20/20 InSights

November 2007 - Posts

• More Biggest Loser Blunders

  Some of you might be sick of me writing about The Biggest Loser, but don't worry, there's only a few more episodes :) It looks like another hard-working good performer was eliminated.  This time it was Bryan. And again, were left with mainly the people who have not worked as hard and have not performed as well.  Read my other blog where I talked about this. But that's not what this blog is about.  Today I want to talk about more misinformation put out by the show. In the last episode, the contestants all met with Dr. Robert Huizenga, who showed them how much their bodies had changed since the beginning of the show. He told Hollie that she had gained 11 pounds of muscle.  He said that for every pound of muscle she gained, she increased her metabolism by 50 calories. 50 calories????   Really???? Let's take a look at this.  I'm about 175 pounds and in my early 30's.  When I first started weight lifting in my early 20's, I weighed about 135 pounds.  I've added a little bit (but not much) body fat since then, so let's be conservative and say I've gained 30 pounds of muscle since I started weight training over 13 years ago. If I've gained 30 pounds of muscle, that means that my metabolism should have increased by 50 x 30 = 1,500 calories. I had my resting metabolic rate tested in our Performance Lab not too long ago.  My RMR was 1,671 calories per day. Now, if my RMR increased by 1,500 calories over the past 13 years, then that would mean my RMR started out at only 171 calories per day. That is completely impossible.  Nobody has RMR's that low, unless you're near death. Building muscle does not increase your metabolism by 50 calories per day.  The real number is only 6 calories per pound on average. So my 30 pounds of extra muscle has increased my metabolism by about 180 calories...not 1,500. Adding muscle doesn't boost your metabolism all that much.  Yes, it does a little bit, but you'll get more bang for your buck by simply being more active throughout the day. Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying building muscle and strength training is not important.  It's extremely important.  It improves strength, it improves appearance, it improves function in activities of daily living, and it increases bone density.  You also get a nice elevation of your metabolism of about 50-100 calories for 24 hours after your workout.  My point is that building muscle is over-rated for permanently increasing your metabolism and energy expenditure. My girlfriend told me that she's heard about this 50 calorie per pound number, and I've heard it too.  I think we have a case here of communal reinforcement.  This is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community.  Someone, somewhere, at one time proclaimed this 50 calorie per pound number.  Other people heard it, believed it, and started telling their friends.  It has now been repeated so often by so many people everywhere that people have accepted the number without question.  And then Dr. Huizenga repeats the number on TV in front of millions, and the myth continues. Oh, and here's an interesting note about Dr. Huizenga.  NBC is calling him one of the leading weight loss experts in the country today.  Yet, if I do a PubMed search for his name, I can't find a single study on obesity authored by him.  His bio says he specialized in immunology at Harvard, and that he was a doctor for the LA Raiders.  I didn't know these things made you one of the leading weight loss experts in the country.   Posted Nov 30 2007, 12:19 PM by jkrieger with 3 comment(s)

• Brain Food

  I hope everyone had a great holiday! In a recent blog I talked about the benefits of fish oil supplementation for weight loss.  Well, it's time to add another benefit of fish oil to the ever-growing list.  There's more and more research coming out showing that fish oil can reduce your risk of dementia.  Two studies in the November issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition are showing a relationship between intake of omega-3 fatty acids (the healthy fats found in fish oil) and cognitive performance in older adults.  In the first study, done in Norway, researchers found that elderly people who ate at least 10 grams of fish or fish products per day had better cognitive test scores than people who had less than this.  There was a strong dose-dependent effect, meaning that the more fish or fish products the people ate, the better their test scores. In the second study, done in the Netherlands, researchers found a relationship between omega-3 fatty acid levels in the blood and cognitive performance.  The researchers measured omega-3 fatty acid levels in the blood, and then looked at cognitive performance 3 years later.  Specifically, high levels of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood predicted a smaller decline in cognitive performance over the 3 years. While neither of these studies can establish a cause/effect relationship, they are part of a growing body of research showing that fish oil is good for your brain.  So, what is it about fish oil that makes it such good brain food?  Well, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), one of the main omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil, accounts for 40% of the fatty acids that make up your brain cell walls.  Thus, DHA is a critical component of your brain cells, and may help slow the loss of the neurons in your brain with age. So if you didn't already have enough reasons to take fish oil, you've now got another one.  Excuse me while I go get my brain food for the day...   Posted Nov 26 2007, 07:52 AM by jkrieger with 3 comment(s)

• The Biggest Loser Part VI

  Did anyone catch The Biggest Loser last night?  Kae was eliminated. I found this really disappointing.  She has been by far one of the hardest workers on the show, and has always played ethically.  She has always been the one to skip out on the "cheat" contests too (like the one where they had to eat the donuts to find the reward token).  On top of that, she has the highest percentage of weight loss of anyone that has ever been on the show.  Yet she was eliminated????!!!????  Like I said in a previous blog, there's something wrong with a system that eliminates the people who do the best. And then Neil was talking about ethics and how it wasn't fair that she was being eliminated.  Wait a second, Neil, aren't you the one who purposely gained weight to avoid elimination? Well, enough on that show.  I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving.  For you current and former 20/20 clients, remember to watch your portion sizes, and stick with the plate model that our dietitians have taught you.  And if you need some help navigating your way through the holidays, don't hesitate to contact your dietitian who can help guide you.     Posted Nov 21 2007, 10:17 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)

• Fraud & Quackery

  Some of you may have seen the recent investigative reports series in the Seattle Times entitled "MIRACLE MACHINES:  The 21st Century Snake Oil."  This series is about "energy medicine" medical devices that are being marketed to ease or cure all types of ailments, from allergies to cancer.   These devices, despite being unproven, are being used in venues nationwide.  In fact, one was being demonstrated at the last Puyallup Fair.  A person who called himself a "certified biofeedback specialist" (a title he got from a mail-order training program) ran a booth where more than 400 people were treated with one of these devices.  People were charged $20 for a half-hour session. Anecdotal testimonials of the benefits of these devices abound.  For example, Payayiotis Samaras claims that the device reduced the size of a tumor in his neck. The problem is that testimonials alone are not evidence of benefit.  When it comes to medical conditions, there are many times where people spontaneously get better on their own, without any treatment at all.  A person tries one of these bogus treatments, gets better, and mistakenly thinks it was due to the treatment.  Also, many disease conditons can go through cycles of getting better and getting worse again.  A person happens to get such a treatment on an "upswing", and again thinks it was due to the treatment. This is the post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy that I briefly talked about in some other blogs.  Just because event B (getting better) happens after event A (getting treatment from an "energy medicine" device), doesn't mean event A caused event B. Of course, there is also the plain 'ol placebo effect.  People feel better through the power of suggestion, or they feel better because they believe they're supposed to feel better. There's absolutely no scientific evidence supporting the use of such devices.  But that doesn't stop the manufacturers and sellers from preying on vulnerable people...people with serious conditions that are desperate for a cure, people with no background in medicine and unable to critically assess the worth of these devices, etc.  Also, while some of the people that push these devices are obvious frauds, some are people who wholeheartedly believe in the devices.  But, as is human nature, these people remember the "hits" (the times where they used the device and someone got better) and forget the "misses" (the times where they used the device and someone didn't get better), reinforcing their belief in the machine. And there are a lot of misses.  Dangerous misses.  The Times has reported on people who died when being treated with such devices.  Some of these were people who had foregone standard medical treatment in favor of one of these devices. The people pushing these devices will often say their devices are "FDA Approved."  But they are registered with the FDA, they are not approved by the FDA for medical treatment.  There is a big difference between the two.  By law, the manufacturers are not allowed to make any disease-treatment claims...but that doesn't stop them from doing it anyway.  Also, many companies skirt the law by registering their devices as biofeedback machines (which legally can only be used to relieve stress), but then proceeding to market them as much more. These devices are complete frauds.  In fact, a retired Microsoft manager examined the source code for the software for the EFPX device, and found that the device generated its results randomly. If you want more detail, I highly recommend checking out the Times' report.  Unfortunately, the entire health and wellness field is rife with fraud and quackery like this.  In fact, you see it all the time when it comes to weight loss.  You'll see lose-weight-fast schemes, miracle diet pills, etc.  I'll talk about what you can do to avoid such deception in a future blog.  Until next time...   Posted Nov 19 2007, 07:47 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)

• No Sleep, Heavy Kids

  The AP recently reported on a study showing that lack of sleep was related to a higher risk of obesity in kids. Researchers at the University Michigan found that every additional hour per night a third-grader spends sleeping, it reduces the child's risk of being obese in the 6th grade by 40 percent.  This was regardless of what the kid weighed in third grade.  There also was a "magic number" of 9 hours and 45 minutes.  If a kid slept more than that, his/her risk of obesity was significantly lower.  The study was published in the November issue of the journal Pediatrics. These results don't surprise me.  A strong relationship between lack of sleep and obesity has already been established in adults.  When you don't get enough sleep, it messes up the hormones in your body that affect appetite.  Lack of sleep increases a hormone called ghrelin, which is a hormone that makes you hungry.  Lack of sleep also decreases a hormone called leptin, which tells you're body when you're eating enough.  Also, when you don't get enough sleep, you are more tired during the day, which can lead to less physical activity and energy expenditure.  Eating more while moving around less is a recipe for gaining weight. Of course, you have to be careful with a study like this.  In a previous blog, I briefly mentioned the post-hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy.  This is where you assume that, if event A happens before event B, then event A caused event B.  You see this fallacy a lot when the media reports on studies like this.  The title of this news article says, "Lack of shut-eye leads to fatter kids."  But that's not what this study shows.  This study only shows a relationship between lack of sleep in the 3rd grade and obesity in the 6th grade.  However, while it's possible that one caused the other, there also could be many other things going on.  With a study like this, you can't assume that event A (lack of sleep in 3rd grade) caused event B (obesity in 6th grade), just because event A came before event B.  But that's exactly what this news article is insinuating. Anyway, that's something to keep in mind whenever you're reading media reports on correlational studies.  Remember, correlation does not equal causation. Neverthless, there's a growing body of evidence that getting sufficient sleep may help in the battle against the bulge.  Not only is it a good idea for you to get enough sleep, but it's also a good idea for your kids to get enough sleep as well.  And the benefits of good sleep habits in your kids goes beyond a potential reduction in obesity risk.  For example, they'll do better in school.  So, there's plenty of reasons to make sure your kids are getting to bed on time.   Posted Nov 15 2007, 07:22 AM by jkrieger with no comments

• The Biggest Loser Part V

  I didn't get a chance to see last week's episode, so my comments are about Episode 408 which aired two weeks ago. In that episode, Neil purposely gained weight to secure his place in the game and keep from being eliminated. To me, there's something wrong with a show where people are rewarded for behavior like this. If you look at some of the people who have been eliminated so far, some of them were the hardest working people out of the bunch.  Phil is one good example. It bothers me when you have a system where people are eliminated for performing well.  Unfortunately, it's the nature of the system that has been set up.  When you have a system set up where people vote off a single person each week, then obviously the hard-working, great performers who are seen as a threat are going to get voted off.  And then people like Neil will resort to unethical behavior to win the contest.  While Neil technically didn't cheat, his behavior obviously was not ethical.  But the system unfortunately encourages this. Of course, this is the nature of television.  It's about creating drama and getting ratings, not about ethics.  This "game" and system of elimination creates drama and ratings.  But at what cost?  It makes me wonder what it does to the contestants psychologically.  Having other people vote you off, and some of the tactics the contestants resort to to protect themselves or to choose who is eliminated, cannot be very good for the self-esteem of the contestants.  And these are people who are likely already struggling with self-esteem issues due to their weight.  And while competition is great and can be motivating for many people, this voting-off system of competition can also bring out people's tendencies to play dirty. When these people leave the show, there is always a short segment showing how well they are doing, which is outstanding.  But I still wonder what effect the elimination process has on these contestants, and on the friendships they develop when on the show.  Unfortunately the cameras don't show you everything and you never know what goes on off-camera.   Posted Nov 13 2007, 10:17 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)

• The Biggest Loser Part 4

  I have not had a chance to watch this week's episode of The Biggest Loser (I recorded it), so this blog is about last week's episode. There's some flat-out misinformation that this show spreads.  During the show, one of the trainers will usually give fitness tips. In last week's episode, the trainer Bob Harper was giving a tip on how to have a flat stomach.    He claimed that doing crunches would reduce fat on your abdomen and make your waist smaller. I thought the myth of spot reduction had gone out with Huey Lewis & the News, but I guess not.    Just as there are still people listening to Huey Lewis, there are still trainers keeping the spot reduction myth alive. Don't get me wrong.  I like Bob.  Out of the three trainers on the show, I like his attitude the best.  I think he does a great job of motivating his clients in a positive manner.  But it does surprise me to see him spreading this Jack Lalanne-aged myth.   Spot reduction is not possible simply because of the way your body is structured.  When you do crunches, you are activating your abdominal muscles via nerves that go into the muscle.  These nerves do not go into the fat that lies underneath your skin (subcutaneous fat).  So, no matter how many crunches you do, you are not "activating" the subcutaneous fat on your stomach, and cannot selectively burn the fat from this area.  In fact, when you do crunches, the energy for muscle contraction is coming from muscle glycogen, a chain of sugar that is stored in your abdominal muscles.  The energy is not being supplied by fat. Basically, doing crunches has the same effect on your belly fat as massaging your belly with your hands.  You won't lose fat with either method. To lose abdominal fat and decrease your waist size, you have to create an energy deficit by decreasing your food intake and increasing your energy expenditure.  There's no other way.   Posted Nov 09 2007, 07:51 AM by jkrieger with no comments

• The Biggest Loser Part III

  I can't stand the blatant, in-your-face, shameless marketing in The Biggest Loser. At least a couple times every episode, there's a not-so-thinly disguised advertisement for one of the Biggest Loser's sponsors.  In my last Biggest Loser blog, I talked about the snack packs that they were marketing.  Last week, it was the Quaker Weight Control oatmeal.   Now, I'm not knocking this product.  It's a good source of fiber (6 grams), a good source of whole grain, and has no added sugar.  It's also got a fair amount of protein for oatmeal (7 grams). What I'm knocking is the way these products are pushed on the show.  One of the trainers sits down with the contestants and gives a spiel about Quaker Weight Control and how it's such a great breakfast.  The spiel is obviously rehearsed and scripted, and is trying to be passed off as part of a "reality" show.  But this isn't reality...it's a premeditated marketing ploy for the product.  What irks me is that they try to pass it off as an unscripted part of the show.  If you're going to advertise, then don't try to play it off like you're not. Don't get me wrong...I'm not knocking marketing.  Heck, my girlfriend works in marketing.  I will sometimes throw in little plugs for 20/20 Lifestyles in my blogs.  But there's a difference between me throwing in a plug for 20/20 in my blog, and the blatant in-show advertisements for the Biggest Loser's sponsors.  I plug 20/20 because it's a product that I wholeheartedly believe in.  No one is paying me to throw in some 20/20 marketing in my blogs.  Yes, 20/20 pays my salary, but our CEO isn't looking over my shoulder and telling me what to write.  In fact, I'm pretty free to write what I want in these blogs.  I'm not getting paid or being directed to advertise 20/20. Now compare that to the Biggest Loser.  Here you've got trainers pushing a product that they may or may not believe in.  They're pushing it because the sponsor has paid for it.  And the whole thing just ends up smelling phony.  On top of that, the product may not even be that great for what they're pushing it for.  They were pushing the oatmeal as a great breakfast.  Yes, the oatmeal may be part of a great breakfast, but unfortunately it doesn't contain enough protein to be classified as a good breakfast for someone trying to lose weight.  Seven grams just doesn't cut it.  Dr. Donald Layman, an expert on dietary protein and weight loss, recommends 20-25 grams of protein for breakfast.  That's also what our 20/20 dietitians recommend.  You need this amount for both appetite and blood sugar control. Anyway, enough about the marketing aspect of the show.  I've got plenty more to say about the show that I'll get to in future blogs.  In the mean time, go have yourself some Quaker weight control oatmeal...just make sure you get a good shot of protein to go along with it.   Posted Nov 06 2007, 11:43 AM by jkrieger with no comments