| Subject: TO DIET OR NOT TO DIET, a new life-stile and a fit and healthy body. |
Author:
Just a Dad
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 20:57:29 05/14/02 Tue
To Diet Or Not To Diet?
By: Peter R Bromer and (Phil Kaplan)
There are many questions about this subject. Should I go on a diet? Do I weigh too much? Why can’t I be thin? Do I have a dancer’s body? Which diet is best for me? How can I loose weight?
Well, let me try to answer this question. First let me say, that most would agree that a dancer should probably have a slimmer body than the average person, but not a thin body. As a dancer you must be strong and healthy. Starving yourself is not the answer.
What follows is true for everyone! Not just dancers. Old or young, child or adult, male or female, but especially dancers:
1. “Quick weight loss is absolutely, positively, 100% guaranteed to result in residual weight gain! Quick weight loss amounts to water loss. Don't eat for a couple of days, chug water, walk 12 miles, swallow some caffeine pills, and sit in the sauna for 30 minutes at a time. I guarantee you'll lose weight. Is that effective or healthful if the goal is long term fat reduction? Of course not. Even if it were effective (which it isn't), is that a regimen you can stick to? Not in a million years.
The longer an individual attempts to remain on a restrictive program, the more likely it is that muscle will be sacrificed and thyroid hormone production will be altered. Translated that means metabolism slows.
In order to get the body to release fat, you have to understand some realities.
1. The human body is not really capable of shedding more than 2 pounds of fat in a week, especially on an ongoing basis, and even that . . . 2 pounds per week . . . would be an extreme!
2. The human body is capable of losing far more than 2 pounds in a week, but that would indicate loss of either muscle or water.
3. Muscle loss is guaranteed to decrease caloric burn and slow metabolism.
4. Water loss is temporary.
Since so many have actually lost 8, 10, or even 12 pounds in a week or two, when they get on a program that doesn't immediately team up with the scale to create the illusion that "it's working," they feel frustrated, defeated, and ready to bail out. Nobody helped them to understand that the journey has to take time.
It gets even more frustrating. If you take someone who is used to starving, to cutting back on food, and they begin to consume meals complete in proteins and supportive carbohydrates, they begin to hold more "glycogen" in muscle tissue. That's a good thing! Glycogen is stored fuel. If they've also started an exercise program, their glycogen storing propensity is even greater. Glycogen attracts water! After two weeks on an efficacious and valuable fat loss program, it is possible that "scale weight" might have crept up a few pounds! Since so many have been programmed to gauge their progress by the scale's momentary report, the all too familiar "failure" sensations kick in all over again.
When you get the balance between the right nutrition and the right exercise correct . . . you begin a process of ongoing improvement that can take you literally as far as you'd like to go. The demons are those little voices in your head that want you to fail. The voices that tell you if you're not seeing weight loss you are a complete and total failure.
The scale can not tell you anything other than how many pounds you weigh under gravity at any given moment. It can not distinguish between water, bone, muscle, internal organs, teeth or hair. It simply gives you a meaningless total.
The body needs to go through a process that allows you to speed metabolism, develop functional strength and energy, and ultimately shed fat in a manner that keeps you in control. Do this correctly, and although there is a definite time investment on your part, the payoff cannot be matched.”
2. “In order for a program to be effective, it must have a concern for three synergistic components:
1. The Right Nutrition
2. Moderate Aerobic Exercise
3. A Concern For Muscle (weight lifting or other resistive type exercise)
All three of these MUST be in place in order to stimulate a healthful and long lasting fitness result. If any program neglects any of the three components, you are without question looking at a flawed technology. The right nutrition means Supportive Eating! As far as the aerobic exercise component, it is possible to do too much and sacrifice lean body mass which will affect metabolism adversely. All you need is 12 to 20 minutes a day of aerobic exercise. The third component also applies . . . for everyone! Muscle is your metabolism. Muscle is the site where fat is burned. Muscle initiates movement. Muscle shapes the body. Don't get caught up in thinking of muscle as "Arnold Schwarznegger Muscle." Every man and woman of every age and fitness level should have a concern for muscle maintenance or growth, even if the long term goal is fat reduction. Without this vital synergy, failure is imminent. Put the Synergy into action and you'll soon have total control.”
3. “There are three synergistic components that must be present in any result oriented fitness or body transformation program and the one that is perhaps the most confusing is Supportive Nutrition. (the other two, are Moderate Aerobic Exercise and a Concern for Muscle).
By "supportive," I'm referring to meals that are supportive of metabolism, meals that help maintain stable blood sugar levels, meals that provide optimal energy, and meals that provide material from which you'll build new healthy cells.
In order to get optimal nutrition, nutrition that supports your exercise efforts and your metabolism, you'll want to get meals frequently throughout the day. When you come to understand that metabolism simply refers to "the speed with which your body burns through food," you'll also understand that if you want to boost metabolism, you have to ask the body to process food often.
You should seek a supportive meal every 3 - 3 1/2 hours. A supportive meal would be made up of the most natural food choices possible. It would be free from hydrogenated fat, low in or free from saturated fat, and free from simple sugar and refined flour. A supportive meal would contain each of the following three elements in visually equal serving sizes: Lean Protein, Starchy Carbohydrate, and Fibrous Carbohydrate/
Lean Proteins include: Chicken Breast, Turkey Breast, Egg Whites, Tuna Fish, Shellfish, and most Fresh Fish Filets.
Starchy Carbohydrates include: Potato, Sweet Potato, Brown Rice, Oatmeal, and Whole Grains.
Fibrous Carbohydrates include: Broccoli, Cauliflower, Mushrooms, Peppers, Onions, and Asparagus.
Sample Supportive Meals
Chicken Breast, Baked Potato, Broccoli
A Piece of Fish, Brown Rice, a Green Salad
Egg White Omelet with Spinach and Mushrooms, Oatmeal
Sliced Turkey Breast on Whole Grain Pita w/Tomato, Onion, Sprouts
It takes some getting used to, especially if you were raised on the idea of a small breakfast, a moderate lunch and a large dinner. After a week or two of supportive eating, appetite usually becomes very supportive and an innate intelligence for portion sizes and meal frequency takes over. The change is sometimes challenging, but it soon becomes simple to adhere to and the benefits speak for themselves.”
4. “Sugar is not only going to affect your potential to release fat, it is, in a sense, chemically addictive. If you have more fat on your body than you'd like, and you experience frequent sugar cravings, you can be sure the two conditions are at some level related. The good news is, you can fix it. Let's take a look at what sugar does and how it relates to body composition.
When you ingest a simple sugar, even if it's in a "fat-free" cookie, all of that sugar gets absorbed into the bloodstream at once, so for the moment you experience a blood sugar elevation. That's OK. You can handle it. In response to the momentary hyperglycemic condition, your pancreas begins to increase its production of the hormone insulin. Insulin's job is to remove excess sugar from the bloodstream and store it in the muscles and in the liver as glycogen. There's another hormone produced by the pancreas. It's called glucagon. While insulin is a "storage" hormone, glucagon has an opposing action. It is a "release" hormone. Glucagon is, in fact, the hormone responsible for releasing bodyfat. When the pancreas suddenly has to crank out increased amounts of insulin to deal with sugar induced blood glucose elevations, it backs off on its production of glucagon. The result - fat release is crippled.
It gets worse. Your pancreas actually manufactures more insulin than you need. About 30-45 minutes after the sugar rush, you wind up with residual low blood sugar. In order to restore blood sugar to normal, you begin to get cravings for . . . . you guessed it . . . sugar! So, if you eat sugar . . . you're pretty much guaranteed to crave sugar.
The trick is to stop the insulin / blood sugar roller coaster. If you at "supportively" as I recommend, the starchy carbohydrates provide an ongoing slow release of sugars preventing those sudden blood sugar spikes and keeping the insulin/glucagon balance stable. Sugar addicts will usually experience a few days of severe cravings when they abandon their sugar intake. The first day you might experience a headache. The second day the headache may become worse and may be accompanied by insomnia. Get through three days, however, and those sugar cravings are quite likely to become a thing of the past. Blood sugar stabilizes, energy becomes consistent, and . . . fat release can take place all day long!”
Well this is the basic plan and how your body works. The four statements (in quotes and italics) were written by a fitness expert, by the name of Phil Kaplan. You can get much more information and his excellent fitness plans at his site: http://www.philkaplan.com/
A little about exercise: The above is mostly about food and proper eating. If you follow it you will get some results, but to get really good results and the full benefit, you must also exercise. Yes, this means you girls too. As Phil said there are two types of exercise, and you need both. Aerobics (energetic, not weight intensive) exercise should not be over done. The main benefit of this type of exercise is to your heart lungs and circulatory system. Too much can actually do you harm and stop weight loss. Your dancing gives all you need. Don’t do any more. Period! The other is concern for muscle. This is where your fat is burned off. The only way to build and maintain muscle is by making them work. This means making your muscles strain with effort. So, This means 1) lifting weights (not heavy, and you don’t need big muscles), or 2) “weight” training machines (usually in a gym, springs, levers, tension devices), or 3) push-ups. chin-ups and leg squats, etc. The last option is probably not good for a dancer. 3o minutes, three times a week is quite sufficient. Start out with 12 or 15 minutes and work you way up to 30 minutes, over a period of 6 to 8 weeks. This will not make you look like a man, but maybe like Jennifer Lopez.
I hope you got this far. If you are serious about maintaining a god body then read on. There is not much more. The rest is some good information to help you maintain good eating habits. More quotes from Phil’s web site.
Sugar, Sugar, Sugar
5. “Sugar-Free labeled products might not be sugar free at all. Some dairy products make the claim "no sugar added," but they are made with milk which has lactose, a sugar, as a component. Other labels may read, "Sugar free, sweetened with fructose," which in essence means, "Sugar free, sweetened with sugar." Following you'll find a list of the various types of sugars and brief explanations. If any food is labeled sugar free, but contains any of the compounds listed, you'll know the label is, at best, misleading.
Beet sugar: sucrose originating in a sugar beet
Brown sugar: brown sucrose
Cane sugar: sucrose originating in sugar cane
Carob powder: This extract of the carob tree is sold in many foods labeled "natural." Don't mistake that to mean, "without the presence of sugar." Carob powder, sometimes listed as carob flour is 75 percent sucrose, glucose, and fructose!
Corn Syrup: Plain and simple . . . it's sugar! Sugar produced from starch . . but sugar just the same.
Dextrin: Dextrin and polydextrin are sugars, however, they are glucose molecules linked in chains. While their absorption might be slightly slower than simple glucose, they do break down into pure glucose and can have a dramatic effect on blood sugar. Combining Dextrin and Maltose chains to create maltodextrin structures the sugars in a way that more closely resembles complex carbs and slows the release of sugar.
Dextrose: another simple one. Glucose. Period.
Fructose: this may also be called fruit sugar or levulose. It is one of the most common natural sugars and is found in abundance in fruit and honey. While it is natural, so then is "sugar cane," so again, as in the case of carob powder, natural doesn't necessarily equate to "will not elevate blood sugar." Fructose is a simple sugar and a very ripe banana might affect your blood sugar levels in much the same way as a candy bar.
Glucose: this is actually the chemical sugar structure of blood sugar. It causes a rapid and substantial rise in blood sugar levels. All carbs ultimately break down into glucose. Putting pure glucose into the digestive tract is probably the quickest way to elevate blood sugar and throw the chances of stimulating fat release to the wind.
Glucose syrups: Corn syrup is a glucose syrup as are cane syrup and corn syrup solids. They are sugars produced from starch and contain a mixture of glucose and maltose molecules.
Grape sugar: another name for glucose
High-fructose corn syrup: Another syrup which is made from corn syrups. Read about corn syrup, read about fructose, and you'll understand, this is a sugar!
Honey: Yes, it's natural . . but . . . its roughly 35 percent glucose, 40 percent fructose, and 25 percent water.
Lactose: This is milk sugar. It makes up 4.5 percent of cows' milk. It is hardly ever used commercially as a sweetener, is not as sweet as table sugar, and since it is contained in protein-laden foods it has less of a negative glycemic effect than most sugars mentioned here. If the goal is to become as lean as possible, for a period of several weeks while on a fat loss regimen, limiting intake of dairy products may help increase fat release by cutting back on lactose.
Maltose: Formed by two linked glucose molecules, maltose rapidly breaks down to glucose in the intestine.
Maple syrup: Sugar from the sap of maple trees. It's mostly sucrose.
Milk chocolate: if this is included on the ingredient label, there is sugar present! Even if the big print says "Sugar Free!" Milk chocolate is made by mixing milk, sugar, and cocoa butter to bitter chocolate.
Molasses: contains from 50 - 75% sugar.
Saccharose: sucrose
Sucrose: A naturally occurring sugar made from sugar cane or sugar beets. It's commonly referred to as "sugar" or "table sugar." It's made of equal parts glucose and fructose.
Sweetened condensed milk: If this is an ingredient, there is sugar present. This is made by cutting the water content in milk and then adding sugar until you have a substance containing 40-50% sucrose. Watch out, when examining meal replacements and protein supplements, for "Sweetened condensed whey." Many have learned to recognize whey as a protein source and they fail to take note of that first word . . . "sweetened."
Turbinado: sucrose
That's not even a complete list but it should illustrate that there are quite a variety of options for food manufacturers who wish to attempt to hide those words that we commonly recognize as sugars. This list should help you identify the foods that are best avoided if fat loss and energy are concerns.”
Artificial Sweeteners
6. “Sugar alcohols, also called polyols, are forms of natural sugars. In chemical structure they resemble both alcohols and sugars, although they are not actually classified as either. Keep in mind, alcohol is actually the simplest sugar in existence, with 7 calories per gram, so it shouldn't be so much of a leap to understand how these compounds can resemble both.
Sugar alcohols may be listed on the label by specific name. These names include sorbitol, mannitol, and xylitol.
When added to food products in place of sugar, these sugar alcohols provide sweetness, texture and help retain moistness. You'll find sugar alcohols in sugar-free candies, chewing gum, frozen desserts, cookies, cakes, and pastries.
Where regular sugars contain 4 calories per gram, sugar alcohols contain an average of only 2.6, thus if you have equal amounts of sugar and sugar alcohol (i.e. sucrose and sorbitol) you'd only be getting about 60% of the calories of sugar with sugar alcohol in its place. It's important to note that while they may not bring about the same sudden rush of sugar into the bloodstream as simple sugars, sugar alcohols can have an effect on your blood sugar and ultimately insulin production, albeit less than sucrose would bring about.
Sorbitol and xylitol are found in plant foods such as fruit and berries, but keep in mind, sugar is extracted from a plant food, namely sugar cane. Although the sugar alcohols are present in certain fruits, the supply that is used in commercial product manufacture is usually synthetic . . . created in a laboratory.
Polyols are absorbed slowly when compared to sucrose. A percentage of the sugar alcohol ingested will not be absorbed. While that is presented as a benefit, in that you never transfer those calories through the gastrointestinal wall, an excessive amount remaining in your digestive tract can result in intestinal discomfort and diarrhea. The polite way of describing this on disclaimers is, "sugar alcohol may have a laxative effect." 30-50 grams of sorbitol would likely be enough to bring about that effect.
It's also important to note that sugar alcohols do not add sweetness to foods at the same level as sugar. Sorbitol, for example, is about 50-60% as sweet as sugar. In order to mimic or come close to the taste of a sugar laden food, greater amounts would be needed or the sugar alcohols would have to be combined with simple sugars and/or other artificial sweeteners.
Polyols have been loosely accepted by the AMA as "OK" for people with diabetes, mainly because the slow absorption keeps blood sugar spikes far lower than sucrose would. In other words, the glycemic response is lower. Again, that doesn't make it ideal. Although it is not absorbed completely, or as rapidly as simple sugars, a good amount of sugar alcohol ingested can be absorbed, those calories DO count, and a bllod sugar spike is quite possible.
Other ingredient label indications of sugar alcohol present include Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysates (HSH), erythritol, and mannitol
Xylitol is the sugar alcohol most commonly found in chewing gum. This is actually due more to the American Dental Association than any panel of nutrition experts! Xylitol does not allow mouth bacteria to ferment and cause decay, thus incidence of cavities may be reduced. Diabetics and those concerned with blood sugar irregularities should not see this as open license to chew xylitol sweetened gum. While small amounts may be OK, more than 60 grams per day can be hazardous for diabetics. When you begin to take in large amounts of xylitol, the liver converts the excess to glucose, simple sugar, and if enough insulin is not produced to handle the increase in glucose, high blood sugar and the associated risk factors are imminent. Even if you do not have blood sugar irregularities, the increase in glucose can hormonally alter insulin and glucagon levels to limit fat release.
Information put out by sugar sellers may isolate xylitol as a carcinogen, however, that information is the result of a single study where xylitol was fed to lab rats in excessive dosages.
In many supposedly sugar free candies, canned foods, and chocolates, sorbitol is used. It is used in some low sugar or sugar free "sports bars" since it does help keep certain ingredients moist and fresh.
Sugar alcohols are not limited to supermarket foods. You'll find them in cough drops, breath mints, toothpastes, mouthwashes, and even some pharmaceutical products.
If you are ever confused by the apparent math that goes into calculating calories of foods containing sugar alcohols, note that while simple sugars provide 4 calories per gram, different polyols will throw off different numbers of calories. HSH for example presents 3 calories per gram, which is only 1 calorie short of actual sugars.
Aspartame: In case you don't recognize the name, Aspartame, there's no doubt you'll notice its commercial presence under the names of Equal and Nutrasweet. I've written about Aspartame in response to several questions asked over the last year, so I'll keep it brief here. While many have heard that aspartame causes everything from headaches to seizures, and most health food stores avoid products sweetened with aspartame, aspartame is composed of two amino acids found in any health food store, Aspartic Acid and Phenylalanine. There is a condition known as phenylketonuria (PKU), a congenital condition that makes it
impossible for the body to metabolize phenylalanine. If an individual with PKU ingests aspartame, or pure phenylalanine for that matter, they do run serious risks. Toxic compounds accumulate in the body and lead to nerve damage and, in some cases, severe brain damage. It appears that since aspartame has become such a threat to sugar sales, and the sugar lobby is so powerful in the U.S., the risks present in individuals with phenylketonuria have been used to steer the public away from aspartame use. The supposed research evidence that anti-aspartame groups usually quote is sketchy at best, the propaganda is presented in hyped up scare language, and while I don't encourage constant use of aspartame, my experience has never led me to anyone who suffered any of those dreadful side effects we hear about. It leads me to the opinion that, if it helps you enjoy a cola or diet soda one in awhile, and you strive to avoid sugar, aspartame, to my satisfaction, has proven OK. A 1-gram packet does yield four calories, however, aspartame is much sweeter than sugar. That influenced the FDA to allow food manufacturers to discount the calories present in aspartame on food labels. Since so little is needed, I don't know that in this case it's a major bone of contention. In fact, on this particular product I believe the FDA has acted admirably. The pressures the sugar lobby placed on the FDA throughout the 80's, 90's, and going into the next millennium did not cause the turnover of aspartame approval. That's likely why there is so much underground disparaging of aspartame attempting to "scare the masses" one person at a time. Some of that underground literature suggests that the amounts used in testing was negligible when compared with actual use. After several court visits, hearings, and reviews, the FDA reviewed data including clinical studies in which humans who received single doses of aspartame up to 200 mg/kg of body weight -- equal to consuming 70 cans of aspartame-sweetened soft drink in one sitting -- showed no ill effects whatsoever.
To date over 100 million people are reported to use aspartame. The CDC estimates 15,000 people in the US have PKU. It seems absurd to use such a small segment of the population to evidence supposed danger which has never been documented in conclusive research. Sure, people with PKU should avoid aspartame, but they should also avoid milk and meats, two foods that contain more phenylalanine than diet cola. You don't see the same effort going into pressuring the FDA to make the sale of milk and meat illegal. To further satisfy pressures without pulling this product from the market, the FDA required all products sweetened with aspartame to contain the words, "Phenylketonurics: Contains Phenylalanine."
One of the reasons producers of health supplements steer away from using aspartame as a sweetener is due only to public perception. It you are trying to lose fat, there's no question simple sugars can interrupt the fat release process. When I created my EAT! formulas, I knew I wanted to make something sugar free. I didn't like the calorie content that would be added and the risk of stomach upset if I chose to use sugar alcohols. I had samples prepared using varied sweeteners. With aspartame, because it is so much sweeter than sugar, such a small amount was required I decided to run the risk of limited sales due to public perception and create the most viable product possible. In order to reduce further the amount of aspartame in EAT!, I combined it with acesulfame-K which I'll describe next.
Acesulfame-K: You might know acesulfame-K (acesulfame-potassium) commercially as Sweet One or Sunette. It is actually 200 times sweeter than sugar! It has received some bad press (again, I believe the "Sugar Powers" are to blame) in its chemical structure being compared to that of saccharin, a product that was once pulled from the shelves due to suggestions that it might be a carcinogen. While one study did show that acesulfame-K fed rats grew more tumors than those not fed the compound, more than ninety credible studies have shown that this potassium compound passes through the body unchanged. Because it is so sweet, such small amounts are used it has not been associated with any negative digestive concerns. It has an excellent shelf life, is unaffected at a wide range of temperatures and humidity, and can be used in baking so it is quite appealing for lowering or eliminating sugar content in foods. The reason I didn't use acesulfame-K exclusively in EAT! is because, although in most foods acesulfame-K offers a clean sweetness, when mixed with the vitamin-mineral formulation in the EAT! product there was a slight bitter aftertaste. By finding the right mix of acesulfame-K and aspartame, we created a delicious sugar free formula. Studies on acesulfame-K have show no effect on blood sugar levels which makes it acceptable for diabetics. Despite pressures from "political groups" to step up testing, acesulfame-K has an excellent track record of safety. I don't want to scare you with the "carcinogen suggestion," so I'm going to balance it out with some pretty powerful evidence as to the apparent safety of this sweetener. To date, over 100 credible studies have been conducted.
The Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the scientific advisory body to the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, reviewed the available research on acesulfame-K and concluded that it is safe. The Scientific Committee for Food of the European Union published a comprehensive assessment of sweetening agents in 1985. This committee of toxicological experts from member countries accepted acesulfame-K for use in foods and beverages. Acesulfame-K has been used in Europe since 1983, and in the U.S. since 1988, with no known documented adverse health effects.
Saccharin: I mentioned saccharin so I'll cover that one next. You know it as Sweet n' Low. This compound was discovered over 100 years ago. Those who discovered it found it to be intensely sweet. Food processors now recognize that saccharin can actually be hundreds of times sweeter than sugar. That allows them to cut food costs substantially. Since it also passes through the body unchanged, it found its way into the marketplace initially as a sweetener for diabetics. Of course the weight loss market soon jumped on the bandwagon and saccharin became quite popular. It always seemed to raise eyebrows with the FDA, consumer groups, and of course sugar concerns, and while it was banned early on, it was restored during the sugar-short years of World War I. For the next few decades, it was manufactured in foods, in powders, and in little tiny pills. It's only drawback was a slight metallic aftertaste. Food processors learned that if they added cyclamate to saccharin (I'll get to that one next), they could minimize that aftertaste. Of course consumer groups and scientists went to work feeding cyclamates to rats. In the 1960's two different studies suggested that cyclamate causes cancer . . . at least in rats. Testers went to work feeding those little furry creatures saccharin until they were able to surmise it might cause bladder tumors in rats. (Note that any time something threatens the sale of sugar, it sooner or later is considered unsafe or dangerous). The FDA moved to limit the use of saccharin, but Americans were consuming 2,500 tons of saccharin a year. That gave the saccharin manufacturers some money, some clout in Congress, and the ability to launch the politically oriented Calorie Control Council. They managed to hold off the FDA and keep saccharin on the market. The FDA did, however, remove it from their "Generally Recognized as Safe" list in 1972. Laws were finally passed that any products containing saccharin had to post the words "may be hazardous to your health" and "has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals" on their labels. The power of the saccharin groups held up and while it is classified by the FDA as a "weak carcinogen," Sweet'n Low sales soar.
Cyclamates do not contain calories and offer sweetness 30 times that of sucrose. I won't go any further on this one since they were banned in the 1970's. There are efforts taking place to reintroduce it, but for now, you won't find cyclamates being sold commercially as a sweetener.
Stevia has not yet received full FDA approval. It is a natural sugar compound found in a plant, but is 100 times sweeter than sugar. It can act as a sugar replacement and is not likely to throw sugar levels out of whack due to the tiny amounts required. I won't get into blaming sugar politics for the slow approval (although I feel strongly that it is a fair representation of the delay), but I will let you in on a little secret. Many Oriental markets sell stevia. You might want to give it a try.”
Fat-Free
7. “You'd think if it says "Fat-Free" on the label, that would mean the contents of the labeled container are . . . well . . . free of fat. It makes sense, doesn't it? Actually, in the wonderful world of food labels, very little makes sense. If you want to learn to truly eat supportively, it's imperative that you become a bit of a label reading detective.
Let's look at a few products to illustrate how the deception can take place.
Fat-Free Non-Stick Cooking Spray: This is the one I love to hold up at seminars. The lie is so blatant its comical . . . or . . . in my opinion . . . criminal. I hold up a can of Mazola Non-Stick cooking spray. It says right on the can, "for calorie-free fat-free cooking." I point out how the nutrition label says there are 0 calories in a serving and of course 0 grams of fat. I then read aloud the ingredients. The only significant ingredient is liquid corn oil. I hold up a container of Mazola Liquid Corn Oil. We see a very different nutrition label. This one says 120 calories per serving, 120 calories from fat! It's not only not Fat-Free, it's 100% Fat! Here's how they get away with it . . .
The FDA labeling law says that if there's less than 1/2 gram of fat in a serving, a food can be labeled "Fat-Free." The catch is, nobody regulates what the food companies refer to as a serving size. If you look at the spray can, it refers to a serving as .2 grams. That's 2/10 of a gram. Is there less than 1/2 a gram of fat in .2 grams of fat? Of course! There's less than 1/2 a gram of anything in .2 grams. To show you how absurd that referenced serving size is, .2 grams would equal 1/3 of one second of spray! It's complete and total deception that allows pure fat to be labeled "Fat-Free."
Fat-Free Butter Substitute: There are many butter substitutes claiming to be "better than butter." As an example . . . I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! It says "fat-free" all over it. You know what to do. Go right to the ingredients. Hydrogenated oil. That's fat. Pure fat. Better check out the FDA regulated nutrition label. 5 calories per serving. How many calories from fat? 5! Another example of the reliability of our friends at the FDA in delivering "truth in labeling." I Can't Believe It's Not Butter . . . but it is FAT! As a matter of fact, from a health standpoint, hydrogenated fats are more harmful than the saturated fats butter would provide. That doesn't make butter a good choice, but if you're trading it for something that contains just as much fat but gets its fat from a source that can cause cell damage . . . I'd have to say butter's better.
97% Fat-Free: OK. These products don't say "fat-free." They simply claim to be mostly fat-free. Pick up some ground turkey that blares out on the front of its packaging, 97% Fat-Free. Turn the container over and compare the number of calories per serving (145) to the number of calories from fat (70). You don't have to be a mathematical wizard to determine that nearly half of the calories in this 97% Fat-Free labeled food come from fat!
Here's how they get away with that little trick. If I were to eat a stick of butter (which I won't do), I'd of course be getting 100% of my calories from fat. If I'd drink some water with it, I'd still be getting 100% of my calories from fat, since water doesn't have any caloric value. If, therefore, I were to create a solution, 50% butter, 50% water, I'd have a solution that gets 100% of its calories from fat. If, however, I were going to be a creative food labeler, I could put a label on this product that says "50% fat-free." Since, judging by volume, most of what's in that turkey package is water, they are misleading you by giving you a percentage of the "volume" that is fat free rather than a percentage of calories. Always ignore the big print on the front. Look at the calories per serving and the calories from fat. You can't be sure you'll find accuracy, but your more likely to come closer to the truth than you will when reading the "% Fat Free" announcement that helps to sell the product.
This technique, by the way, is used to sell 2% milk as 98% Fat Free. Check out the calories per serving and the calories from fat. You're in for an eye-opening surprise.
Fat-Free Cookies, Cakes, Pastries, and Ice-Cream: Snackwell cookies anyone? For years weight conscious Americans sought out the words "Fat-Free" as buying signals for snack foods that they believed were going to help them in their quest for leanness. Many of those foods contained fat, which shouldn't surprise you at this point, but even if the fat was negligible, there was another ingredient that was going to cripple their ability to shed fat. Sugar. In most cases, snack foods contain sugar as their primary ingredient. Find out how Sugar affects fat release and you'll probably pass on the next box of Snackwell cookies you come across if fat loss is a goal.”
Some of the above quotes have been shortened (for real), and you can read the originals and get additional information at the following web pages:
1. http://www.philkaplan.com/thefitnesstruth/quickweightloss.htm
2. http://www.philkaplan.com/t hefitnesstruth/solutions.htm
3. http://www.philkaplan.com/thefitnesstruth/supportive_eating.htm
4. http://www.philkaplan.com/thefitnesstruth/sugar.htm
5. http://www.philkaplan.com/thefitnesstruth/sugar_free.htm
6. http://www.philkaplan.com/thefitnesstruth/artificial_sweeteners.htm
7. http://www.philkaplan.com/thefitnesstruth/fat-free.htm
Here is another great site:
http://www.zoneperfect.com/site/content/index.asp
This is the famous Zone diet. It is the only diet that is not a diet, it is basically what Phil Kaplan says, but does not include the exercise. They do not put as much stress on not eating sugar. But it does point out that fat is not fattening and that what they call heavy carbohydrates (processed or simple, which includes all of the sugars) are bad and light carbohydrates (complex or not refined, which includes brown rice and sweet potatoes) are good for you.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
