Archive

Monthly Archives: February 2012

I often tout the benefits of exercise as being above and beyond those of weight management.  Exercise makes you feel better.  Protects the heart.  Improves cognitive function.  The list goes on.  Exercise physiologists and personal trainers prescribe exercise knowing that fitness can improve health and keep us healthy.  One piece that I have always struggled with is family history.

On my maternal side, my grandparents and great grandparents succumbed to heart disease.  My mother had a stent put in years ago to help keep her arteries open.  This is something that is real for me and if I dig deep enough most likely provides a “why” to my exercise routine.  Is my condition pre-determined?  Will I have heart disease?  Will my children?

In a fascinating article published this month in the journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (an reviewed yesterday in the New York Times), a group of researchers laid claim to a condition that may just set the stage for heart disease, diabetes, and other ailments.  The condition:  inactivity.  Two keys here:  1)  That being inactive is different than not exercising, and 2) Inactivity may set the stage for disease (i.e. it creates the conditions in the body which may allow disease to take hold).  Here is what happened:

Participants who were regularly active (averaging more than 10,000 steps per day) were monitored.  They were observed during their normal routine for three days and then told to back off for three days (defined as getting less than 3,000 steps per day).  Activity was closely observed, food intake was recorded, and blood glucose measured.  During the days of normal activity no spikes in blood sugar were identified, even after eating.  However, when activity was decreased, blood sugar spikes were seen almost immediately.

“Who cares?” you ask.  Your body cares.  Your family cares.  Spikes in blood sugar, or what we like to call poor glycemic control, have been linked to diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.  We go throughout our days (sitting and sleeping an average of 18 hours), eating snacks, big meals, etc.  In the background our bodies work hard to process that food and deal with our laziness.  The bodies ability to do that work is compromised when we sit.  Simply by being active throughout the day (i.e. standing for a few minutes each hour, or better yet, standing all day, walking more) our bodies develop better glycemic control, and thus could lead us to better health.  There is just something evil about sitting.  Don’t do it.  Ever.  Ok, maybe when you sleep.

I know I am at risk of heart disease.  Love my grandparents and those that came before me dearly, but this was one of their gifts.  Maybe, just maybe, through be less inactive, I can turn those conditions in my favor.  Can you be more active today?

Combine all this with a new study that associates diet soda consumption with heart disease and we are in trouble…..

Ever get really excited at the sight of food?  Better question:  Ever not get excited by the sight of food?  For me it would take some truly bizarre food dish to not get me excited.  I get excited thinking about my next meal even before I see it.  Today’s question is can you see it in my face and if so, what does that mean?

Researchers recently demonstrated, in an article published last week that overweight and obese children smack their lips more at the sight of high energy density food (think anything good, high calorie, high fat) and even when they smell high energy density food.  In the research world we don’t call it lipsmacking, we call in orofacial reactivity and overweight kids do more of it.  My guess is so do overweight adults.

The interesting thing about this study was not that these kids smacked their lips more at the sight of and smell of food, but rather that these facial expressions predicted overeating.  It seems that these kids had a visceral reaction to food (demonstrated outwardly by lipsmacking) that led them to eat more than their normal weight peers.  The authors also suggest that the overweight kids tended to more emotional eating as well.  As the level of overweightness increased (as measured by BMI or body mass index) so did the lip smacking.  This leads me to ask why?  Why does lipsmacking predict overeating in kids?

I myself often have a deep, visceral reaction to food, and after reading this article I did notice myself smacking my lips when our good friends brought over an amazing chili last night (still basking in the glow of newborn arrived = neighbors cooking for us glow).  Where does this reaction come from?  Where did my emotional associations with food begin?  That would have a long and complicated answer, but somewhere I learned that food = warm feelings.  Parents, culture, environment?  All of the above.  It seems to me that the idea of lip smacking is that association visually demonstrated.  The love of food cannot be contained!  I never thought about how that could lead to over eating.  Think about it in simple terms:  You get excited at the sight of food.  You so enjoy the taste.  The food makes you feel good.  You eat quickly.  You eat more.  Do this repeatedly and it leads to chronic overconsumption.  And we all know what chronic overconsumption means.

I wonder if it is possible to decrease my emotional response to food?  Maybe I will start by not smacking my lips.

With yesterday’s news cycle came word that the FDA advisory panel has “overwhelmingly recommended approval” of a new weight loss pill, QNexa.  If this drug goes on to win full FDA approval it will be the first weight loss drug in over a decade to do so.  I do agree that there is a need for more tools in the toolbox when it comes to weight loss.  For some, exercise and diet don’t do the trick.  For the morbidly obese, some relief is needed.  However, when the side effects of QNexa are listed as increased risk of birth defects for pregnant women and possible increases of heart attacks, I have to wonder why we are in such a rush to push these kind of interventions to the market.

The enduring facts about diet and exercise are that they do work when it comes to weight management.  As long as we stick to prescribed regimens.  Individuals on various diet plans, and it seems those in the trials for QNexa, all seem to gain at least some, if not all, their weight back within two years of loss.  This highlights two issues:  1)  It’s hard to keep weight off, and 2) Most diet plans and pills don’t deal with the underlying issues of why we eat.  They simply treat the symptoms, weight gain.  We need to know why we eat before any meaningful change can take place.

Exercise does not cause birth defects and if done properly does not induce heart attacks (there are exceptions to every rule, however).  Exercise and good eating are tough and we need to support people in those efforts.  Rather than spend billions each year on drugs, I think it would be a good idea for our insurance plans or the government, or pharmaceutical companies, to pay for fitness center memberships and personal trainers.  Tough problems need local and sustained effort.  We need to go after obesity on an individual and personal level as well as seek systemic change.

Today is Friday, and that means a new food rule.  Conjuring up some of our discussion over the past week and considering the news on QNexa, here is this week’s food rule:

Don’t automatically grab food when you’re done exercising.  If weight management is truly your goal then consider the implications of that energy bar.  How hard did you just work out?  Do you need it?  Did you just exercise for two hours?  Remember, by cutting a few calories each day, good things can happen.  Caveat here:  if you are training to set a land speed record in the 1500, by all means, snack away.

 

Often times when I am at the fitness center I see all shapes and sizes of people sweating their tails off.  Pushing hard, trying to reach that goal.  They’ve overcome barriers just to be there.  Kudos.  Then I see what they have in their hands:  energy drinks, protein bars and shakes, and on occasion, some water.  Why is it that people think they need to have these things before, during, and after exercise?  Water, great, go for it.  Protein bars?  Really?  The reason this occurs can be traced to people like me who espouse the need for recovery, and I think at times our message hasn’t been clear. If you are the average exerciser, working out for 45-60 minutes per day, odds are you don’t need an energy drink during exercise, or much in the way of calories after.  Too often people sabotage their just completed workouts by slamming a Gatorade and eating a Cliff bar.  (That equals about 500 calories).  By doing so, they may have just consumed more than they burned, causing them trouble in achieving that elusive goal of weight loss.  Why do they do it?  Because I (in the proverbial sense) told them the most important time to eat is right after exercise.  There is truth to this, but something small will suffice and if you haven’t just exercised for two hours you may not need anything.  Other than water.  Water is good.  Very good.  If you’re a moderate to elite athlete and are doing some training, by all means get some fuel in your system.  Most of us aren’t elite athletes.

Two recent articles in the New York Times add some clarity to this subject, and confuse it.  The first, published the other day, discusses that snacking during or after your workout may not be the best for all people.  (Again, I am talking about those of us who aren’t out to run a 2:45 marathon or qualify for the London Olympics).  Several big names, well respected individuals,  in the field of sports nutrition add their thoughts.  It all depends on your goal, and being that for 95% of us the goal is weight management, maybe we should leave the protein bar at home.

The second article, out yesterday, talks about some truly exciting research into how exercise impacts cognitive function (ie learning ability) and memory.  Seems that when you exercise your brain’s carbohydrate stores become depleted (this has lots of interesting offshoots in that when your brain lacks energy, willpower drops).  More specifically, parts of the brain dealing with learning, memory, and movement were significantly impacted.  Upon completion of exercise, the subjects (rats in this case) were allowed to feed.  Their brain levels of glucose (carbohydrates) soared, 60% above normal.  Wow!  Little Einstein’s on the way!  However, a day later they were back to normal.  Darn.  Yet, after the rats had engaged in exercise for a month, that supercompensation of glucose in the brain became the new norm.  Einsteins are back!  Yeah!  Take home message here:  exercise may help learning, cognition, memory, and movement.  Our 7 day old daughter began training yesterday.

Leads us back to the original why question.  Should we snack during or after exercise?  If you goal is weight management, I would tread lightly.  However, I think it is just fine to get a small amount of calories, as the above article says, it goes straight to your head (and not your thighs).

Last night at dinner my partner and I sat with our oldest daughter (4) and newest daughter (5 days).  Their grandparents also joined us.  At one point it was mentioned that our oldest was a slower eater, that the other night she sat for an hour before fully finishing her meal.  This came as a small surprise to Grandma.  When I thought about it, it surprised me too.  Why?

Many times we forget to focus on the food.  We are busy doing other things while we eat, while most of the time being in a hurry.  Research has shown that most people in the past week have eaten while standing, watching tv, working at their desk, and driving.  All of these distractions disrupt our ability to monitor how much we are eating ultimately leading us to eat more than we should.

Dinner is a very important meal for families.  Why should it be done quickly?  To get to soccer practice?  Who care if it takes our daughter an hour to eat, when given that time she usually eats what she needs and does a good job.  It is when the parents are in a hurry that we say, “Two more bites.  Eat your broccolli.”  This crosses over into authoritarian parenting and that has been shown to increase the risk of obesity and overweight in children.  By “forcing” or strongly encouraging a child to eat we don’t allow them to develop and become aware of their own internal signals.  So, take a deep breath, let your little one eat at their pace, and see what happens.

As I look at my 5 day old daughter I wonder if we are already creating positive eating and food environments for her.  Powerful thought.

Last week I wrote a blog about time and how we rationalize not exercising due to lack of it.  I also mentioned that the time rationale can also mask deeper feelings we have about ourselves and our health.  On cue, along comes an article that can help us solve our problems, or at least claim to.  High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) has been utilized by athletes for eons to boost cardiovascular fitness and endurance.  Think fartlek run for you former high school cross country phenoms.  A recent article in the New York Times highlights some new research into how and why this type of training may help not only fitness, but health.

The current recommendations for cardiovascular health recommend 30 minutes a day most days of the week (150 minutes per week).  For fitness gains, the recommendations exceed 300 minutes a week. Both of these recommendations can be cut in half if we pick up the pace.  However, even at 30 minutes a day, most Americans claim lack of time.  What the New York Times article highlights is short bursts of intense activity, and if you can handle it, you may be able shave some time off your workouts and get the benefits.  One caveat, most of us aren’t willing to exercise at the intensity recommended.  In general if your average exerciser goes out for a jog or hops on an exercise bike, they will typically exercise at approximately 60% of their maximum heart rate (left to their own devices).  HIIT training asks you to go upwards of 90% or even 100% of your maximum heart rate.  The type of exercise that makes your legs burn and leaves you gasping for breath.  Sounds fun, right?  Here’s the upside, recent research indicates that 20 minutes of intervals, that is one minute burst of intense heart pounding activity followed by one minute of recovery (and then repeating that cycle ten time for a total of 20 minutes) proves beneficial.  Athletes have incorporated this type of routine in their workouts once or twice a week as it can be rough on the body.  The current researchers trained people exclusively on intervals and surprisingly found they encountered the same benefits as those who trained following the current guidelines.

I think the jury is still out on the long term benefits, however, there is no doubt that intervals help raise fitness and increase your cardiovascular capacity.  So if you are looking to cut off some exercise time now and again, pick up the pace and try some intervals.  Your heart will thank you.  When you’re done.

300 is the actual extra amount of calories women should consume while pregnant.  Not as much as typically thought of when cravings come to mind.  The reason I bring this up is because my partner just gave birth to our second daughter (hence the lack of blogs) and she did not have a problem with cravings or overeating.  I did.  Not during her pregnancy, but in the two days that have followed.  The birth of a child!  What a reason to celebrate!!  All the wonderful neighbors and friends and family bringing food.  Cookies, sorbet, Diet Cole galore!  These calories don’t count!  I’m a dad, again!  This euphoria will last until the next time I get on the scale.

This will be a short blog, just wanted to get something on paper.  The environment is powerful force in our world when it comes to food.  Combined with celebration and its power grows.

Today is Friday and that means it’s time for a new food rule:

In the immediate days that follow the birth of your children, don’t eat everything in sight.  This is specifically directed at the male audience.  Moms, eat all you want, you truly deserve it.

Last week I was paging through the latest issue of Appetite, a research journal focused on food and eating.  This is what academics do for fun.  An article entitled, “Matching effects on eating.  Individual differences do make a difference!” caught my eye.  Anytime a research article in a scientific journal utilizes an exclamation point I figure it is worth a look.

For the present study researchers paired people by personality characteristics, namely if there were expressive or non-expressive.  Think Bill Clinton vs. Barack Obama, respectively.  An expressive person is one that uses gestures, talks much, and draws you in.  A non-expressive person tends to be more introverted, sitting back, and observing.  I did not grow up in a non-expressive house, so this article grabbed me.  The researchers discovered that when two expressive people were paired together they both ate roughly the same amount of salty snacks while watching episodes of “Tom and Jerry.”  (Why “Tom and Jerry” you ask?  I say, why not?)  This is to suggest that when two expressive people hang out, they are synced.  It’s not just for iPhones anymore.  When two non-expressive people were placed in the same scenario, there was no syncing.  Guess they didn’t care what the other person was doing.  Or better, they weren’t as susceptible to the environmental cues around them.  Fascinating.  Just by chatting away with someone who is expressive may lead us to eat more food.

This past Sunday gave me an opportunity for a case study.  My niece had her second birthday party and family on both sides gathered.  I feel I can safely say that one side of the family is overly expressive (my side) and the other side (my little sister’s partner’s family) is of the more understated variety.  Not introverted, just don’t need the spotlight as much as those of our descent.  As I watched I noticed my family making return trips to the snacks.  I know I returned on more than one occasion.  Can’t put puppy chow out and expect me to ignore it.  As for the my brother-in-law’s family, maybe they snacked more than normal, I am not sure.  However, what fun it would be to track everyone and see if the expressiveness led to more consumption amongst everyone in the room.

The next time you are in room with people and food, pay attention.  Are those that have expressive personalities engaging you, drawing you in? More importantly, are you soaking up subtle cues to consume more if they do, as you may be in the midst of a sync.

Food for thought.

Anytime I ask a group of people or even an individual why they don’t exercise the first response is always time.  Without a doubt, time.  Most fitness professionals then proceed into a canned response about the importance of exercise, how it impacts your health, slows heart disease, blah, blah, blah. (It is at about this point that John Q. Public tunes out, having heard it all before).   I think most people inherently know that exercise is good for them.  Yet they still don’t do it.  Why?  We need to dig deeper than just time.

Time seems to be a good initial excuse as it is hard to combat.  Wake up earlier, stay up later, extend your lunch hour.  These are not strong options for those that are already pushing their limits.  Battling the time response is an endeavor in futility.  We will never have enough.  Ever.  The excuse of time, in my experience, masks different, an deeper, fears.  Some of these issues many seem of the surface type for some, but keep going and we find some answers.

In this morning Minneapolis Star Tribune there was an intriguing article on black women, their hair, and sweat.  The article states that 90% of all black women don’t meet the guidelines for physical activity.  More telling, nearly a third of these respondents stated they didn’t exercise because of their hair.  I am not black, nor am I a women.  I am male, with very short hair.  It would be easy to scoff at this idea of hair getting in the way of fitness.  (I used to tell a story of a woman who came to me and wanted to lose weight but didn’t want to sweat.  Didn’t even want to get her hair wet.  I was too young at the time to understand the deeper meaning and simply laughed it off.  Oops.  Shouldn’t have done that.  My more mature self now understands a bit more of what is going on).  Let’s take a breath and take a look at this.  Ask ourselves why?  Why is it that these women would be more concerned about their hair than their fitness? Maybe it’s the cost of the salon visits (the article also illuminates the cost of these coifs and that the more salon-dependent a women is, the less likely they are to exercise).  Go deeper.  Maybe it is something societal.  Think of the pressure certain ethnic groups have to look a certain way, act a certain way, in order to combat stereotypes.  Could this be a “why” that is expressed through not wanting to mess up the hair?  I think so.

There are many issues like this.  Think of some of your excuses as to why you don’t exercise.  Does it mask something deeper?  We need to challenge our excuses so that we can overcome them, and in this sense, make it to the gym.  The next step is answer the “why” question in the affirmative, as in “Why do I exercise?  Because I want to be around to play with my grandkids.”

Off you go.  Exercise.

When the topic of eating and children comes up the discussion can always be fraught with hurt feelings, thoughts of inadequacy, and downright fear (“If I give my child M&Ms will she flunk out of school?”) .  Typically this discussion revolves around what to eat, and therein lies the problem.  My partner and I were talking last night and she mentioned this article she came across.  In it are described several eating myths as they relate to children.  My attention was drawn to two specific items on the list:

2. Eating is a two-step process

5. Children naturally dislike healthy food

We, myself included, often think of our children as mini-adults.  This is common in field of training, exercise physiology, as we create exercise programs for kids based on what we know about adults.  Simply put, children are not mini-mes.  For most adults eating is a two step process:  open mouth, insert food.  However, eating is more complex for children as the above article points out.  At the dinner table we treat them like adults (“Clean your plate,” “Finish everything, then you get desert,” etc).  I say this with a grain of salt, no pun intended, as some rules are necessary.  However, it is also ok to let children be children.  Understand where they are coming from.  Does it really matter if they don’t eat everything at this meal?  Does it matter if they don’t eat anything at this meal?  Research would tell us no.  And if eating is truly a 32 step process for children, well, have some fun with those 32 steps.  Get messy.

Is it a genetic trait that kids dislike healthy food?  I am sure this is something all parents have thought at one time or another.  I thought about it last night as our daughter gobbled up the applesauce but wouldn’t touch the steamed broccoli.  She’s 4.  Where did she learn to not like vegetables?  The answer lies in the question.  Learn.  Whether it was from us as parents, friends at school, or reading the “Runaway Dinner,” it is possible that even at 4 she has learned not to like them.  Or at least, not to try them.  However, it is a learning thing and we can always relearn as well.

The article above points out that one of the reasons children don’t like vegetables is because of the way they are fed.  The language we use when we serve them, the environment that has been created.  I started to think what would happen if I could go back and reframe the concept of desert with my daughter?  Starting at age 1, I could have gotten really excited about desert and then served green beans.  Desert tonight?  Yes! Brussel sprouts!  Whoo hooo!  Maybe I will try that with baby #2. Thinking about yesterday’s post, we are the caregivers.  How will we exert that influence we have?

Think about this, Robinson, et. al published a study in 2007 (Effects of Fast Food Branding
on Young Children’s Taste Preferences, ARCH PEDIATR ADOLESC MED/VOL 161 (NO. 8), AUG 2007) that demonstrated taste preference and impression of any food went up in children if that food was wrapped in a McDonald’s wrapper.  Baby carrots placed on top of a McDonald’s french fry baggy were rated as tasting better than baby carrots on a plate.  Are you kidding me?  Talk about exerting influence over an environment.  These kids were 6.  How can we frame certain foods so that our kids eat more of what we want them to without us telling them to do so?  Just some thoughts: always have fruit around, serve vegetables at every meal and don’t talk bad about them (not only might this help with eating but you will be role modeling good interpersonal communication skills), and for goodness sake, don’t serve your baby carrots in a McDonald’s wrapper.  (Just avoid McDonalds all together).
Today is Friday and that means Food Rule time.  Here we go:

Just eat.  Simple enough. Don’t worry about gadgets, gizmos, or your kids reorganizing their plates.  It will all work out.  Just eat.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: