findings give scientists a better idea of just how spicy foods might work to improve heart health in humans.

But we certainly do not recommend that people start consuming chilies to an excess, Chen said in a press release. They may be a nice supplement, however, for people who find the hot flavor pleasant.

Scientists have been hot on the trail of capsaicins potential health benefits in recent years. The compound is currently used as an effective remedy for pain associated with arthritis, neuropathy and psoriasis. Dr. Paul Bosland, co-founder and director of New Mexico State Universitys Chile Pepper Institute, told ABC News that capsaicin works against pain by prompting the body to produce endorphins.

The endorphins work to block the heat. The body produces them in response to the heat, which it senses as pain, Bosland said.

Some studies have also suggested that capsaicin may help prevent prostate cancer.

Read the original:
Hot Peppers May Boost Heart Health

Important pollinators, both bumblebees and honeybees have trouble functioning after being exposed to pesticides, two new studies say. Industry experts question several aspects of the work.

A common class of pesticide is causing problems for honeybees and bumblebees, important species already in trouble, two studies suggest.

But the findings don't explain all the reasons behind a long-runningbeedecline, and other experts found one of the studies less than convincing.

The new research suggests the chemicals used in the pesticide designed to attack the central nervous system of insects also reduces the weight and number of queens in bumblebee hives. These pesticides also cause honeybees to become disoriented and fail to return to their hives, the researchers concluded.

The two studies were published online Thursday in the journal Science.

Just last week activists filed a petition with more than a million signatures asking the government to ban the class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it is re-evaluating the chemicals and is seeking scientific help.

For more than a decade, pollinators of all types have been in decline, mostly because of habitat loss and perhaps some pesticide use. In the past five years, a new mysterious honeybee problem, colony collapse disorder, has further attacked hives. But over the last couple of years, that problem has been observed a bit less, said Jeff Pettis, leadbeeresearcher at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's lab in Beltsville, Md.

Other studies have also found problems with the pesticide class singled out in the new research. These "strengthen the case for more thorough re-assessing," said University of Illinois entomology professor May Berenbaum, who wasn't involved in the new studies. "But this is not a slam-dunk indictment that could compel a ban. It's complicated."

In the honeybee study, French scientists glued tiny radio transmitters to thebeesmanaged for orchard pollination. Thebeeswere tracked when they came and left the hive. Thebeesthat were dosed with neonicotinoids were two to three times more likely not to return.

In the bumblebee study, British researchers dosedbeeswith the pesticide and moved their hives out into the field. After six weeks, they found the pesticide-treated hives were 10 percent lighter than those that weren't treated. And more important, the hives that had pesticides lost about 85 percent of their queens.

See original here:
Are pesticides responsible for bee deaths?

Although some diets may be easier for you to stick to or be more satiating, the bottom line is that you need to eat less to reduce body weight.

Africa Studio/Shutterstock

One problem in studying the effects of dietary composition is that it is not possible to vary the proportion of one component without changing the others. At the extremes of weight-loss diets, the Atkins and South Beach diets are low carbohydrate but high fat, while the Ornish diet is low fat, high carbohydrate [1]. To compare the effects of such diets outside metabolic wards, researchers must deal with study subjects whose dietary and other behaviors are not easily controlled.

Investigators do everything they can to encourage compliance with study protocols. But they confront a major challenge: Telling free-living people what you want them to do does not necessarily mean that they will follow your instructions or tell you the truth about what they are eating. And you have no easy way of getting around this problem. Because dietary intake methods all depend on accurately disclosing what subjects consume -- something impossible for most people to do -- the lack of an easy way to measure true calorie consumption in weight control studies must be considered "the fundamental flaw of obesity research [2]."

But that's not the only problem. When conducting clinical trials that compare one diet to another, researchers also face challenges in enrolling enough study subjects to satisfy statistical requirements, getting study subjects to stick to the prescribed diets, and retaining participants in the study throughout its length. Furthermore, clinical trials of diet and weight loss are expensive to conduct, and few are able to last long enough to observe whether initial weight losses were regained. These considerations make it especially difficult for investigators to evaluate the results of dietary studies objectively and for others to interpret the significance of the findings. Keep these caveats in mind as we take a look at some of the studies attempting to find out whether varying the proportions of protein, fat, and carbohydrate makes any difference to weight loss in real life.

LOW-FAT (AND, THEREFORE, HIGH-CARBOHYDRATE) DIETS

Atwater Values indicate that fat has more than twice the energy value of either protein or carbohydrate. It makes sense to think that cutting down on fat would help with weight maintenance or loss. In the United States the various editions of the Dietary Guidelines have long promoted lower-fat diets: "Avoid too much fat" (1980, 1985), "Choose a diet low in fat" (1990, 1995), "Keep total fat intake between 20 to 35 percent of calories" (2005), and "Reduce intake of solid fats" (2010). The more recent editions have focused on limiting saturated fat and cholesterol intake rather than total fat per se in recognition of the potential role of these components in heart disease risk. But the newer guidelines also recognize that from the standpoint of body weight, calories from fat are no different from calories from any other source.

This is a shift from the earlier recommendations that reshaped the marketplace. In the early 1990s, advice to reduce fat intake was all that food companies needed to hear to start making low-fat versions of many common foods -- low-fat cheese, mayonnaise, and peanut butter, for example -- along with oxymoronic products such as fat-free half-and-half and fat-free (but equally caloric) cookies. Such products are not necessarily healthier than the products they replace, and rarely taste as good.

But the relationship of dietary fat to obesity is still of much interest. For one thing, it takes hardly any energy to store excess fatty acids as body fat, whereas it takes a bit more energy to make fatty acids from excess dietary carbohydrate. For another, proponents of low-fat diets cite experimental observations demonstrating a connection between fat intake and overweight:

Some experts, however, view such evidence as not at all specific to fat, as it could just as easily relate to high-calorie diets from any source. Low-fat diets are necessarily high in carbohydrate -- the calories have to come from something. The range of protein in diets is typically 10 percent (low) to 20 percent (high) of calories; it can't be more, because foods are low in protein -- we don't need much. The real issue in real diets is carbohydrate v. fat. Few studies of such difference control for calories. Overall, studies of dietary patterns typically find no association between either the amount or the type of fat in the diet and subsequent weight gain over periods of several years [4].

See the original post:
Why Calories Count: Do Some Diets Work Better Than Others?

Page 274«..1020..273274275276..280290..»

Home » Diets that Work » Page 274