20/20 InSights

October 2007 - Posts

• Corpulent Cancer

  We all know obesity isn't good for us.  We all know that obesity is linked to problems such as high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, and diabetes.  What a lot of us don't consider is that obesity can also increase your risk of cancer. Reuters is reporting on a study showing a link between body fat and six types of cancer.  These include cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colorectum, endometrium (womb), kidney, and breast. Why is there a link?  Well, one possible reason is that obesity increases levels of hormones in your body that increase your risk of cancer (estrogen, for example).  So, if you didn't already have enough reasons why it's important to get lean and stay lean, this is another one.  20/20 Lifestyles can not only help you get your weight off and improve your health, but also reduce your chances of many cancers.     Posted Oct 31 2007, 03:32 PM by jkrieger with no comments

• Walkin' & Workin'

  The AP is reporting on an office product that combines a workstation and a treadmill. Steelcase Inc., the nation's largest office furniture maker, will begin taking orders for its "Walkstation" starting November 19.  The station will cost $4,000. I've actually known about the development of these "Walk & Work" stations for a long time.  The man in the above picture, Jim Levine, came out and gave us a really great lecture last year.  He's had these setups for him and his employees in his office for at least a few years now. In fact, Levine's lab has a track that goes around the perimeter.  When they have small meetings, they walk around this track and talk as a group, rather than sit as most of us would in a meeting. Levine recently did a research study on his walk & work desk.  If you used this desk for half of your workday, you would expend an extra 500 calories per day.  Over a year's time, that's a 52 pound weight loss, assuming everything else is constant. The take-home message is that total daily activity (not just exercise) matters when it comes to weight loss.  I also briefly talked about this in a past blog.  I do a 1.5 hour lecture on this topic (and some others) a couple times a year.  In the past, it's been called "The Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon of Weight Gain" or "The Hidden Secrets of Weight Management."  In 2008, the title will be "The Metabolism Myth."  It's a lecture for current and former 20/20 clients, as well as general members of the PRO Sports Club.  The dates for the lecture have not been set yet, but I'll keep you posted once the dates are set.  It's definitely a lecture you don't want to miss because you're going to find out some very eye-opening information that will help play a huge role in your efforts to lose weight and keep it off.  Posted Oct 29 2007, 08:41 AM by jkrieger with 2 comment(s)

• Fantastic Fish Oil

  If there were only two supplements out there that I think everyone should take, they would be a basic multivitamin, and fish oil. There's so much positive research on fish oil that it's ridiculous.  It can lower your triglycerides, it can increase your HDL (your "good" cholesterol), it reduces the risk of blood clots, it reduces the risk of heart arrhythmias, it can lower blood pressure, it may have some anti-inflammatory effects, it may have some weak anti-depressant effects, it may reduce risk of cancer, etc, etc, etc.  It doesn't take much to have these benefits, either.  Four capsules per day of most fish oil brands can have significant benefits.  Our 20/20 Lifestyles brand of fish oil has twice the omega-3 fatty acids that many other brands have, so you only need to take 2 capsules per day. If all the benefits I mentioned weren't enough, here's another potential benefit...fish oil may help with weight loss. In a study published in the October issue of the International Journal of Obesity, European researchers found that fish or fish oil improved weight loss.  They took 324 men and women and put them on a diet for 8 weeks.  They divided the people into 4 groups.  One group got sunflower oil capsules (this was the control group).  Another group ate three 150 gram portions of lean cod per week.  Another group ate three 150 gram portions of fatty salmon per week.  A final group took 6 fish oil capsules per day, giving them about 1.5 grams of omega-3 fatty acids per day. The men eating fish or taking fish oil lost an additional half-pound per week compared to the controls.  However, this effect wasn't observed in the women.  This could be because the women didn't drop their calories as much as the men during the diet, so they didn't lose as much weight.  The women dropped their calories by about 650 calories per day (from around 2,000 to 1,350), while the men dropped their calories by over 1,000 (from about 2,700 to 1,600).  The women experienced less weight loss because of this.  With smaller weight losses on average, it can be harder to see statistical differences between groups. The take-home message is that fish oil will give you that extra edge with weight loss.  Three 20/20 fish oil capsules per day will give you the same amount of omega-3's that were given in this study.  If you're using regular fish oil capsules that you might get from your local store, you'll need 6 capsules.  Not only will fish oil help you take off a few extra pounds, but you'll get all of the other health benefits along with it.     Posted Oct 25 2007, 08:50 AM by jkrieger with 3 comment(s)

• Plastic Legends

  Last month I received an email from one of our employees, citing concern over a forwarded email about the dangers of cooking with plastic and using plastic in microwaves.  It also said not to freeze plastic bottles with water in them.  The email supposedly was a "Cancer Update from John Hopkins University."  The forwarded email read... "Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well.  Please circulate to all you know; Cancer update Johns Hopkins - Cancer News from Johns Hopkins No plastic containers in micro No water bottles in freezer. No plastic wrap in microwave... A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer.  Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.  Recently, Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us.  He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers... This especially applies to foods that contain fat.  He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the body... Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food... You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else.  Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc.  He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.. Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food.  Cover food with a paper towel instead.  This is an article that should be sent to anyone important in your life!" As soon as I read this, my bunk meter went off like crazy.  So, I checked the master site for debunking urban legends....Snopes.  Sure enough, my bunk meter was right.  The information in this email is false.  John Hopkins never circulated such an email.  If you think about it, if this information was true, John Hopkins wouldn't be sending out a forwarded email!  There would be numerous scientific studies and news reports and pushes for warning labels on plastics and increased regulation and everything else.  As Snopes states, "It's a pretty good assumption that if using plastic containers in microwaves - as millions of people have been doing for decades - posed a significant risk of cancer, you'd be hearing about it somewhere other than an email forward of an anonymous summary of a morning news spot on a Hawaiian television station." On top of that, there aren't even dioxins in plastic, and even if there were, freezing them would actually inhibit their release, rather than causing it. For correct information on cooking safely with microwaves and plastics, go to these sites instead: Cooking Safely With Microwaves Cooking With Plastics Essentially, as long as you're cooking with plastics that are made for cooking (for example, a plastic container or wrap will usually be labeled as being microwave-safe or not), you'll be fine.  As always, don't believe everything you read....particularly anonymous email forwards...   Posted Oct 16 2007, 09:14 AM by jkrieger with no comments

• Thinking Better Part II

  In a previous blog I told you how I'd occasionally blog about errors that we make in our thinking.  I mentioned the *** hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.  I mentioned how often the media commits this error when reporting on health-related research.  I also talked about how this fallacy started the low-fat/no-fat craze of the '80's and '90's. Today's common error is called confirmation bias. We all hate to be wrong. This, of course, implies that we all love to be right. Some of us love to be right so much, that we will pay close attention to any evidence that indicates that we are right, while simultaneously ignoring any evidence that shows we are wrong. We're often biased towards evidence in favor of our own pet ideas.  However, if we're truly interested in the truth, we should be seeking out evidence against our ideas (not just evidence that confirms them).  And if we find evidence that disproves our ideas, we should admit we were wrong and change our mind. Basically, we should evaluate evidence that supports our ideas in the exact same way as we evaluate evidence that doesn't support our ideas.  Confirmation bias happens when we evaluate these differently.  Confirmation bias happens everywhere, particularly when it comes to strongly held beliefs such as political views.  Confirmation bias also frequently finds its way into the realm of health. Recently I came across a case of confirmation bias in my research on artificial sweeteners.  There are many people out there who will tell you that aspartame (Nutrasweet) is the most dangerous substance out there next to anthrax, nuclear waste, and Andrew Speaker's sputum.    These anti-Nutrasweet people often cite a 1996 study by Dr. John Olney.  This study showed a possible link between increased frequency of brain tumors and Nutrasweet consumption in the U.S.  Following Nutrasweet's introduction into the market in the early 1980's, there supposedly was a significant increase in brain tumors in the mid-1980's. However, this study had numerous flaws.  One major flaw is that it suffers from the post-hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (which I'll talk about in another blog).  Basically, just because A happens after B, doesn't mean A caused B.  Sales of imported cars increased in the early 1980's, and then brain tumors supposedly increased in the mid-1980's, so should we conclude that Hondas cause brain tumors?  Of course not!   Another major flaw in Olney's study was that he only looked at brain tumors between 1975 and 1992.  This made it look like brain tumors increased in the mid-1980's.  However, let's take a look at the bigger picture by starting at 1973 instead of 1975.  When you look at brain tumors between 1973 and 1992, you come to a different conclusion....   The graph above shows that brain tumors actually increased in 1973, and then stabilized in the mid 1980's.  This means that brain tumors increased before Nutrasweet was introduced into the market.  This also means that the study by Dr. Olney was wrong. Despite the flaws of Dr. Olney's study, and despite a follow-up study showing no relationship between Nutrasweet and brain tumors, the anti-Nutrasweet people continue to cite Olney's study as evidence of Nutrasweet's danger.    And that, my friends, is an example of confirmation bias.  These anti-Nutrasweet people are hanging onto flawed evidence that Nutrasweet is dangerous, while ignoring evidence that shows it's safe.  The bottom line is that, to avoid confirmation bias, you can't just be looking for evidence that supports your beliefs.  You should be actively looking for evidence against your beliefs.  You should be constantly putting your beliefs to the test.  If your beliefs fail the test, it's time to change your mind. Until next time...    "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons." —Michael Shermer, Sept. 2002 Scientific American "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life" "The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."  —Leo Tolstoy Posted Oct 15 2007, 09:21 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)

• The Cycle of Addiction

  I am a kiteboarder... This sport is very addicting.  I'm constantly checking the wind forecast, wondering when my next session is going to be.  I'm constantly lurking on kiteboarding forums.  The longer I go without a session, the more I obsess over getting another session.  Given the unpredictability of the weather, sometimes I never know when my next session might be...which makes me think about kiting more.  While I am utmost concerned about my safety, this thought pattern can get some kiteboarders in trouble.  Some kiteboarders, only able to get a session in every now and then, will take what they can get when they can get it...and sometimes end up kiting in dangerous weather conditions they shouldn't be out in. What's this got to do with obesity, metabolic disorders, and 20/20 Lifestyles?  You'll see soon... OK, back to kiting.  I was on the Florida Kitesurfing Association forum recently, and someone made an interesting comment about the psychology of addiction in this thread.  He said: "I started to think about cigarette smokers who are heavily addicted, but can only rarely get a cigarette. It helped someone like me visualize the "take as much as you can, when you can" attitude that most kiteboarders emplore. I broke it down like this: Addiction creates cravings, cravings create uncertainty, uncertainty creates obsession, obsession creates overconsumption, overconsumption ultimately creates death" When I saw this quote, it made me think about the psychology of food addiction.  Food addiction is something that some obese people struggle with.  And they may follow a pattern similar to the quote above: Crave cake -> uncertain when you'll get some cake -> you obsess over cake -> you overconsume cake -> overconsumption leads to health problems & death I felt that the "uncertainty creates obsession" phrase was quite thought-provoking.  We see this in all areas of life.  When I was pursuing my now girlfriend, there was a lot of uncertainty in the beginning...uncertainty whether she liked me, uncertainty over when she would return my calls (or if she even would return them), uncertainty over when I might see her again...and that uncertainty made me think about her more and got me even more "hooked" on her than I already was.  This is the "thrill of the chase" that many people describe.  In fact, this "thrill of the chase" feeling can be so addicting to some people that they can't hold long-term relationships because they lose the excitement once they've "caught" someone...so they jump from one person to the next. I'll be giving a presentation for current and former 20/20 clients early next year entitled "The Science of Food Addiction."  The presentation is tentatively scheduled for January 17 of 2008, and will most likely be at 6 PM.  I'll keep you posted...   Posted Oct 11 2007, 12:50 PM by jkrieger with no comments

• Thinking Better

  We often make mistakes when we think. These mistakes can be costly, because they can cause us to come to erroneous conclusions, or waste money on ineffective products, or fall for scams, or suffer various other undesirable consequences. The health and fitness industry is so rife with useless products or incorrect information or scams that mistakes in our thinking can cost us a lot...they can cost us money, or time, or even our health in extreme situations. So I'm going to occasionally blog about how to think better.  I'm going to talk about common mistakes in our thought processes.  The nice thing is that this information will help you in all areas of your life.  These errors in our thoughts don't just happen when we're thinking about health; they happen all the time.  When we're more aware of common errors in our thinking, we can do a better job of avoiding those errors.  And if we avoid those errors, we can make better decisions and judgements in all areas of our lives, from deciding whether that politician is telling us the truth, to figuring out whether Oswald acted alone. Here's one common error we make in our thinking.... *** Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc This is Latin for, "With this, therefore because of this."  This is where we assume that, because two events happen at the same time, then one must cause the other.  However, correlation does not equal causation.  Ice cream intake goes up in the summer, as does drowning incidence.  But that doesn't mean eating ice cream makes you drown!    You find people make this same error when it comes to the area of health, particularly with the large amount of epidemiological research which can describe relationships between lifestyle factors and disease, but cannot establish causal relationships.  You'll often see newspapers incorrectly report on studies and inferring causal relationships where none might exist. The low-fat/no-fat craze of the '80's and '90's was a direct result of the *** hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.  The Seven Countries Study was a series of surveys carried out between 1958 and 1970, in men 40-59 years of age, in 18 areas of seven different countries.  In this study, researchers found a correlation between total fat intake and heart disease.  From these results, people then assumed that higher fat intakes caused heart disease.  BOOM!  The low-fat craze was born, resulting in products such as this...   What people failed to consider was that, in general, people with higher fat intakes also consume more saturated fat, and also tend to have more unhealthy lifestyles (like less physical activity).  Subsequent research has shown that it's the type of fat that you eat that affects heart disease risk, not the total amount of fat.  Ironically, some of the low-fat/no-fat foods that came out of that craze may have increased heart disease risk because of their higher refined carbohydrate content.  Diets high in refined carbs increase triglycerides in the blood, and also lower HDL (your "good" cholesterol), increasing heart disease risk. The bottom line is that, just because two things happen together, doesn't mean one causes the other.  Sometimes things happen together by coincidence, or sometimes there's a third cause that results in the two things to be correlated (in my ice cream example, the heat outside makes people want to eat ice cream, and also makes people want to go swimming). Stay tuned for more fallacies in future blogs...   Posted Oct 11 2007, 08:31 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)

• The Biggest Loser Part II

  I watched this week's episode of The Biggest Loser last night. On the flight back from Jamaica.... ....the contestants were eating from Nabisco 100 calorie snack packs. The trainer Bob Harper was emphasizing the benefits of these snack packs and how this could be considered "healthy snacking."  The video for it can be seen here. Obviously Nabisco is a sponsor of this show, because otherwise their products wouldn't be so blatantly displayed.  In fact, Nabisco even has its own 100 Healthy Living Tips section on the Biggest Loser website.  You can see Nabisco in the list of sponsors in this section. The good thing about these snack packs is that they teach portion control; many people grab a huge bag of cookies or chips and they'll eat the whole bag, not realizing how many servings and calories they've eaten.  With these packs, you know one pack is 100 calories and no more, and you will also understand how big a 100-calorie portion really is (a 100 calorie portion of many of these foods isn't very much!!!!). The irony is that this cannot be considered "healthy snacking."  Cookies and chips are anything but healthy.  The problem with some of these foods is that they disrupt our appetite regulation.  Our bodies have natural ways of regulating appetite and body weight.  Many of the high-fat or high-sugar foods in our society throw these mechanisms out of whack, and we can't naturally sense when we've eaten too much of these foods.  Also, these foods stimulate reward systems in our brain (the same reward systems stimulated by addictive drugs), which keep us coming back for more.  So it can be difficult for us to just have one snack pack...and we end up eating two or three or four. If you're able to keep yourself to eating only one of these snack packs, then that's great.  There's nothing wrong with having these types of foods as an occasional treat.  You'll also know how much you had and it will be easy to meal-track.  However, if you find yourself craving more of these packs, or you are finding that these foods are stimulating an appetite for more food, then you may want to seek out healthier snack options, or at least have a "protein buddy" (something high in protein) along with the snack to help control your appetite.  If you're a current or former 20/20 Lifestyles client, or you're a PRO Club member, then you'll want to meet with one of our dietitians to help find healthy snack options or learn about the concept of "protein buddies."   Posted Oct 10 2007, 12:11 PM by jkrieger with no comments

• Expensive Obesity

  Obesity is expensive. Reuters recently reported on a study showing that U.S. healthcare costs may be higher than European countries because of obesity.  Treatment of obesity and other chronic diseases adds about $100 - 150 billion to the annual health care tab in the U.S.  In fact, we spend way more per capita than any European country on health care.  We spend about $2 trillion annually, or about 16% of our gross domestic product.  While some of this can be our higher prices for medical treatment, another chunk of this simply comes from the fact that we're sicker people on average than in Europe.  One third of our country is obese, versus only 17% of the 10 European countries looked at in the study.  Over 50% of people in the U.S. currently smoke or are former smokers, compared to only 43% of the European sample. The results on obesity don't surprise me.  In Europe, people walk or bike everywhere.  In the U.S., people drive everywhere.  In fact, we are so fond of driving that we will sit in our cars and wait for people to return from their shopping expeditions just so we can get a parking spot close to our destination...even though we could save time and expend more calories by parking an extra 50 yards away!  Also, in Europe, people are more sane about their portion sizes.  In the U.S., we have the "bigger is better mentality"...with ever increasing sizes of our houses, our cars, our businesses, and our meals.  Anyone who has eaten at Claim Jumper knows that we have some serious portion distortion going on in this country.  The plates alone would barely fit in my dishwasher.  In fact, the Claim Jumper fried chicken dinner has 2,033 calories in it!!! The results on smoking surprised me a bit more.  I didn't realize that over half of the people in this country are current or former smokers.  For some reason I always had it in my head that more people smoke in Europe; don't ask me why I thought that.  It makes me wonder how many in the U.S. are "current' and how many are "former."  That would make a difference regarding medical costs.  Former smokers would obviously cost less because people's health tend to improve dramatically once they quit.  I haven't looked at the original study so I don't know if the researchers separated that out. Anyway, the bottom line is that obesity costs a lot of money when it comes to healthcare.  This is why 20/20 Lifestyles can help corporations save money in medical costs...by getting people healthy, reducing their medications, and helping to prevent any future complications from obesity and diabetes.   Posted Oct 09 2007, 12:26 PM by jkrieger with no comments