articles - weightloss/fatloss

[Manfred_Man]

from Men's Health

10 Ways to Lose Weight Now
You'll start dropping pounds before you finish reading this article

By: Elizabeth Ward R.D.

The perfect weight-loss article would include only four words:
Eat less. Exercise more.

Of course, if it were really that simple, I'd be out of work and the R.D. after my name would stand for Really Desperate (for a job).

Unfortunately for you (and, I guess, fortunately for me), it's a lot more complicated than that. Some guys need to eat more to lose weight. And some who are already exercising need to do less, but at a higher intensity.

My goal here is to show you 10 ways that you can manipulate your diet -- adding in some places, subtracting in others - to start losing weight the next time you open your mouth with the intention of putting something in.

1. Start your engine
I'm a mother, but I'm not your mother. So I can't order you to eat breakfast. But if you don't, you're putting your number-one fat-burning tool in time-out. It takes calories to digest calories, so eating in the morning fires up your metabolism.

Perfect breakfasts: Try a cup of whole-grain cereal with 1 percent low-fat milk and a banana, or two pieces of whole-wheat toast with two tablespoons of peanut butter and an apple. If you hate breakfast food, or have to eat on the fly, take a turkey sandwich (going easy on the mayo) or a slice of leftover cheese pizza and go.

2. Run with the snack pack
Here's where I disagree with your mother. She discouraged you from eating between meals-probably so you'd eat more of her delicious boiled-liver casserole-but I want you to have a snack handy at all times.

Here's why: If breakfast stokes up your metabolic fires, then snacks keep them going between meals. And planning your snacks in advance keeps you from making a mid-morning Chips Ahoy run.

Perfect snacks: Include one of the following two or three times a day: an ounce of nuts, pretzels, or string cheese; a medium piece of fruit; six graham cracker squares; or six cups of low-fat microwave popcorn.

3. Practice fiber-opting
I'm not out to turn you into a vegetarian or anything, but fiber-rich foods are about the only free pass you'll get in the nutrition world. They have few calories and make you feel full. Your goal is to eat 25 grams of fiber every day (Americans typically consume just 12 grams daily).

Where the fiber is: Eat at least three servings of vegetables and two fruit portions daily; and add beans to salads and soups. Choose whole-grain breads over those made with refined flour. And for breakfast, pick the highest-fiber cereal that doesn't taste like cardboard.

4. Fight fat with fat
Things change fast in my world. A few months ago, you couldn't tell overweight people to eat more fat without the evil specter of Dr. Atkins appearing over your head. Now, it seems, everyone knows about the health benefits of unsaturated fats, those found in fish, nuts, avocados and olive oil.

But in case you haven't heard, here's the basic problem with low-fat diets: You replace the fat with carbohydrates. Carbs provoke a rise in insulin. More insulin leads to more hunger. On top of that, your body digests carbs faster than fat. So you get hungrier faster.

Fat has neither of those liabilities. Your body digests it slowly, and it doesn't cause an insulin surge. So adding a bit of fat to breakfast, lunch, and dinner actually speeds weight loss.

Another point: Fat makes you feel more satisfied after a meal. You feel as if you've eaten, not just nibbled.

The flip side of this (you knew there was a catch) is that too much fat will make you fat. Fat packs more calories per square inch than protein or carbohydrates. Overeating is easy-especially if you're breaking rules 1 and 2, starving yourself through the day and then shoveling down a bag of fried pork rinds at night.

So add some nuts and olive oil to your next salad. Put some avocado on that turkey-breast sandwich. Smear peanut butter on your morning toast. And when you eat out, never pass up a chance for a nicely prepared piece of salmon, herring, tuna, or mackerel (these are the fattiest fish).

5. Don't get juiced
Sure, 100 percent juice beats the pants off soda for nutrition, but juice (and those pseudo-juice beverages, like Snapple) pack just as many calories-up to 225 in a 16-ounce bottle.

What to drink: Water works. It's not as magical as some make it out to be, but you can't beat it for calories (zero). Diet soft drinks are the next-best alternative.

6. Beer down
Want to look better naked? Try drinking half as much beer, wine, or whatever booze you choose. Alcohol puts on pounds in more ways than we can list here, but try these highlights:

> Alcohol contains calories. You may drink like a fish, but booze isn't water. Even a light beer has more than 100 calories. Kahlua and cream? Now we're talking calories.
> Booze makes you store fat. Your body sees alcohol as a poison, and tries desperately to get rid of it. Your liver stops processing all other calories until it has dealt with the alcohol. So anything else you eat during the time you're drinking is more likely to end up as fat.
> Alcohol lowers testosterone. With more abdominal fat, testosterone drops.
> A bender interrupts sleep. And sleep is when your body produces its biggest surge of growth hormone, a chemical that signals your body to use fat for energy. The less growth hormone you release, the fatter you become.

Inconspicuous consumption: When you want to drink less without anyone noticing, start with a glass of water as your first "cocktail" (add a lime for camouflage). Then alternate water with alcoholic beverages. You'll keep your hands busy, and think of all the calories you'll burn during those bathroom runs.

7. Have a green day
Sipping green tea -- the kind served at Japanese restaurants -- revs up your metabolism. Green tea may be foreign to you, but don't knock it until you've tried it. You can find it any supermarket, and it tastes fine. (Go ahead and add a teaspoon of sugar if it's not sweet enough.)

8. Greet meat
It's lunchtime in the local food court. Which do you go for: salad or burger? Of course, you think, the salad is better for you. After all, it's green. And leafy. And has all kinds of crunchy things, which look a lot healthier than a brown slab of dead animal.

But the burger is probably the better choice. Sure, the salad will have fewer calories if you limit what you put on it. Once you add turkey, ham, cheese and dressing, however, you could be looking at more than 700 calories for a three-cup serving. The burger? About 430 calories for a typical quarter-pounder. Plus, the burger will almost certainly make you feel more full, while the meat is rich in zinc, an important mineral for raising testosterone levels.

9. Go for the freezer burn
If weight loss were a game of poker, portion control would be your ace in the hole. You can eat anything and lose or maintain weight, as long as you don't eat too much of anything.

So here's another test: Dinner tonight - frozen meal or pizza? The frozen dinner wins because it gives you portion control. You buy one serving, eat one serving, and you're done. With the pizza, you buy multiple servings, and hope you only eat one of them - probably two slices. If you can pull that off, fine, eat whichever looks better to you. But if you think there's any chance you'll eat more than those two slices, you're better off not tempting yourself.

If the dinner you choose is just an entree and doesn't have vegetables, buy a bag while you're in the frozen-food aisle, and cook a cup of it. Don't worry about the vegetables not being fresh. In winter, the frozen vegetables are often in better shape than the "fresh" ones that were picked last week in Argentina.

10. And, uh, did we mention exercise?
While it's possible to lose weight by eating less without doing more, it's unlikely. The people who lose the most and keep it off the longest tend to approach both sides of the equation with equal fervor. So we'll see you in the gym.

[Manfred_Man]

from Men's Health

Why Diets Fail

You'll have a better chance of reaching your goal if you understand why 4 out of 5 dieters end up at the ice cream counter

Dieting Sucks
The deprivation, the siren calls of beer and pizza, the annoyance of micromanagement. Worst of all is the sense that the diet will last forever, that the peppery tang of chicken wings will never again touch your lips. It's no surprise that 80 percent of diets go belly-up, according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

We won't tell you to skip the diet altogether. We will tell you that it's going to be okay, though. In order to prevail, you simply have to get inside the diet's whens, hows, and whys.

So this time, instead of stumbling blindly through treacherous territory, you're going to go on a guided tour of potential diet pitfalls--maybe the same ones that have snared you before. And this time, you'll breeze past them.

There's just one catch: Pretty soon, you're going to need some new clothes.

1 Week

The crisis: You're freakin' starving.

Before: You ate the first thing you saw.

Now: Eat, but eat differently. Grab foods with lots of fiber and water. Your (gut) instinct says you want a Burger King Whopper with Cheese. Your smarter self knows that the same caloric load is found in a bowl of whole-wheat pasta with tomatoes and spinach, a whole-wheat dinner roll, a bowl of soup, and three scoops of sorbet. In the car? You'll keep a stash of dried fruit--a tasty, nutrient-rich hunger-killer.

The science: When your stomach is empty, the hormone ghrelin kicks in, which stimulates appetite, says Scott Isaacs, M.D., a clinical instructor of medicine at Emory University and author of Hormonal Balance. Don't let that happen. "By eating foods that are packed with fiber and water, such as fruits and vegetables, you'll feel full while controlling ghrelin production." Protein does the same thing, but some protein-rich foods are calorie-rich, too. So alternate. Have high-protein string cheese in the morning, fiber- and water-rich apple slices in the afternoon.

The 2nd crisis: You're cranky.

Before: You grabbed the chips and a soda.

Now: Boost your mood with snacks that satisfy your hormones, not your stomach. Fatty, sugary foods quickly turn into glucose after digestion. From now on, your snacks will be complex carbohydrates, such as a whole-grain treat like a bowl of Cheerios with blueberries and 2 percent milk.

The science: You're cranky because you've eliminated sources of quick mood-boosting energy--like chips and colas. "When these easy sources of energy are cut, you're going to go through a time when you don't feel great," says Vincent Pera, M.D., director of the weight-management program at Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island. Researchers in the Netherlands recently demonstrated that a glucose infusion can help ward off feelings of anxiety by enhancing serotonin function. That's fine, but get your boost from complex carbohydrates that raise your serotonin levels without inflating your waistline the way sugary carbs can.


1 Month

The crisis: The scale seems stuck.

Before: You figured, What's the point? This isn't working.

Now: Get in gear. "Exercising is critical at this juncture," says Dr. Isaacs. Nothing complicated--just move. Cardiovascular exercise (running, biking, hoops) burns calories, and lifting weights increases muscle mass, which will make you burn calories even while you're sleeping. For each pound of muscle you add, you burn an extra 20 to 50 calories a day. And drink lots of water to replace what you're sweating out. Staying hydrated helps your body break down fat and deadens those hunger pangs. (After all, water takes up stomach space, too.)

The science: "As you lose weight, you require fewer calories, but by building muscle mass, you'll rev up your metabolism and counter this effect," Dr. Isaacs says. In a recent study at the University of Arkansas, people on low-fat, high-complex-carbohydrate diets who also exercised lost 3.5 pounds more over 12 weeks than those who ate similar diets but skipped the gym.

The 2nd crisis: You have intense food cravings.

Before: You gave in. Because, hey, life is meant to be enjoyed.

Now: Give in to snack attacks, but wisely. David Katz, M.D., director of the prevention research center at Yale University school of medicine and author of The Way to Eat, recommends carrying "the food equivalent of an umbrella." Keep a bag or small cooler of nuts, fruits, yogurt, and low-fat cheese on hand at all times. You need ready access to healthy sources of protein or fiber to offset sudden, out-of-nowhere cravings.

The science: "When you diet, your previously overstuffed fat cells start shrinking," Dr. Katz says. They know their number's up and that they'll soon be burned for fuel. Understandably, they have other plans. "These cells send a message to your brain saying that they need more fuel. They shut down production of leptin, the hormone that tells your brain you're satisfied," he says. So your brain, by way of your cells, goes on the hunt for anything it can get your hands on. Which is why you should keep healthy snacks within easy reach.


6 Months

The crisis: You've made so much progress that you think, What the hell.

Before: You slipped--face-first, into a double-pepperoni, extra-cheese pizza.

Now: Weigh in. You need to keep your eye on your rate of weight loss. Setting targets blows away complacency. "People taste success, and their adherence slips," Dr. Pera says. "Their initial feelings of urgency to lose the weight also diminish."

The science: A study at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth shows that people who weigh themselves regularly are more likely to stay focused. They're continually reminded of their success so far and of the road ahead. Reaching your goal weight makes you more likely to keep the pounds off. A researcher at the University of Pennsylvania reports that patients who achieve their weight-loss goals are more psychologically satisfied. You're likely to stick with anything--a job, tennis practice--when you know it's paying off.

The 2nd crisis: You reach a plateau.

Before: You figure, Well, that's it. I've come far enough.

Now: Diet less, exercise more. It's probably going to be easier to exercise more frequently than to further restrict a diet that's become an ingrained habit. Throw in a few high-intensity days--an extralong run or bike ride--to boost the calorie deficit. If your exercise is mostly cardiovascular, devote more time to weight lifting.

The science: "Because your caloric needs have lessened, you need to burn off more in order to continue to see results," Dr. Pera says. "If you don't increase your amount of exercise or continue to cut calories, you plateau." The muscle from weight lifting, Dr. Katz says, will "increase resting energy expenditure. Then, when you return to more aerobics, you're taking more calorie-burning muscle with you, and you'll be bumped off the plateau."


9 Months

The crisis: A voice in your head says, I want my life back.

Before: You got fat again.

Now: Let loose--a little bit. "Being on a strict diet can drain you mentally, so there's a huge temptation to let things slide," says Dr. Katz. If you're meeting your goals, give yourself a break. "If you love ice cream, try a lower-fat version or a sorbet," suggests Howard M. Shapiro, M.D., author of Dr. Shapiro's Picture Perfect Weight Loss. "A pint of Ben & Jerry's Phish Food ice cream has 1,200 calories, while a pint of sorbet has only 300. You can still enjoy the taste, but you're not inflicting so much damage." The same logic applies with pizza, cake, beer, you name it. Savor a cold one, but make it an Amstel Light. Instead of the all-meat, extra-cheese pizza, top yours with chicken and green peppers.

The science: "By making your choices, you're empowered and in control, and won't feel the deprivation that might lead you to quit," Dr. Shapiro says. When you feel as if you've cultivated enough willpower, reintroduce a couple of all-time favorites into your diet--as treats, not everyday fare. If you've made it this far, you deserve a Guinness and an order of chicken wings. The baked ones, thanks.


1 Year

The crisis: There is none.

Now: "Physiologically, you've converted your body from a foe to an ally," says Dr. Katz. Blur the line between diet and lifestyle. Now that healthier eating patterns are ingrained, your diet isn't a "diet" any longer--it's a new way of living.

The science: According to research by the North American Association for the Study of Obesity, successful dieters report that "significantly less" effort is required to maintain weight loss; as the pounds come off, less conscious attention is needed to keep them off. In other words, the longer you go, the easier it gets.

[Manfred_Man]

from Men's Health

Perfect Meal Timing
When you exercise affects what you should eat, and when you should eat it.

Here's a great meal-planning system, courtesy of Mark Verstegen, a trainer of elite athletes (including Nomar Garciaparra) and author of Core Performance (Rodale, January 2004).

If You Work Out in the Morning
Meal 1 - Preworkout Snack
> 1/2 whey-protienn shake or
> banana and hard boiled egg or
> cereal w/fat-free milk

Meal 2 - Breakfast (immediately following workout)
> egg-white omelette w/veggies
> oatmeal
> OJ

Meal 3 - Midmorning Snack
> yogurt and fruit
> whey-protein shake and fruit

Meal 4 - Lunch
> salad w/grilled chicken and olive oil-based dressing or
> tuna or lunchmeat sandwich on whole-grain bread

Meal 5 - Midafternoon Snack
> peanut butter or cashews and an apple or
> meal-replacement bar or
> jerky

Meal 6 - Dinner
> grilled salmon, chicken breast or sirloin steak
> green salad w/olive oil-based dressing



If You Work Out at Lunch
Meal 1 - Breakfast
> scambled eggs w/whole-grained toast or
> oatmeal w/crushed flaxseeds and yogurt

Meal 2 - Midmorning/Preworkout Snack
(no more than 1 hour before workout)
> whey-protein shake and fruit

Meal 3 - Lunch (immediately following workout)
> chicken-breast sandwich on Kaiser roll
> fruit

Meal 4 - Midafternoon Snack
> peanut butter or cashews and an apple or
> meal-replacement bar or
> jerky

Meal 5 - Dinner
> hamburger made w/ground sirloin (90% lean) or turkey on whole-grain bun
> cucumber-tomato salad drizzled w/olive oil



If You Work Out Right After Work
Meal 1 - Breakfast
> scrambled eggs w/whole-grain toast or
> whole-grain cereal w/blueberries and skim milk

Meal 2 - Midmorning Snack
> yogurt and cashews or
> whey-protein shake w/peanut butter

Meal 3 - Lunch
> chicken-breast
> steamed veggies
> roll

Meal 4 - Midafternoon Snack
> peanut butter or cashews and an apple or
> meal-replacement bar or
> jerky

Meal 5 - Preworkout Snack
> 1/2 whey-protein shake

Meal 6 - Dinner
> grilled salmon, chicken breast or sirloin steak
> green salad w/olive oil-based dressing
> wild rice

[Manfred_Man]

from Men's Health

How the Low-Carb Craze Is Making Us Fat
When a weight-loss theory becomes a marketing tool, America gains weight.
by Stephen Perrine; edited by Rob Gerth


Anatomy of a Disaster

We've been here before - about 10 years ago, in fact. The last time a diet craze swept the country, it ushered in more than 3,000 new food products on the wings of just three simple words: Eat less fat. And yet, in the ensuing decade, the number of overweight Americans increased by 15 percent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, and the average American man's waist size increased by an inch and a half. Weight management became even more difficult, because the supermarket became more confusing, and the three simple words that were supposed to squeeze us back into our wedding suits let us down, terribly.

And it's about to happen all over again. "Consumers think carb-free is calorie-free, which it's not," says Leslie Bonci, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association (ADA). "They think someone's giving them permission to eat that food. And what's going to happen is, we're going to see people start to gain weight."

In January of this year, more than 400 people who work in the food industry gathered at the Adam's Mark hotel in Denver for the first-ever LowCarbiz Summit to learn how they could profit from the new craving for low-carbohydrate foods. What they heard at the start was a warning from Fred Pescatore, M.D., a protege of Dr. Robert Atkins, the original low-carb guru: "We can't be like low-fat," he said. "We can't be just a fad."

And then, for 2 days, they learned ways to turn the low-carb craze into exactly that. In between snacking on low-carb foods and drinking Bacardi and diet cola (the official adult beverage of the low-carb movement), conference goers attended sessions like "Low Carb for the Nondieter" and "The Scientific Case against Low Carb: Know What the Industry's Detractors Are Saying and How to Respond."


Eat like an American
If you eat the typical American diet, it makes sense to cut down on carbs. To eat more protein. To limit saturated fat and eat the mono- and polyunsaturated kinds. We ought to be at the dawn of a new era in which everyone knows what's good and what's bad, what makes us fat and what keeps us thin.

But the truth about low-carb diets is that they work, just not in the way their supporters claim. See, any diet that requires you to cut out a certain number of foods--fats, carbs, whatever--works in the short term for one reason: because it causes you to consume fewer calories. "Weight loss is not based on how much carbohydrate one eats or how much fat one eats or how much protein one eats," argues Santhay Bowmen, Ph.D., a researcher in the Nutrient Data Laboratory at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). "It is independent of the micronutrient composition of the diet. If you eat less energy than you expend, then you lose weight." And that's the simple truth, whether you're eating only meat, or only grapefruit, or only Cracker Jack.

In the typical American diet, a lot of our calories come in the form of refined carbohydrates--including sugar, milled grains, and the sugar substitute high-fructose corn syrup, or HFCS. And there's no denying that they're bad for you. Refined carbs offer all the calories of their less-refined cousins, whole-grain breads and cereals, but with many important nutrients--in particular, fiber--stripped out of them. According to USDA data, the typical American eats roughly 50 teaspoons of natural and artificial sugar a day--that's 147 pounds of sweet stuff every year.

In this scenario, cutting out carbohydrates--at least certain carbohydrates--makes sense. Low-carb diets decrease calorie consumption in two ways: First, because they force you to cut out easy-to-eat junk foods--obvious ones, like potato chips, candy, and pretzels, and less-obvious ones, like white bread and bagels and fruit-juice blends. Cutting down on these empty calories is a plan with which few could argue.

But the other way low-carb diets work is by making eating a little less convenient. You can always toss a bagel into your briefcase as you head out the door; sliding in a serving of steak and eggs to nosh on the way to work is a little more complicated. That's great if you're looking to shave a few calories--and hence a few pounds. If you can't take it with you, you can't eat it on the way.

This protein lust is turning into a windfall for chicken, pig, and cattle ranchers. According to a LowCarbiz survey, 59 million Americans are on low-carb diets. Sales of eggs increased 18.5 percent from 2002 to 2003, while bacon was up 9.8 percent and lunchmeat up 3.8 percent, according to ACNielsen.

But it's not so great for companies selling grain-based foodstuffs. Sales of white bread, cookies, and cereals dropped about 3 percent in the same calendar year, according to ACNielsen. Packaged-food manufacturers needed to get their lardasses on the low-carb bus. And now that they have, the bus has started listing in a very dangerous direction.


Who Moved My Cheetos?
The low-carb craze is a very simple idea that's gone terribly awry. And part of the blame belongs to an assemblage of statistics called the glycemic index.

The glycemic index is a list created by Canadian researchers that ranks foods according to how they react inside the body. Popular diet books like Atkins for Life and The South Beach Diet (the latter published by Men's Health's parent company, Rodale) use the glycemic index to delineate which foods are good for weight management and which are bad.

The theory works like this: Food is digested by the body and turned into glucose, or blood sugar. Blood sugar is regulated by the hormone insulin, which is manufactured in the pancreas. Insulin is your body's air-traffic controller: It tells the glucose where to go--to the muscles to be stored (in the form of glycogen) for quick energy, to the brain for thinking power, to all the body's cells for proper maintenance and function.

Foods that have a low glycemic index (GI)--mostly proteins and fats--are digested slowly. That's good, because a slower digestion rate means that your blood sugar remains relatively stable and cells are nourished with the right amount of energy. But foods that have a high GI are digested quickly, and they can cause a sudden spike in blood sugar. That's bad, because when glucose spikes dramatically, insulin takes the extra blood sugar your body doesn't need and turns it into body fat. Then your blood-sugar level plummets, and you get hungry again.

That's why the glycemic index is a pretty good indicator of which foods will lead to increased calorie consumption and obesity. But the glycemic index isn't perfect. Carrots have a high GI. But they're very low in calories, so you'd have to eat a bushel to touch off an insulin spike.

Joanne Ikeda, R.D., of the department of nutritional sciences at the University of California at Berkeley, points out another flaw: "The glycemic index is fine if all you eat is one food. But we don't do that--we eat a mixed diet. That's where the glycemic index falls apart."

It fails in other ways, too. The more fat (and hence, the more calories) a high-carb food packs, the lower its GI ranking, because fat slows the digestion process. You could make room for Cheetos and ice cream on your list of low-GI foods. And some high-GI foods, such as bananas and oranges, are low in calories and high in vitamins and other nutrients, and belong on your plate.

So what we're saying here is, eat lots of fruits and vegetables and whole grains. It's a simple sentence that would seem like common sense in any other era. But today, it seems like heresy. Because, rather than explain all these complex permutations, many diet moguls simplify things into one easy, three-word mantra: Cut out carbs.

And tens of billions of dollars are in play here. "Flour consumption per capita has dropped 1 to 2 pounds in the past 3 years," says Dale Eustace, a professor of grain science and industry at Kansas State University. That could translate to as much as $1.6 billion per year of lost revenue for agribusiness (based on statistics from the USDA). If that trend continues, food manufacturers may face some lean financial times. No wind for Cap'n Crunch's sails. No wax for Chef Boyardee's mustache.

And that's why the food industry has invented, and embraced, the "net carb."


License for Gluttony
Think back to the two reasons low-carb diets worked in the first place: Number one, they eliminated foods that were high in carbohydrates. Number two, they made snacking less convenient, because the foods that are easiest to grab (those offered by vending machines or drive-thrus) are loaded with carbohydrates. By whacking out a wide range of junk foods, they suppressed calorie intake and triggered weight loss.

But what if all those once-verboten foods suddenly came in low-carb versions, with all of the convenience and caloric load of their old selves but with an unofficial stamp of approval? That's exactly what's happening today, in a replay of the low-fat craze. Ten years ago, dieters gobbled up low-fat ice creams and cakes and brownies, and got fatter because, in order to make low-fat foods taste palatable, manufacturers had to load them up with extra sugar. The fat content was lower, but the calories remained the same--and the more calories you take in, the more weight you gain. Worse, because the foods carried the "low-fat" label, consumers figured they had a license to pig out--no fat, no foul.

Today, dieters are gobbling up the new lines of low-carb ice creams and cakes and brownies with much the same abandon. Low-carb-branded snack and beverage sales have tripled in the past 3 years, according to Information Resources, a sales and marketing research group. The firm also estimates that the average low-carb dieter spends $85 a month on specialized products, for a total market of $15 billion in 2003 and an estimated $25 billion to $30 billion this year. Big players like Unilever and Anheuser-Busch, and restaurants like Subway, Don Pablo's, and Burger King, have all introduced low-carb products.

And so, in a nation already under siege by a crisis in obesity, fat's new offensive is coming on two fronts.

First, there are the low-carb and Atkins-approved meals now being offered by major restaurant chains and mom-and-pop greasy spoons alike. Those chicken wings offered by T.G.I. Friday's, for example, are sold as an appetizer for the weight conscious. Yet there is no difference between these wings and the wings that have been the favorite food of fat men for years. (T.G.I. Friday's refused to provide an official calorie count for its appetizer, but a typical order of wings would carry about 1,000 calories for 24 pieces--and remember, that's an appetizer.) Even the Atkins folks are concerned that casual diners are misreading "low-carb" as "diet." Regarding those buffalo wings, Heimowitz says, "They're for people following a low-carb diet. They're not for people trying to cut calories and fat. The worst thing you can do is eat a high-fat food [like wings] and then eat a high-carb food."

Second, there are the new breed of "carb-aware" packaged foods, like CarbSmart ice cream and Carb Control yogurt. In many cases, these products carry as many calories as or more calories than their original formulations, or use other labeling tricks to masquerade as healthier choices. For example, Thomas's multigrain bagels have 300 calories per serving and 57 grams (g) carbs; Thomas's carb-counting bagels have 140 calories and just 23 g carbs. That looks like a great substitution, until you realize the carb-counting bagel is only a little more than half the size, by weight, of the original. Eating the same amount of both foods leaves the consumer about even. The words "carb-counting" indicate that this is a diet food.

And it's not.

[descarado]

hey manfred_man,

that previous article regarding meal timing was an excellent one!

just wondering, i work out between the "lunch" one and the "end-of-work" one, ie around 2-4. how would i adjust this?

[Manfred_Man]

Originally Posted by descarado

just wondering, i work out between the "lunch" one and the "end-of-work" one, ie around 2-4. how would i adjust this?

hey, descarado! you'd probably follow this eating schedule for the day:

Meal 1 - Breakfast

Meal 2 - Midmorning Snack

Meal 3 - Lunch
- you may want to keep your lunch a little lighter than usual
- make sure you're still getting your proper caloric intake throughout the day
- make sure you're still getting an adequate proportion of protein as well

Meal 4 - Preworkout Snack (1/2 hour prior to workout)
> 1/2 whey-protein shake

Workout

Meal 5 - Postworkout Snack (within 1/2 of completing your workout)
> whey-protein shake

Meal 6 - Dinner

Meal 7 - Nighttime Snack

[Manfred_Man]

from Men's Health

I Want You...To Get Fat
Confused by nutrition? That's the way food manufacturers like it. And the new Dietary Guidelines are their secret weapon in the war for your food dollars
by Suz Redfearn

It's amazing what you'll find in presidential impeachment testimony. On Presidents' Day 1996, Monica Lewinsky was standing in the Oval Office, listening to President Bill Clinton explain why he didn't think their relationship was such a good idea, when the phone rang. The person on the line was Alfonso Fanjul, a prominent sugar grower in Florida. Clinton stopped trying to let Lewinsky down easy and went on to speak with Fanjul for about 20 minutes. The reported subject? Vice President Al Gore's recently announced plan to tax Florida growers of sugar crops and use the revenue to help restore parts of the Everglades polluted by agricultural runoff. Needless to say, Clinton and Lewinsky's relationship lingered on long after that day. The proposed sugar tax, on the other hand, did not.

That the U.S. food industry is in bed with the government - almost literally, in this case - shouldn't surprise anyone. Whether through soft-money contributions or hard-nosed lobbyists, nearly every major business interest in America attempts to pull political strings.

So why not the folks whose business it is to sell food? What troubles many nutritionists is the reach of organizations like the American Sugar Cane League, especially since such groups' ability to manipulate the masses into consuming more "product" is measured most accurately with a bathroom scale.

And nowhere, critics argue, is the potential for politically engineered harm to our waistlines (and our hearts) more evident than in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The guidelines, which are issued every 5 years by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are supposed to represent the summit of scientifically backed advice on eating for optimal health.

But instead, the newest set, released on January 12, 2005, may represent something else entirely: how enmeshed our government is with an industry whose sole goal is to keep Americans eating.

Don't let Uncle Sam shove this down your throat
Until 1977, no one really cared what Americans ate, as long as they ate enough to survive and didn't develop nutrient-deficiency diseases, like scurvy. But that year, Senator George McGovern issued a report stating that nutrition had a major impact on health, a concept that, though common sense today, was a pioneering idea at the time. Three years later, the Carter administration produced the nation's first Dietary Guidelines, which told Americans exactly what to eat every day. (Among the plainspoken recommendations: "Avoid too much sugar.")

As the government's interest in our diets grew, so did the presence of food-industry lobbying groups in Washington. They swelled from just a handful in 1950 to about 80 in 1984. And although the 1985 sugar guideline remained the same, the 1990 version showed signs that the lobbyists were hammering away at its hard-line stance: The committee softened the language to "Use sugars only in moderation." By 1995, the guidelines even went so far as to adopt a slightly positive tone, advising consumers to "choose a diet moderate in sugars."

" 'Eat less sugar' sent sugar producers right to Congress," says Marion Nestle, Ph.D., a professor of public health at New York University and the author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health. "But that industry could live with 'choose a diet moderate in sugars.' "

That is, until 2000, the year the guidelines underwent their fourth revision. This time, exactly what you'd imagine might happen to an enemy of the sugar industry befell the recommendation: It lost all its teeth. Each person was now urged to "choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugar."

Apparently, the decision makers at HHS had a simple rationalization for this seeming sellout. "The mantra that's constantly repeated is 'All foods are good,' " says Carlos Camargo, M.D., D.P.H., an associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard medical school and a member of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines committee. "You know that's driven by economic and political interest. Nobody wants to say that a company's product is unhealthy."

And the people who do choose to speak out? They may find themselves under the same kind of government gag order Nestle says she experienced in 1986. That year, she left her faculty position at the University of California at San Francisco school of medicine and moved to Washington, D.C., to manage editorial production of the first Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health. It was an ambitious government effort to summarize all the research linking diet to chronic diseases. On the first day, recalls Nestle, her superiors instructed her that no matter what the studies showed, the report could not say "eat less meat," "eat less sugar," or eat "less" of anything. Turns out the agency she was toiling for, the Public Health Service, was nervous that food producers would complain to Congress and attempt to block the publication of future reports. And thus, when the report came out in 1988, the offensive four-letter word was absent.

It was also the only Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health ever issued, despite a congressional mandate that one be composed every 2 years. "The government abandoned the project, ostensibly because the science base had become increasingly complex," Nestle says. "Since then, I've become convinced that many of the nutritional problems of Americans - not the least of which is obesity - can be traced to the food industry's imperative to encourage people to eat more in order to generate sales and increase income."

Comments such as these have made Nestle a favorite target of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization whose Web site proclaims "Promoting Personal Responsibility and Protecting Personal Choice." Its spokesmen describe her as, among other things, a "food cop" and "queen of the food scolds." Of course, you have to consider the source (of the center's funding): "restaurants, food companies, and more than 1,000 concerned individuals."

The Food-Industry Fraternity
As far as we know, the fraternity of food-industry lobbyists doesn't have a secret oath. But if it did, Jeff Nedelman, a former lobbyist for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, one of the country's largest food-industry trade groups, would say it goes something like this: "The goal of every single [food-industry] association, large or small, is to maintain the status quo," he says, "to delay, to fight, to lobby to obscure the facts until its member companies have found a competitive way to reposition their products or to bring out new products to compete for new consumer demand."

Money, of course, is the primary means to these political ends. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan watchdog group that follows money trails around Washington, estimates that in 2004, representatives of food and agriculture groups spent more than $48 million lobbying politicians (and that figure doesn't include other agricultural concerns, such as tobacco and forestry). Specifically, the CRP's ledger shows that lobbyists for the Altria Group (owner of Kraft Foods) spent $1,142,997, while PepsiCo dropped $426,380 and American Crystal Sugar and the American Sugar Cane League sweetened the pot with $846,164 and $402,750, respectively. And that was just the money they were required to reveal. Much more is given anonymously to individual members of Congress through political action committees, soft-money contributions, and gifts.

When dollars don't work, the food industry employs less-subtle methods of persuasion. "You break arms," says Nedelman. The United Nations-sponsored World Health Organization (WHO) bore the full brunt of food-industry muscle in 2003, just as the U.S. Dietary Guidelines committee's work was getting under way. In response to the growing worldwide obesity epidemic, WHO assembled an independent panel of academics and medical professionals to review the scientific literature and develop recommendations for people to eat more healthfully and lose weight. One of those ways included limiting sugar consumption to 10 percent of daily calorie intake.

The Sugar Association, a consortium of sugar producers whose aim is to "promote the consumption of sugar," poured resources into fighting the report, demanding that WHO undertake another scientific review. The association also vowed to "use every avenue available to expose the dubious nature" of the report, including asking members of Congress to challenge the $406 million in U.S. contributions to WHO.

The funding remained intact, but the cochairmen of the Senate Sweetener Caucus, senators John Breaux (whose home state of Louisiana is the nation's second-largest producer of sugarcane) and Larry Craig (of Idaho, the second-largest producer of beet sugar), asked Health and Human Services to quash the report. HHS, in turn, produced a 28-page critique calling into question the studies that WHO had used to support its recommendations, even though the research was carried out by internationally known scientists. The result: WHO leaders appear to have shelved the report, which has yet to be implemented.

"What the United States did was unambiguously shameful," says Nestle. "But there's been a steady history of this."

When we contacted Breaux to determine why he felt so strongly that sugar consumption was not connected to weight gain, he declined to comment. And, actually, it's now former Senator Breaux: He currently works as senior counsel for Patton Boggs, one of Washington's largest lobbying firms, whose clients include Dole Food and Mars.

The Spirit of Partnership
If anyone in the USDA or HHS feels at all self-conscious about the food industry's involvement in the creation of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, you'd never know it from the sound bites.

"The food industry has spent a great deal of time and money appearing at and observing all of the negotiations that went into compiling the guidelines" is what Tommy Thompson, then-secretary of HHS, told a roomful of journalists, nutritionists, and policy makers when introducing the new guidelines earlier this year. In fact, he said, industry representatives met with him and secretary of the USDA Ann Veneman regularly during the 2-year-long process to determine what Americans should eat.

"Our president believes in partnerships," says Cristina Beato, Ph.D., HHS's acting assistant secretary of health. "Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. The role of government? To turn it around. We really need to bring in the power of those individuals who know how to sell food, those individuals who make the food, those individuals who know what American consumers choose and who help educate those consumers every day."

It was with this spirit of partnership, says Beato, that HHS approached the development of the new Dietary Guidelines, which began in September 2003 with the selection of a 13-member committee of academics and research scientists. "The charge to the committee was very specific," Beato recalls. "It was 'Your job as experts of science is to stick to the sciences. Do not venture into communications, and do not venture into policy - that is the job of this department.' "

And yet, despite this directive, HHS did little to insulate committee members from the influence of food-industry representatives, who apparently did consider policy their job.

"At some level, throughout the process, you're constantly made aware of the food industry, the beverage industry, and the economic impact of decisions," says Dr. Camargo. One frequent strategy was for industry reps to send boxes of publicity materials and reams of point-by-point responses to minutes of the committee's meetings. "Almost weekly, we'd get a big FedEx box of materials to review," says Russell Pate, Ph.D., a professor of exercise science at the University of South Carolina school of public health, who served on the committee.

Another food-industry tactic was simply to show up. "Anytime more than half of the members of the committee met, those needed to be public meetings," says Pate. "They were announced in advance and available to the media and whoever else wanted to sit in. They took place in large rooms where there were 200 or 300 seats available for non-committee members." Not surprisingly, few in the general public could take time to attend these meetings, whereas groups like the National Food Processors Association made sure they filled as many seats as possible and eagerly approached committee members during breaks. "If there's a food group in America that was not represented, I'd be surprised," says Dr. Camargo. "Every single little element of the American diet had an advocate."

While both Dr. Camargo and Pate feel confident that the committee remained above the influence of outside interests, the same can't be said for the recommendations their work produced. The committee doesn't write the Dietary Guidelines that are released to the public; it merely suggests what these guidelines should be. The final decision rests with the politically appointed HHS and USDA secretaries, i.e., the "partners" of industry.

"The committee is impaneled, does its thing, and finalizes a report, and we all sign off," says Pate. "Then it's turned over to the two agency heads, and we're decommissioned. As a committee, we're not privy to the conversations that took place in the agencies after we finished our jobs."

In this case, the final published guidelines differed from the committee's report in several ways. For example, the committee unanimously voted to reduce trans fat intake to 1 percent or less of total calories, but the final guidelines removed that figure. "I think it was just too big a step for the federal government," says Dr. Camargo. "Putting a number on it would have been such an earthquake in the food industry that I just don't think there was the will to do that." Think about it: Assigning a number would have resulted in a Daily Value percentage posted on the Nutrition Facts panel of every single packaged food. When trans fat figures finally begin appearing on labels next year, what consumer would knowingly buy a pack of cookies that will exceed his daily intake of trans fat by 300 percent?

But the first bite out of the food industry's bottom line would probably come from school cafeterias. Because the nation's school-lunch programs are federally funded - to the tune of $7.1 billion annually - they're required to meet the current Dietary Guidelines, which means that a concrete figure for daily trans fat consumption would immediately force food manufacturers to modify their existing product lines.

If not for the timely publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association of a Harvard study that strongly linked consumption of sweetened beverages to weight gain and an increased risk of diabetes in women, added sugar might not have been mentioned at all, says Dr. Camargo. He recalls a May meeting of the committee during which the preliminary recommendations for carbohydrates were reviewed. "It was 'grains, grains, grains,' but no mention of sugar," he says. Although the debate about linking added sugar to weight gain was vociferous (some committee members didn't feel that the published scientific evidence was strong enough), the Harvard study helped tip the balance, resulting in a recommendation to "reduce intake of added sugars."

Although this conclusion wasn't quashed outright, HHS and the USDA don't give it much play. The "key" finding about carbohydrates simply encourages consumers to "choose [them] wisely." Learning how to do so requires more reading. Only in the chapter on carbohydrates do consumers learn more about how to reduce their sugar intake - by avoiding sweetened beverages, for example. But, as with trans fats, the guidelines don't provide a measure for ideal intake, even though the brochure developed to introduce the guidelines to the public bafflingly states, "know the limits on fats, salt, and sugars."

"The guidelines are not very explicit about the 'how-to,' " says David Katz, M.D., a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the Yale University school of medicine and the author of The Way to Eat. "Most authorities recommend that added sugars make up less than 10 percent of total daily calories. And the agreement on trans fat is even more robust: It should be as close to zero as possible. No trans fat, period."

That lack of specificity is crucial when dealing with consumers, who may not be able to tell the difference between a food that will help clear their arteries and one that will help clog them. "Most people don't go to the supermarket and look for the trans fat aisle," says Dr. Camargo. "We reduce foods to nutrients, then we study the nutrients and how they relate to health. But we need to put [the process] in reverse and go back to people and say, 'These are the foods that have more or less of these nutrients.' But that piece is always the one that is so hard for the government to do."

"Most-Improved" Nutrition Guidelines
It's been several months since the release of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, and by now, most of the major nutrition associations and organizations have had a chance to weigh in. And if you think you can guess what their collective opinion is, you'd probably guess wrong.

The American Dietetic Association, which states that it "serves the public by promoting optimal health, nutrition, and well-being," quickly endorsed the new guidelines. Even the ordinarily hypercritical Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition-policy watchdog group, was pleased, calling them "the most health-oriented ever." The logic behind lauding the guidelines is simple, though far from sound: They're better than any other guidelines that preceded them.

In other words, HHS and the USDA are being praised for producing the "most-improved" nutrition guidelines, when their charge was to produce the best. Sure, the new guidelines do recommend daily exercise for the first time. And it's true that they mince no words in recommending whole grains, fruit, vegetables, and reduced-fat dairy foods.

But we also know that HHS and the USDA could have helped control two of the biggest dietary demons facing Americans, and yet chose not to.

Will the guidelines ever go from good to great? Some experts suggest that if the experiences of another big industry during the past decade are any indication, things won't get better until consumers get fed up.

"Tobacco-industry change occurred only once public opinion had become so galvanized, the politicians could no longer side with the industry that was paying them," says Kelly Brownell, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at Yale University and coauthor of Food Fight: The Inside Story of the Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis, and What We Can Do about It.

In the meantime, if you can make a meal out of crumbs, then by all means dive into the new Dietary Guidelines. But if you want the whole cake - no trans fat, very little sugar, thank you - then you'll want to take your appetite for honesty somewhere else.

[Manfred_Man]

Principles of Nutrition
A periodized nutrition plan to fuel your training and get you ripped like Lance Armstrong
by Scott Quill

A trip to Colorado Springs reveals that it's time to change the way you eat, especially if you follow the same diet every day. "If you're on a static diet, you're taking in either too few or too many calories at times, or not enough nutrients to support your training," says Chris Carmichael, Lance Armstrong's coach. The two are working right now on Armstrong's try for a record seventh Tour de France victory.

About 4 years ago, Carmichael created a periodized nutrition plan to fuel Armstrong's training, and it's hard to argue with the results. "By matching his nutrition to his training goals, Lance can stay healthy year-round and reach a pinnacle at the Tour de France," says Carmichael, author of Food for Fitness.

There's probably a time of year when you'd like to look or perform your best, which is why you need a predetermined and changing nutrition plan. The chief rule of Carmichael's approach is to view food as fuel for training, not a hungry response to it. In other words, adjust the number of calories and the amounts of nutrients you eat in order to optimally fuel the type, amount, and intensity of your training.

For instance, reduce your calories by 10 percent to 15 percent on days when you don't exercise, and "focus on foods that are high in antioxidants and protein to help you recover, especially cold-water fish." Salmon, albacore tuna, and halibut fit the bill, Carmichael says.

This nutrition approach benefits both strength and endurance athletes, but the plan that follows is particularly useful if you do a lot of endurance training or play sports often. First, record everything you eat and drink for 3 days, then calculate the percentages of carbohydrates, protein, and fat. (Software from nutricounter.com does all the calculations for you.)

Carmichael's plan has four phases: foundation, preparation, specialization, and transition. You'll peak in the third phase, so work backward from your goal to determine when to begin. For instance, to peak for the Marine Corps Marathon in October, you'd start the foundation right now.

FOUNDATION
Focus on general fitness during these 4 months. Do moderate-intensity cardiovascular work to build your endurance. Aim for 2.5 to 3 grams (g) of carbohydrates per pound of body weight every day and 0.5 to 0.6 g protein per pound. Your carb-to-protein-to-fat ratio should be approximately 65-13-22 percent.

PREPARATION
Go harder and longer for the next 2 to 3 months, focusing on strength, speed, and power. If you play a sport, practice exercises and drills that will enhance the skills you need. For instance, basketball players might include suicides and interval work on cardio days, plyometrics in weight workouts. Runners will mix in sprints and long runs. Eat the same percentages of carbs, protein, and fat as in the foundation period, but eat about 3 to 3.5 g carbs and 0.6 to 0.7 g protein per pound of body weight. You should eat about 15 percent more calories during this period.

SPECIALIZATION
It's peak time. Spend fewer hours training, but train more intensely than ever. This is when you're involved most in your favorite activity. Increase your carbs to 4 to 4.5 g per pound of body weight (about 70 percent of your total calories); aim for 0.8 to 0.9 g protein (about 14 percent of your calories); and reduce fat to about 16 percent of your calories.

TRANSITION
Recover for 1 to 2 months, but instead of collapsing on the couch, try a new sport or train about 25 percent fewer hours than you did in the foundation period. Eat 2 to 2.5 g carbs per pound of body weight, and bump protein to about 0.6 to 0.7 g per pound of body weight and fat to 22 percent of your total calories. Now's the time to start daydreaming about your next triumph.

[painless2]

I like the way she threw the "Oh yeah, some exercise too" at the end. Some good points along the way as well!

[descarado]

thanks for that, manfred_man! sometimes it's amazing, the amount of science that people put into every aspect of the workout. i will unfortunately have less control over what i eat this summer (for once i won't be cooking for myself, as i'll be going home till august!), but i reckon once i come back for my last year of college, i will be able to utilize this.

i have taken the advice of this board and yourself in regards to both cardio and weightlifting (some nutrition too), already seeing gains after what, 4 months or so? excited to think of the progress i will make over the next year, or the year after that...

[FatiGuE]

Wow, good job! You have basically saved me a 1 of going on the internet and doing misc research on my own, haha

[Manfred_Man]

Health Consequences of Overweight and Obesity

Overweight and obese individuals (BMI of 25 and above) are at increased risk for physical ailments such as:
- High blood pressure, hypertension
- High blood cholesterol, dyslipidemia
- Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes
- Insulin resistance, glucose intolerance
- Hyperinsulinemia
- Coronary heart disease
- Angina pectoris
- Congestive heart failure
- Stroke
- Gallstones
- Cholescystitis and cholelithiasis
- Gout
- Osteoarthritis
- Obstructive sleep apnea and respiratory problems
- Some types of cancer (such as endometrial, breast, prostate, and colon)
- Complications of pregnancy such as; gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension and preeclampsia as well as complications in operative delivery (i.e., c-sections).
- Poor female reproductive health (such as menstrual irregularities, infertility, irregular ovulation)
- Bladder control problems (such as stress incontinence)
- Uric acid nephrolithiasis
- Psychological disorders (such as depression, eating disorders, distorted body image, and low self-esteem).

[painless2]

What about DEATH Manfred? lol

[Manfred_Man]

Originally Posted by painless2

What about DEATH Manfred? lol

death is so commonplace today... everyone figures that they'll somehow beat the odds! but mention all those other consequences, and people seem to get motivated! makes you say, "hmmmmmmm...."

[painless2]

Death is sooooooooooo overrated!

[Manfred_Man]

Originally Posted by painless2

Death is sooooooooooo overrated!

lol & tears

unfortunately, life is so under-appreciated & taken for granted... wish people would take better care of themselves & of each other... this is probably getting off topic now, eh...?

[Manfred_Man]

Drink Yourself Skinny
No calorie counting, no carb watching. For half a century, meal-replacement shakes have been a no-brainer way to drop pounds. Why? They work.
by Timothy Gower

For Rob Nager, the epiphany occurred at Abercrombie & Fitch. He was picking through a stack of cargo pants and asked a clerk if they were available in a 42-inch waist. "Dude," the kid sneered, "we don't make pants that big."

Nager, 38, faced a choice. He could ask the little weasel to step outside, or he could do something about his 250-pound frame. He opted for peace and a new waistline.

He tried Weight Watchers, then Atkins. Both plans helped him slim down, but the flab always returned. Finally, Nager tried a weight-loss strategy that's been around since TVs were black-and-white; a strategy so old-school that one of the studies showing that it works went on for a decade. His throwback approach: meal-replacement beverages (MRs, in the weight-loss world). Nager just said no to solid food. Instead, he quaffed shakes in place of meals, eventually losing 22 pounds. That was 2 years ago. The weight is still off.

They're simple and they're foolproof. That's why MRs work for men who are too busy to worry about calories, says Allan Geliebter, Ph.D., a research psychologist at the New York Obesity Research Center at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital in Manhattan. "They just know that this is what they consume, and they don't have to think too much about it," says Geliebter. The best candidate for liquid lunches (and breakfasts), he says, is a guy who's healthy but wants to drop 10 to 20 pounds.

MRs come in two basic forms: liquid-only programs administered by physicians, and the more familiar, over-the-counter products sold in groceries and drugstores. The doctor-prescribed ones (like Optifast and HMR) replace all meals and are usually for seriously overweight patients. We'll focus on the over-the-counter options, like Slim-Fast, Met-Rx, and Atkins Nutritionals. They contain about 200 calories per serving, plus a dose of vitamins and minerals, and they're typically used to replace one or two meals a day. Most are available in ready-to-drink cans or in powder packets that can be mixed with water or milk.


Shake it Up

Last year, Steven Heymsfield, M.D., also of St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, analyzed a half-dozen small studies comparing Slim-Fast with conventional low-calorie diets. He found that people who guzzle the shakes in place of one or two meals a day consistently lose 7 percent to 8 percent of their body weight after 1 year. That's about 15 pounds for a 200-pound man, which, he notes, is roughly the same reduction you might achieve by taking a weight-loss drug such as Xenical - minus the risk of a drug's side effects (which include such horrors as "oily stools"). Meanwhile, Dr. Heymsfield showed that people who simply try to eat less food maintain a weight loss closer to 3 percent.

Pretty impressive, but most of the studies Dr. Heymsfield analyzed lasted only a year. Any obesity doctor worth his fat calipers knows that anyone can lose a few pounds, but keeping that weight off over the long term is far more difficult.

So how about a 10-year study? That's right. Last fall, George Blackburn, M.D., an expert in nutrition and metabolism at Harvard medical school, released findings from a study comparing two groups of people in the aptly named town of Pound, Wisconsin. The Harvard team gave one group Slim-Fast, with instructions to replace two meals a day with the shakes in an effort to shed pounds. When they reached their goal weights, the Slim-Fast folks were encouraged to keep pounds off by replacing one meal per day with a shake. The comparison group simply "followed the eating habits of their community," says Dr. Blackburn - which, in Wisconsin, was likely to include lots of cheese and bratwurst.

A decade later, the men using Slim-Fast had maintained a 7-pound weight loss, on average. Big deal, right? Well, yes, when you consider that their cheesehead counterparts gained 25 pounds, on average, during that same 10-year stretch.


Long-term Results

How long does this kind of diet last? As long as you want it to. Some patients stay on only until the weight comes off. Others, like Nager, stay on, to some degree, for life. "Data imply that one meal replacement per day can be used long-term," says Fabricatore, who recommends regular consultation with a licensed nutritionist if you plan on using two MRs per day for more than 5 months.

Nager says he doesn't miss the three-square-meals-a-day life; in fact, he says he's happy not to constantly be worried about food anymore. "If I stop my routine, I'm going to get hungry," he says. "Then I'd start slipping back into my old habits. This is a deal I'm willing to make." His weight loss has had a domino effect. Not only has he become a fitness fanatic, but Nager quit his high-pressure job in corporate sales and started a dog-walking business. "I feel better; I look better," he says.

[Manfred_Man]

More Food, Less Fat
Scarfing 6 meals a day boosts energy, builds muscle, and sheds pounds. But what to eat? Here's your quick 'n' easy guide
by D. Milton Stokes, R.D.

Some things are sadly predictable. Extra winter poundage, for instance. Or holiday binges. Or the 3 o'clock slump, which sags before you like a hammock every afternoon.

Here's a happier prediction: Eat more often and you'll avoid all of those problems. Spreading six smaller meals across your day operates on the simple principle of satisfaction. Frequent meals tame the slavering beast of hunger. The secret? Each mini meal should blend protein and fiber-rich complex carbohydrates. "Protein and fiber give you that feeling of satiety and keep you from feeling hungry," says Tara Geise, R.D., a nutritionist in private practice in Orlando and a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association (ADA).

Controlling hunger shrinks your gut. In a study published in the International Journal of Obesity, one group of overweight men was given five small meals, then was free to choose a sixth meal. A second group ate a single meal containing the same number of calories as the total of the other group's first five meals, then later had a free-choice second meal. The six-meal men ate 27 percent less food at their last meal than the two-meal men did at their second.

Consistent eating will also keep your protein levels high, helping you build muscle. "Your body can metabolize only so much protein at one time," says Katherine Tallmadge, R.D., author of Diet Simple. "Protein is metabolized better when it's divided evenly."

The challenge is keeping the mini meals mini. "It's critical that at the end of the day, the calorie content of your mini meals does not exceed what you would eat in three larger meals," says Jeannie Moloo, Ph.D., R.D., an ADA spokeswoman in Roseville, California. If you already know your calorie count, start eating.

Otherwise, go to MensHealth.com/caloriecalc and plug in your weight and activity level. With a suggested calorie count in hand, you can mix and match from the list of meals shown here. Yes, you can take two items from one meal list--if they're small. Looking to lose? Choose lower-calorie options. Regular Joe? Be as flexible as you please. Building muscle? Double up on a couple of the items--have an extra slice of pizza or two containers of yogurt.


Breakfast: (6 to 8:30 a.m.)
You're sleepy, so we'll keep it simple: Mix protein and quality carbs. "When protein is included in a meal, not only does it help prevent overeating at other times of day, but it also sustains energy levels and improves concentration," says Bonnie Taub-Dix, M.A., R.D., C.D.N., an ADA spokeswoman. This means choosing a milk-infused latte instead of plain coffee, or a slather of peanut butter along with the jelly on an English muffin. Do not leave home without breakfast--this is the foundation for the rest of your day.
1. 110 calories: Latte with reduced-fat milk
2. 140 calories: Skippy brand Squeeze Stick of peanut butter
3. 200 calories: 1 cup reduced-sodium cottage cheese with fresh peaches and cinnamon
4. 200 calories: 1 cup blackberries, blueberries, or strawberries with 6 ounces light yogurt and 1 tablespoon low-fat granola
5. 250 calories: Any-way-you-like-it egg on a whole-grain English muffin with melted cheese
6. 250 calories: Oatmeal made with milk instead of water; add brown sugar, walnuts, and/or any fresh or dried fruit
7. 260 calories: Cold whole-grain cereal, such as Kashi or raisin bran, with reduced-fat milk
8. 300 calories: Peanut butter and jelly on a whole-grain English muffin
9. 300 calories: Scrambled-egg burrito with turkey sausage and salsa
10. 300 calories: Two-egg omelet with spinach, mushrooms, and feta cheese


Midmorning Snack: (9:30 to 10:30 a.m.)
Planning matters. If there's nothing but junk in your workplace vending machines, buy the foods you need--string cheese, granola bars, trail mix, whatever--and keep a stash at your desk. (See "Make It, Take It," below.)
1. 80 calories: Stick of string cheese
2. 100 calories: Hard-boiled egg with a handful of grape tomatoes
3. 180 calories: Nature Valley granola bar
4. 250 calories: Ready-made reduced-fat smoothie, such as Stonyfield Farm
5. 250 calories: Clif bar
6. 275 calories: 2 or 3 small handfuls of trail mix
7. 290 calories: Kellogg's Nutri-Grain bar with a handful of pistachios or almonds
8. 300 calories: Slice of whole-grain bread topped with peanut butter and banana
9. 300 calories: Small bagel with 2 slices of Muenster cheese, melted
10. 400 calories: Medium-size fruit muffin (best if made with whole-wheat flour)


Lunch: (12 to 1:30 p.m.)
Be careful here! If you've had only a latte, fruit, and some string cheese so far, go ahead and have a big lunch. But if you've already eaten 700 calories (an omelet and a muffin, say), keep lunch light. Whatever you do, eat slowly, no matter how un-American that seems. It'll help you feel satisfied--and keep you that way.
1. 175 calories: Canned tuna with balsamic vinegar on whole-grain crackers or bread
2. 300 calories: 3 corn-tortilla flautas stuffed with refried beans and dipped in salsa
3. 350 calories: Half an avocado, sliced, or ½ cup prepared guacamole with tomato and onion in a whole-grain pita
4. 375 calories: Baked potato with chopped broccoli and a slice of American cheese, melted
5. 400 calories: Seafood salad in a whole-grain pita with diced tomato, cucumber, and onion
6. 400 calories: 3 or 4 slices of bacon, reduced-fat Cheddar cheese, thin apple slices, and peanut butter on toasted whole-grain bread
7. 400 calories: ½ cup hummus with roasted vegetables
8. 400 calories: Small ham-, turkey-, or roast-beef-and-Swiss wrap with vegetables and mustard, in a whole-wheat tortilla
9. 400 calories: Fresh mozzarella and tomato slices on a bed of greens, with balsamic vinaigrette and extra-virgin olive oil
10. 450 calories: Six pierogi with salsa or reduced-fat sour cream


Midafternoon Snack: (2:30 to 3:30 p.m.)
Steer clear of the candy bowl on your P.A.'s desk. "You could eat four small chocolates for 100 calories," says Geise, "or you could eat a cup of yogurt." The chocolate gives you hardly any protein; the yogurt delivers 8 grams.
1. 160 calories: Reduced-fat Cheddar melted on apple halves
2. 175 calories: 5 Laughing Cow cheese wedges
3. 200 calories: ½ cup baba ghanoush (roasted-eggplant dip) with vegetables
4. 210 calories: Half a container of Cracker Jack
5. 250 calories: 1 cup reduced-fat yogurt
6. 250 calories: Small handful of chopped pecans over a cup of fruit salad
7. 260 calories: Apple, pear, or banana smeared with peanut butter
8. 300 calories: Cup of chickpeas with a dash of cumin and fresh mint
9. 340 calories: 2 ounces roasted nuts
10. 350 calories: 1 cup each fat-free milk and frozen yogurt blended with a spoonful of peanut butter


Dinner: (5:30 to 7:30 p.m.)
Okay, this isn't dinner as you used to know it. But don't panic. At first, reining in meal sizes will seem strange. But portion control can make or break the plan. "This is crucial, whether you're looking to control weight, manage blood sugar, or maintain energy levels," says Tallmadge. And remember--you'll be eating again in 2 hours.
1. 200 calories: 2 cups mixed vegetables (fresh or frozen) with ½ cup marinara sauce and some grated Parmesan cheese
2. 275 calories: 3 or 4 large handfuls of greens sautéed in olive oil with a handful of walnuts and ½ cup raisins
3. 300 calories: 6-piece sushi meal with a cup of miso soup
4. 325 calories: Buffalo burger topped with coleslaw, onion, and tomato
5. 350 calories: Quesadilla made with a small corn or whole-wheat tortilla, cheese, beans, shredded chicken or lean ground beef, onion, and jalapenos, and dipped in salsa
6. 400 calories: Slice of pizza topped with cheese and ground beef or ham
7. 400 calories: Turkey London broil cut into strips, sautéed with onion, red and orange bell pepper, and teriyaki sauce
8. 450 calories: Small plateful of nachos--baked tortilla chips, shredded reduced-fat cheese, refried beans, and salsa (plus some corn or black beans, if you want)
9. 500 calories: Lentil, minestrone, or tomato soup with a grilled-cheese sandwich on whole-grain bread
10. 550 calories: 1 cup pasta tossed with browned ground turkey breast, black olives, diced onion, a drizzle of olive oil, and 1 ½ tablespoons crumbled Gorgonzola cheese


Evening Snack: (8:30 to 10 p.m.)
Famished? Feeling as if this was the longest day of your life? Maybe your calorie count is too low. Adjust it by adding more sensible foods to your plan. Or try choosing higher-fiber foods; they're digested slowly, so they'll help you feel fuller longer.
1. 150 calories: 5 cups Jolly Time light microwave popcorn sprinkled with hot sauce and/or 1 tablespoon Romano cheese
2. 150 calories: 1 cup rice pudding
3. 150 calories: 6 or 7 strawberries dipped in yogurt and drizzled with chocolate sauce
4. 150 calories: 1 cup cocoa made with skim milk
5. 175 calories: Sliced sweet potato (with skin), tossed in olive oil and baked
6. 175 calories: 1 cup skim ricotta cheese sweetened with Splenda, vanilla flavoring, and a dash of nutmeg or cinnamon
7. 175 calories: Seltzer with 2 scoops frozen yogurt, a handful of berries, and a shot of flavoring syrup, such as strawberry or cherry
8. 200 calories: Root-beer float with 2 scoops frozen vanilla yogurt
9. 200 calories: 2 handfuls olives
10. 275 calories: 2-ounce Snickers bar

[Manfred_Man]

another great article from our friends at Men's Health:

Get Stoked
Fifteen fired-up foods that can help you burn away the pounds
by Brian Good

The shortcut to losing weight? Fast food. Not the kind the clown and the King try to shove down our throats, but rather, edible amphetamines-foods that act like speed for the fat-melting motor known as our metabolism. Eat these foods and you're guaranteed to burn more calories... just by sitting there and listening to yourself digest. Only one catch: Like any good buzz, this boost is temporary.
"The only way to alter your resting metabolism permanently is to gain or lose weight, or to build extra muscle," says Janet Walberg-Rankin, Ph.D., a professor of exercise physiology at Virginia Tech. But look at it this way: If you have a few of these supercharged snacks and drinks throughout the day, for enough days, you will lose weight. And that's if you're doing nothing. Imagine if you were to stop listening to your stomach serenading you and actually begin exercising, too? The blubber-busting possibilities are endless. So grab a fork; it's time to add fuel to the fire.

METABOLISM BOOSTER PACK #1: MILK, WHOLE-GRAIN CEREAL, AND OATMEAL
Secret Ingredients: Calcium, complex carbohydrates, and fiber

How they work: Complex carbohydrates and fiber pump up metabolism by keeping insulin levels low after you eat. That's good, because spikes in the production of insulin send a signal to the body that it's time to start storing fat. And in order to stockpile fat, your body has to slow down your metabolism, causing you to burn fewer calories, says Margaret McNurlan, Ph.D., a professor of nutrition and medicine at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Since oatmeal breaks down slowly in the stomach, it causes less of a spike in insulin levels than foods like bagels, she says.

Besides helping to keep insulin production down, eating breakfast can also help stoke your daily calorie burn. When the U.S. Navy studied the metabolisms and eating habits of a group of its personnel, it found that eating breakfast helped raise the men's metabolisms by as much as 10 percent. "By skipping meals, you slow down your metabolism and prime your body to store fat," says McNurlan.

The calcium in milk is a metabolic trigger as well. A University of Tennessee study found that dieters who consumed between 1,200 and 1,300 milligrams (mg) of calcium a day lost nearly twice as much weight as dieters getting less calcium.


METABOLISM BOOSTER PACK #2: JALAPENO, HABANERO, AND CAYENNE PEPPERS
Secret Ingredient: Capsaicin--the chemical in peppers that gives them their bite

How it works: By speeding up your heart rate.

A study from the late '80s found that eating a single spicy meal can boost your metabolism by up to 25 percent, with the spike in calorie burning lasting for up to 3 hours after you finish eating. More recently, a study from Laval University in Quebec found that men who consumed coffee plus red pepper-packed snacks and meals were able to burn nearly 1,000 more calories a day than a control group.

Small snacks can also help keep your body from running out of fuel-preventing those 3 p.m. office blahs. "When you restrict the number of calories your body has for fuel, your metabolic rate can drop temporarily," says Susan Roberts, Ph.D., chief of the energy-metabolism laboratory at Tufts University in Boston. That makes it easier to pack on the pounds and harder to burn them off again.


METABOLISM BOOSTER PACK #3: GREEN TEA AND COFFEE
Secret Ingredients: Caffeine and a chemical in the tea called EGCG

How they work: Caffeine helps speed up your heart rate. The faster your heart beats, the more calories you burn. EGCG works in a similar way, but instead of revving up your heart, it causes your brain and nervous system to run more quickly-again helping you burn more calories.

In studies, researchers found that a combination of caffeine and a 90-mg dose of EGCG taken three times a day can help you burn an extra 80 calories a day. And that's just when your body's at rest. A study conducted by the Canadian government found that soldiers who consumed caffeine in the 12 hours prior to a physical-fitness test not only were able to work out longer before becoming exhausted, but also consumed more oxygen while working out. The body's oxygen requirements are directly related to the speed of-guess what-your metabolism, so the more oxygen you use, the more calories you burn during your workout.


METABOLISM BOOSTER PACK #4: LEAN BEEF, PORK, CHICKEN, AND TURKEY
Secret Ingredient: Protein

How it works: It takes more energy for your body to digest the protein in meat than it does for it to digest carbohydrates or fat, according to Doug Kalman, R.D., director of nutrition at Miami Research Associates, a nationally recognized pharmaceutical-research facility. "That means that the more protein you eat, the harder your body has to work to digest it, and the more calories you'll burn in the process," he says.

When researchers at Arizona State University compared the benefits of a high -protein diet with those of a high-carbohydrate diet, they found that people who ate a high-protein diet burned more than twice as many calories in the hours following their meal as those eating carbs. Even better, researchers in Denmark found that men who substituted protein for 20 percent of the carbs in their diets were able to boost their metabolisms, increasing the number of calories they burned each day by up to 5 percent.


METABOLISM BOOSTER PACK #5: SALMON, TUNA, AND SARDINES
Secret Ingredient: Omega-3 fatty acids

How they work: By altering levels of a hormone called leptin in your body. Several recent studies suggest that leptin directly influences your metabolism, determining whether you burn calories or store them as fat.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin found that mice with low leptin levels have faster metabolisms and are able to burn fat more quickly than animals with higher leptin levels. The best way to lower your leptin? Eat fish.

Mayo Clinic researchers studying the diets of two African tribes-one of which frequently ate fish and one of which didn't-found that fish eaters had leptin levels nearly five times lower than the levels found in tribes that primarily ate vegetables.

The good news, if you don't like fish: Fish-oil supplements may work just as well as the stuff with scales. French researchers found that men who replaced 6 grams of fat in their diets with 6 grams of fish oil were able to boost their metabolisms and lose an average of 2 pounds in just 12 weeks.

[Doughboy]

Awesome articles M. Man those are very good. Ive read about half so far