Search

20/20 InSights

March 2008 - Posts

  • Can running make you high?

    The theme for our April newsletter is stress reduction, and, with perfect timing, somebody sent me a link to a New York Times article on the runner's high.

    Everybody's heard of the runner's high, and some people actually experience it.  To some, the "runner's high" refers to a feeling on intense euphoria someone gets after a long endurance event.  To others, it may simply be a feeling of calmness.  Yet, other people don't feel it at all.

    In the past, the "runner's high" was just something a lot of people have talked about, without any hard evidence that it existed...that is, until now.

    Some researchers from Germany did some fancy-schmancy brain testing on runners to see if the runner's high existed, and what caused it. 

    They found that 2 hours of running caused the release of opioids in the brain.  Opioids are "feel-good" chemicals.  Opioids are the same chemicals stimulated by morphine, which causes pain relief.  They are also the same chemicals that are released when we eat sweet foods, which is why some people find comfort in food when they are under stress.

    The scientists found that the opioids attached themselves to areas of the brain associated with emotions; this is the same part of the brain that is activated when you're in love, or when you hear music that gives you the chills.

    Also, the greater euphoria that the runners experienced, the greater the level of opioids in their brain.

    This is yet another study in a growing list showing the positive benefits of exercise on mood.  It also shows that exercise can be an effective way to relieve stress, and can be a good alternative to turning to food in times of emotional distress.  So, the next time you feel stressed out, hit the road rather than the cookie jar...you'll get the same response in your brain without the extra calories.

     

    P.S.....remember to comment in my last blog if you're interested in a weight-loss supplement lecture....

     

    Posted Mar 31 2008, 10:58 AM by jkrieger with no comments
  • Weight Loss Supplements

    I've been considering doing a lecture on weight loss supplements (CLA, fat blockers, TrimSpa, etc, etc, etc).  I would talk about what works (if any work), what doesn't work, and how much help (if any) you could expect from a lot of these products.  I would talk about each one individually, what they are, and what the science has to say about them.

    I want to know from you if you would be interested in such a lecture.  If you are interested, post a response to this blog.  If I get enough interest, I'll try to get one set up.

    Also, if you have any other lecture/class ideas, let me know.

     

    Posted Mar 21 2008, 09:29 AM by jkrieger with 15 comment(s)
  • The Power of Personal Touch

    One of our staff alerted me to a study in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  In this study, researchers compared different strategies for maintaining weight loss after a weight loss program.  One group (the control group) was self-directed.  A second group had monthly personal contact with a health professional.  A third group had unlimited access to an interactive website.  They tracked the subjects for 30 months.

    So who regained the least amount of weight?

    The personal contact group.

    This was followed by the interactive technology group, and finally the self-directed group.

    The primary message here is that personal contact with a health professional can be a big help to you keeping your weight off over the long term.  In fact, I think one of the reasons we have such good success in 20/20 is the constant personal "touch" our clients get from the trainers, dietitians, counselors, and doctors.  This study shows that it's important to keep occasional contact with these professionals to help you keep your weight off long-term.  For example, you can hire a trainer and see him/her once a month, or pop in to our alumni center on a regular basis to do a quick weigh-in and blood pressure check.  I remember that I once had a 20/20 client who continued to see me once a week after the program was done, so that he would have some accountability.

    The other message is that interactive technology can help a bit too.  So take full advantage of the 20/20 community site.  In the future there will be numerous enhancements, including forums.

    The bottom line is that the more sources of help you take advantage of, whether it's personal contact or online services, your chances of long-term success are increased.

     

    Posted Mar 21 2008, 08:18 AM by jkrieger with no comments
  • Multi-meals

    In 20/20, we often preach the value of multiple small meals per day.

    Food-Navigator recently reported on a study showing that less frequent eating was associated with adverse changes in health.

    In a small study, researchers took volunteers and put them on two 8-week diet periods.  During one period, the subjects only ate once per day.  During another period, they ate 3 times per day.  They ate the same number of calories during both periods.

    When the subjects only ate once per day, they had an increase in total cholesterol, LDL ("bad") cholesterol, and blood pressure.  They also had trouble regulating their blood sugar, and their morning blood sugar levels were higher.

    This is not the first study to indicate that more frequent eating is better for you.  One study showed multiple small meals to reduce appetite in obese people.  Another study showed that the more often people ate, the less they ate overall.

    So, whether your goal is to lose weight, to improve your overall health, or all of the above, eating 5-6 times per day is the way to go.

     

    Posted Mar 17 2008, 11:13 AM by jkrieger with no comments
  • Dr. Oz Part II

    After some comments left to me from people, either online or in person, I think a clarification of my last blog is in order.

    In that blog, I talked about how Dr. Oz's exercise-for-weight-loss recommendations would not work very well for weight loss (and long-term weight maintenance in particular).

    Some of you interpreted it as me saying that, if you can't do 2500 calories per week, then you might as well not work out at all.  Some of you also interpreted 2500 calories as being over an hour of intense exercise every day.

    First, the issue is not a black/white issue.  It's not an issue of "if I can't do 2500 calories per week, then I'll gain all my weight back."  Something is always better than nothing.  Certainly, 30 minutes at 3 days per week is better than nothing.  You will get tremendous health benefits from this amount of exercise, including lower blood pressure, lower blood sugar, and improved mood.

    It's also possible to lose weight on this amount of exercise.  However, it's only possible if you're strictly adhering to a low calorie diet.  Such a small amount of exercise alone usually does not create a sufficient energy deficit to create noticeable weight loss.  The reason is that our bodies do a really good job of compensating for small changes in our energy expenditure, to keep our weight constant. 

    Let me give you an example.  Let's say I jog for 30 minutes, 3 days per week.  For a 170 lb person, that's about 284 calories per exercise session.  That's 852 calories per week.  In a perfect world, assuming everything else remains constant, that's about 1 pound of weight loss per month.  It's tough to notice 1 pound per month, and a lot of people wouldn't be satisfied with that rate of weight loss.  Now, that's assuming that everything else remains constant.  However, when it comes to small changes in our energy expenditure, like this, our bodies will often adjust to it.  An 852 calorie per week deficit is 122 calories per day.  Such a small deficit can easily be wiped out with an extra tablespoon of peanut butter per day...or a cookie...or laying around a bit more during the day.  We will often make these adjustments without noticing it...we might eat a bit extra, or be a bit more sedentary.  So the result is not even 1 pound of weight loss per month.  Rather, your weight stays steady.

    This is why a low-calorie diet is necessary to lose weight on this level of exercise.  Otherwise, you simply do not have the energy deficit to create noticeable weight loss.  In fact, you need to create a big enough deficit to jolt your body into losing weight.  Small deficits are too easy for your body to compensate for.

    This is also why I felt Dr. Oz is being misleading.  It's a show about weight loss, and most people expect significant weight loss.  Some people might give up exercise completely out of frustration, if they had the unrealistic expectation that they would lose significant weight from his recommendations.  Now, if Dr. Oz said something like, "This level of exercise only helps you lose weight in combination with a low-calorie diet", then he wouldn't be so misleading.

    Also, I need to clarify that the 2500 calorie per week recommendation is for long-term weight maintenance.  It's actually easier to get by with less exercise when you're trying to lose weight.  Why?  Because most people cut back on their calories when they're trying to lose weight.  In fact, most of the energy deficit comes from cutting back on calories...not from exercise....and that includes the 20/20 program.  However, once people reach their goal weight, they tend to start to eat more.  This means they have to increase their exercise to compensate, so that they can continue to maintain their weight.

    The research is very clear that 2500 calories per week is the threshold for keeping your weight from creeping back on.  In one study, people who did about 2300 calories per week maintained about 75% of their weight loss.  People who did around 1500 calories per week (that's about 3 one-hour cardio sessions per week) gained about half of their weight loss back.

    This is also clear from research on the National Weight Control Registry.  This is a national database of people that have lost at least 30 lbs and kept it off for at least a year.  The research shows that these people do about 2800 calories per week in physical activity.

    Now, keep in mind we're talking physical activity here.  Physical activity does not always mean sweating your butt off in the gym.  It includes any recreational activity, including walking, hiking, biking, etc.  2500 calories per week does not mean you have to do all of it in the gym.

    I also want to get to the idea that some of you had, that 2500 calories is over an hour of vigorous exercise every day.  That's not the case.  In my last blog, I said that 2500 calories per week is about 35-40 minutes of vigorous exercise, 5 days per week.  If you do more days per week, you can do less per day.

    Now, if you're the type to do moderate exercise (like brisk walking), then, yes, it's over an hour a day, if you're doing 5 days per week.  If you're doing it daily, you can get by with less.

    Also, you can get by with less if you're making up for it in other ways.  For example, I don't do 2500 calories of formal exercise per week, but I'm also very active through out the day (despite having a desk job).  I've worn a pedometer before, and my daily steps have hovered from 10,000 to 14,000.  My total daily energy expenditure (measured using the Sensewear Armband) is around 3,300 calories per day...even on days I don't work out.  And, no, I don't have a fast metabolism (my metabolism is actually 10% below what you would predict for my height and weight)....I'm just active throughout my entire day.  I'm also very aware of my food intake and rarely overeat.

    Some of you thought my last blog would discourage people from exercise....that it might cause them to give up when they learned how much 2500 per week is.  However, there's a lot of ways you can get that 2500 calories in...it doesn't mean you're a slave to the gym.

    Nevertheless, losing significant weight, and keeping it off, is a huge commitment, and I don't think people should be misled as to it being anything less.  It's not just the exercise...it's the time commitment required to change your lifestyle....the time in preparing food, the time in getting enough sleep, the time in effectively dealing with stress.  Dr. Dedomenico says in the 20/20 Intro that it's 10-15 hour per week, part-time job for the rest of your life.  He doesn't sugar coat it, and he's right.  It's not easy, and nobody should be led to think that it will be easy.  His part-time job comment doesn't seem to discourage too many people, because people are still packing his intros, and this program continues to be filled with clients...clients that are losing almost 40 lbs on average.  We're obviously doing something right.

     

     

     

     

     

    Posted Mar 13 2008, 09:57 AM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)
  • Oz: The Great and Not So Powerful

    My fiance' had tivoed a recent episode of Oprah.  As much as I hate to admit that I've watched a few episodes of Oprah in my time, I sat down with her to watch this episode because Dr. Mehmet Oz was talking about weight loss.

    Some of the stuff he said was right on, but some of the other stuff he said was way off.

    First, he repeated the oft-repeated myth that muscle burns 50 calories per pound.  In another blog, I talked about how this is not true.

    He also said that, to lose weight, you need to do something like 20-30 minutes per day of cardio, 3 days per week (I can't remember the specific numbers but this is right around what he said).  He also mentioned including a few days per week of weight training.

    I would certainly agree that you need a combination of regular cardio and weight training to most effectively lose weight.  But, unless your diet is perfect, and you're doing 20-30 minutes of very intense cardio (like interval training), that's not going to be enough for most people....at least not enough to keep the weight off once it's been lost.

    In fact, the research shows that you need to expend at least 2500 calories per week in activity to keep your weight off.  For a 170 pound person, that's 75 minutes of walking at 4 mph, 5 days per week.  Bring that up to a 7 mph run, and that's 35-40 minutes, 5 days per week.

    You want to know how intense you would have to exercise to get 2500 calories in the amount Dr. Oz recommends?  Well, two 20-minute, vigorous weight training sessions would be about 325 calories (again, for a 170 lb person).  Three 30-minute cardio sessions, running at 10.9 mph (5.5 minute miles!!!!!), is 2200 calories.  Most people can't even get close to 11 mph for 30 minutes.  So the amount of exercise Dr. Oz recommends is not nearly enough for most people to keep their weight off.

    Now, I think Dr. Oz has a lot of good stuff to say, and there's a lot of stuff he says that I think is right.  But no one is an expert on everything, not even a guy who wrote a manual to your body.

     

    Posted Mar 10 2008, 12:37 PM by jkrieger with 3 comment(s)
  • Pricey Placebos

    While this isn't a weight loss/metabolic disorder/fitness/nutrition related topic, I thought it was too interesting not to mention something about it.

    The Journal of the American Medical Association just came out with a short report showing that expensive placebos give greater pain relief than cheap placebos....even when they're the same placebo!!!

    In this study, subjects were given a pill; they were told that it was a new pain-relief pill.  They were then given electric shocks.  They were asked to rate how much it reduced the pain of the shocks.

    Half of the subjects were told that the cost of the pill was $2.50 per pill.  The other half were told that it was discounted to 10 cents per pill.

    The pill, in fact, was not a pain-relief pill at all...it was just a placebo.  But the subjects did not know that.

    The results?  The subjects reported more pain relief when they were told the pill was $2.50, versus only 10 cents.

    The mere suggestion that the pills were pricey made the pills more effective, at least in the subjects' minds.  This shows how price or brand name can alter the perceived efficacy of a medication.  It also shows why some people think brand name drugs work better than generic versions, despite the fact the drugs are exactly the same.

    The other interesting thing is that even the subjects with the 10-cent pill reported pain reduction...even though the pill was just a placebo.

    Never underestimate the power of the mind.

     

     

    Posted Mar 07 2008, 08:17 AM by jkrieger with 2 comment(s)
  • Airborne Deceit

    In my last blog, I talked about how vitamin C doesn't do much for colds.

    Well, I came across some news today that relates to this topic.  Airborne Health, the company that sells Airborne, has to fork out $23 million in a settlement agreement after the firm made false claims about its supplement.

    It was found that the product was deceptively marketed.  Also, Airborne Health claimed that the product was supported by a clinical trial.  However, ABC News found that this was not a legitimate clinical trial run by doctors or scientists.  In fact, this "clinical trial" was done by a guy who never even graduated from school.

    It doesn't surprise me that Airborne is bunk.  If you look on the ingredient list, it's nothing more than an overpriced, overglorified multivitamin.  In fact, the doses of each vitamin and mineral are either similar, or less than you would find in a typical multivitamin.

    On top of that, if you take two Airborne pills, you're getting 10,000 International Units (IU) of Vitamin A per day.  10,000 IU is the maximum upper limit that is considered safe by the Food & Nutrition Board.  And this company recommends that you take 3 pills!

    Vitamin A comes in two forms....retinyl palmitate, and beta carotene.  Your body can convert beta-carotene to vitamin A as needed, so the danger of getting too much is minimal.  However, this is not true with retinyl palmitate.  It is a fat-soluble vitamin, and is stored in your body.  If you take too much for too long, it can have toxic effects.  Retinyl palmitate is the form of vitamin A found in Airborne.  Now, taking 15,000 IU for 3-4 days isn't going to cause problems....problems only start to happen with excessive doses taken for months.  Still, it's irresponsible of a company to put such a high dose of retinyl palmitate in their product.

    The product also contains glutamine, an amino acid that is used as a fuel source by your immune cells.  However, it only contains 50 milligrams.  I published a study on glutamine in 2006, and I can tell you that 50 milligrams isn't going to do a thing for you.  You get more glutamine out of food then you do from Airborne.

    Airborne seems to make a big deal that it was designed by a schoolteacher.  I'm not quite sure how being a school teacher makes one an expert on nutrition and immune function.

    So why is this product so popular?  Well, this school teacher once appeared on Oprah

     

     

    It must work, then, right????!!!

    Man, all it takes is one appearance on Oprah and a product becomes an instant success...regardless of whether it's legit.  I think I need to get on Oprah :)

    Anyway, I think the term "Airborne" is a very fitting name for this product...because its claims are more full of air than substance.

     

    Posted Mar 04 2008, 12:54 PM by jkrieger with 1 comment(s)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems