Walking for Weight Loss? Some Possibly Sucky News

image: pixabay

By Crabby McSlacker

First off, let me just make clear that I think walking is a very healthy activity.Walking a lot is an awesome idea.

However, if you are hoping to rely on walking craploads of miles as a primary strategy for weight loss, I may have some bad news for you. I came across some research a few weeks ago that was kinda depressing.

Note: this research is not bad news for everyone, just some of us!

Calories: Even Sneakier Than We Thought

So it's old news to many of you that all calories are NOT created equal. (Equal? Equally? Hmm, any English teachers or editors wanna help out here?)

Good Calories, Hooray!

This means there are obvious limitations to the traditional model of counting calories to achieve weight loss.

And yet, using calories a measurement is still one of the handiest tools we have for assessing the relative dietary impact of various foods and serving sizes.

For example, when you are contemplating a "healthy smoothie" at some new takeout place you've never heard of, does it make a difference if the smoothie comes in at 175 calories versus 935 calories? Well, for many of us: F--ck yeah! We may still reject the 175 calorie version if it's full of Bad Things, but I don't care how much seaweed or spirulina or other virtuous antioxidant-rich secret sauce is in the 935er, I ain't going there.

But sadly, even though many of us have had reasonable success in the past counting calories to lose weight, it turns out it's way more complicated than keeping a fastidious record of Ins and Outs. And new research has turned up even more reasons why that reassuring number on your Lean Cuisine lasagna or your Skinny Cow treat or your Expensive Organic Exotic Granola Bar may be full of crap.

On the other hand, it's not all bad news: there may be other stuff in your kitchen that you feel guilty about that you could be scarfing up gleefully.

Let's look at some interesting specifics, shall we?

The Smarter Science of Slim: Review & Giveaway

Curious to hear more about a book that outlines a scientific, research-based approach to weight loss, yet challenges conventional thinking with surprising studies and some downright radical advice?

Or, even better, wanna win a free copy of the book?

Why yes, patient readers, Crabby’s Crass Calvacade of Commercialism continues! This week we’ve got a review and giveaway of Jonathan Bailor’s soon to be released book: “The Smarter Science of Slim.”

And, depending on reader enthusiasm (as measured by total number of comments), the giveaway MAY include an additional hard copy for which Canadian and/or Eurpean readers will be eligible.

Seriously, Do We Need Another Freakin’ Diet Book?

Well, maybe not, but I thought this one looked interesting. So many weight loss books either rehash the hard truths you already know, or are written by self-proclaimed experts who come up with amazing new weight loss discoveries by simply making shit up. Whether the book then hits the best-seller lists depends mostly on which celebrity has written it or can be bribed into endorsing it.

Sadly, the Breatharians are still in dire need of a celebrity.
Hmm...Gwyneth? You Busy?

So while I tend to turn down most diet book review pitches, this one caught my eye. Jonathan managed to acquire a bunch of impressive and enthusiastic pre-publication blurbs by lots of sciencey bigwigs, including John Ratey. (And who is John Ratey? Well, he’s a researcher whose name still lures innocent googlers to an ancient Cranky Fitness post on exercise, BDNF, and growing new brain cells, so I brightened up considerably when I recognized his name). Anyway, I liked the fact that a whole slew of academic types endorsed the research in this book.

So What’s Radical About this Weight Loss Book?

Well, maybe “radical” is putting it a bit strongly. It’s certainly not the first book to suggest that the weight loss picture is more complicated that calories in, calories out. We’ve gotten pretty used to the idea that some exercises are more efficient than others, and some foods are “good” or “bad” for weight loss in ways independent of calories.

But I don’t think I’d ever seen a respectably researched book proclaim that there is so little relationship between calories consumed, hours of exercise accumulated, and weight loss.

In short, The Smarter Science of Slim says: If you want to lose weight, eating less won’t help. Exercising more won’t help either. In fact, to lose weight for the long term, you need to eat more and exercise less. If you stick with this program, Bailor claims you can change the way your hormones work, rejigger your weight "set point" to a lower number, eat a ton of food, exercise for ten minutes a week, and look like a fitness model.

The catch? Well, you gotta eat the right kind of food and do the right kind of exercise. And, hint: Twinkies, Doritos, and long slow walks in the park aren't on the list.

Studies That Got Me Thinking.

While I know that the kind of food and exercise one gets are important, I'm pretty old-school in how I approach my own weight management. In fact, I recently went back to counting calories, which is downright quaint in fitness blogging circles. So to read study after study in this book about the absolute failure of the "calories in, calories out" model to achieve long term results was a bit sobering. It only works about 5% of the time.

In fact, as many hard-working dieters have discovered, weight loss achieved by calorie restriction with low-quality food can totally backfire, leading to rapid regain and a higher set-point weight that makes weight loss even harder the next time.

And, when overweight people restrict their calories, their bodies don't behave the way thin people's do. The book cites a study in which thin people burned off nearly 50% more body fat than heavy people when put on the same zero calorie diet. And sheesh, how unfair is that, when you think about it? Heavy people, who had extra fat to burn, had become unable to burn fat the way slim people do.

This and a bunch of other studies were pretty convincing that something funky is going on with obesity, calorie intake, and weight management that has nothing to do with calories in, calories out. There is a lot of research discussed in the book about hormones, changing your set point, how our bodies deal differently with "high quality" vs "low quality" foods, and how different kinds of exercise impact the body differently. I won't go into it all here because I'm way too lazy Bailor explains it all much more clearly, but I have to say that it made me think very differently about what it takes to lose weight and keep it off effectively.

So What's the "Smart" Way to Eat in Order to Get Slim?

Simple! Eat only "High Quality" Foods. Bailor has an acronym (which you may find either cute or annoying) to describe them: SANE, which stands for Satiety, Aggressiveness, Nutrition, and Efficiency. These have to do with how full foods make you feel, their glycemic index and load, what sort of nutrients they contain, and how easily they are stored as fat in your body. (And since you actually want InEfficient foods that don't get stored as fat, the acronym should probably be SANI, but gotta admit that's not terribly catchy).

The Bottom line of Smart Eating:

Eat as many non-starchy vegetables as you possibly can, especially deeply colored and leafy vegetables. But stay the hell away from corn and white potatoes, and limit other starchy vegetables like turnips, yams, etc. You also want to eat lean protein at least five times a day, plenty of fruit (particularly berries and citrus), and plenty of nuts and seeds.

You can also eat, but go easy on, beans and dairy products.

What do you steer clear of? Oil, whole and refined grains, any form of starch, and all sweets.

And What is "Smart" Exercise?

Rather than piling up tens of thousands of steps a day on your pedometer, running marathons, swimming lap after lap, or taking back to back cardio kickboxing classes at the gym, Bailor says the smart thing to do is ditch all that. You can change your body's hormones and torch off fat in an extremely short amount of time by doing high intensity interval training, and deep muscle resistance exercises using extremely slow, heavy, eccentric movements. (I.e., slowly lowering a weight much heavier than you could lift).

Now here's where the whole notion of Smart Exercise starts to sound, well, a bit incredible: You start with two 10 minute workouts a week. Then, when you get better at it, you can cut back to one 10 minute workout a week. That's all you need to do, according to Bailor.

Again, there is a lot more in the book about pragmatics of the diet and exercise, and lots of research and explanations on how and why this is all supposed to work. Let's just say it's a relatively simple, but not necessarily easy, plan to follow.

What I Liked About The Smarter Science of Slim

As I said before, I liked the way there were actual studies to back up the recommendations. Confession: white lab coats and multiple regression are big Cranky Fitness turn-ons.

And the diet advice seems consistent with my own experience: I'm already mostly eating this way, and it seems to work! (Though I'm only about 90% compliant, but hell, that's as good as I ever intend to be on any diet. At least not until I find one that puts cupcakes and kettlecorn on the "eat more" list.) It's weird, because I approached my eating plan from a totally different direction: the unfashionable, completely discredited "calories in, calories out" model. But when I discovered far too many calories were incoming relative to outgoing, and I started looking for ways to optimize, I ended up with a plan strikingly similar to the "SANE" model. I eat more protein than before, a ton of vegetables, I've started going easier on beloved whole grains and starches, and I'm a big fan of weird but convenient ingredients like whey protein, egg whites, canned salmon, and big-ass packages of frozen blueberries. The sweeteners I use somewhat guiltily are Splenda and Stevia, which the book says are OK in moderation. I've found I can eat a big-ass portions with this plan, which is awesome, because portion control is not my strong suit. So personally, I had to like a book that confirmed my own trial-and-error experimentation.

Another good thing about the book is that Bailor doesn't insist on perfection. He's got a chart saying how to modify the plan depending on your goals. What does it look like to eat like a person who is Obese? Overweight? Typical? Hot? A Fitness Model? There are different targets for different levels of obsession commitment.

It's also nice to see an exercise plan with specific how-to's for HIIT and deep muscle training workouts--there are both gym and home versions.

What I Didn’t Like So Much

The "easier said than done" factor. As many of have discovered, there is a ton of sensible diet and exercise advice out there... and very few people actually follow any of it for more than a few weeks. The fact that this may turn out to be a more optimal weight loss plan than most isn't gonna be much help someone who chooses to stop at Dairy Queen rather than face one more whey protein smoothie or spinach salad. Bailor's premise is that you can "fill up" on protein and fiber to the point where you're "too full" for sweets and starches. Well, sorry Jonathan, but welcome to Planet Crabby, where the laws of physiology and psychology dictate that there is no such thing as "too full" for dessert!

On the other hand, all the motivational tips and tricks that are lacking in this book are available a million other places. (Or hell, pick up this book for guidance, then hire yourself a newly minted, not-too-expensive, shamelessly self-promoting wellness coach to keep yourself on track!)

Also, I had some ambivalence about the exercise claims, but couldn't manage to execute the recommendations well enough to test them properly.  You are supposed to be doing these exercises so f#@cking intensely that it's impossible to do anything other than moan for quite a few days afterwards.  I swore I tried really hard, but could still jump on the elliptical or go to spinning class within a day or two, so was clearly doing it wrong.  And yet my "not quite intense enough" version was still mighty unpleasant, if mercifully brief.   I am definitely a believer in both HIIT (or, well, at least some similar SHIIT) and heavy lifting, but I'm not sure I can (or want to) ditch my other cardio activities.  But then I'm a 51 year old post-menopausal slacker. You kick-ass go-getter types may have better luck reaching the required intensity necessary to make the Astounding Amazing Miraculous Fat-Blasting happen with just 10 minutes a week.

Overall?  Even if one didn't want to jump totally on the "Smart," bandwagon, it's a fascinating and well-researched book with plenty of thought-provoking ideas and pragmatic tips for health, weight loss and fitness. You can checkout the The Smarter Science of Slim on Amazon and it even has it's own facebook page.

And now finally... on to the Giveaway!


So, here's the deal. Enter by leaving a comment below by Tuesday November 29th, and the Random Number Generator will pick a winner on Wednesday November 30th. If there are fewer than 50 comments, we have one copy of The Smarter Science of Slim to give away, and it can only be mailed to a U.S. address. However, if we can get more than 50 comments, a second copy will magically appear, which can go outside the U.S. because I will be mailing it! Note: winner(s) will need to check in by Monday Dec or I'll redraw.)

And in case I don't get around to posting again this week, have a Happy Thanksgiving or just a Happy Thursday!

Jillian Michael's BodyMedia Fit Armband Review--Now Updated!

Remember when Jillian Michaels went to the gym with me, and I got all excited and announced that there'd be an upcoming review and giveaway?

Well it's below, and it's now been updated!  The giveaway is over, sorry.  And speaking from the future (July of 2012) I can add, at the bottom, some follow-up information.

Anyway, technically this is not a review of Jillian Michaels herself.  But as I explained before, I'm easily confused by celebrity endorsements! Jillian has lent her name and image to the BodyMedia Fit Armband, which is a high-tech activity monitor.

At least you don't have to make up the guest bedroom for this Jillian.

So if the BodyMedia Fit armband and Jillian want to merge identities for marketing purposes, then I'm happy to go along. I will continue to treat them in my own mind as a single entity, because that's what a good consumer does.

So what is it like to exercise, go to work, eat meals, watch tv, hang out, have a beer, and go to bed with Jillian Michaels?

Counting Calories? Seriously?

 

Clearly Not Everyone is a Fan

Photo: Plan 59

Last week, as I was bemoaning the unfortunate connection between menopause and weight gain, I mentioned that I had started using a different approach to weight management that seemed to be working out well for me.

Yep, it's true! I'm now one of those scary women scurrying around the kitchen with tablespoons and measuring cups and a food scale and a little spiral notebook, weighing and measuring and scrawling numbers and scheming and plotting and cackling with demented glee when the numbers add up just right.

Counting calories?  It's almost embarrassing to admit.  How naive! How passe! How unevolved! How... weird is it that I'm losing weight, not feeling deprived, and even having fun?

I did the same thing back in my thirties, and it worked for me then too.  I don't know how long I plan to do it--but long enough to reset my "intuition" to a more appropriate intake. Say, enough food for a 51 year old woman and not a ravenous 600 lb grizzly bear intent on storing up enough fat for a very long, cold, hard winter.

But is counting calories healthy?  Or it an inherently messed-up way to deal with weight management? Are there ways to optimize nutrition, mental health, and hedonism while still managing to make the numbers add up the way you want them to?

Counting Calories Isn't For Everyone

Many of you have been there, done that, and found it didn't prevent weight gain. Or maybe it did but the results weren't worth it because of the resulting anxiety, depression, frustration, self-loathing, eating disorders, homicidal rages, catatonia, or spontaneous combustion. I imagine you must be thinking: Holy crap, what happened to Crabby? Perhaps the killer amoebas ate her brain?

I know too many lifelong calorie-obsessed, trying-their-hardest-yet-still-overweight dieters to believe that calorie counting is any sort of universal answer. But for someone like me, who has a reasonable metabolism, is very active, eats healthy food, and yet finds the clothes dryer has suddenly grown crazily aggressive and is shrinking all her jeans... calorie counting can be a very handy tool for portion control and accountability.

Crabby's Semi-Obvious Tips for Healthy Calorie Counting

For those of you who are calorie counting veterans, this list will seem laughably incomplete and over-simplified. But just in case there are others who like, me, are joining the party late, here are some thoughts:

1. Honesty Above All Else

If you are human, you will have days where you go way over what you've allowed yourself. (In fact, the whole first week my numbers were hilarious!) But for me, accounting for every damn thing I ate, whether it was a virtuous vegetable smoothie or an ill-advised third S'more at a beach bonfire, made me feel like I was still on track. As long as I wasn't lying to myself and undercounting or leaving things off, I could congratulate myself for being on the right path. And sure enough, staying accountable to my own process got me through the "Duh, I'm going to need to eat less" transition. As the daily calorie totals started dropping, the tallying itself became weirdly rewarding.

2. Allow Yourself Enough Damn Calories!

So many people have written about this that I won't belabor the point, but if you aren't eating enough (a) you will convince your body it's starving and thus screw up your metabolism and (b) you will feel hungry, crappy and deprived. It's not one of those things where "more" is better.

3. Prioritize Health

I hate to see dieters shunning healthy whole foods and opting for low-cal junky processed stuff instead.  But wow, now that I'm seeing how the numbers add up, I suddenly see the temptation!  Some of my favorite staples, like fruit, nuts, seeds, beans, whole grains, grass-fed dairy, olive oil, avocados, etc can seem mighty "expensive" when on a calorie budget.  And conversely, a 150 calorie Skinny Cow chocolate peanut butter ice cream sandwich can seem like a great bargain!

A couple things I like to keep in mind, when tempted to prioritize naked calorie totals over nutritional quality and diversity:  there's more to weight (and especially belly fat) management than just calories in, calories out.  Healthy whole foods aren't just good for you, they keep you feeling full longer. Also, I just read about a recent study in an article entitled "Still Counting Calories? Your Weight Loss Plan May Be Outdated." (Thank you very much, Jane Brody, for calling my brand new shiny plan outdated!) Anyway, the study was full of interesting food and weight correlations. Turns out, independent of calories, there are indeed "bad" foods particularly linked to weight gain. (These include French fries, potato chips, sugar-sweetened drinks, red meats and processed meats, other forms of potatoes, sweets and desserts, refined grains, other fried foods, 100-percent fruit juice, and butter). Conversely, there are "good" foods linked to more successful weight management. Some of these were fruits, vegetables, whole grains, yogurt, and nuts, including peanut butter. And intake of dairy products, whether low-fat or full-fat, had a neutral effect on weight.

But how to take this into consideration when trying to hit a target calorie count? This leads to the next tip:

4. Creative Accounting

So in my calorie counting, I permit a "fudge factor." (Which, unfortunately, does not mean I get to eat extra fudge). I consciously round up calories a bit on "bad" foods, and round down a bit on "good" foods. I don't consider this cheating under the "honesty" rule, because I think it more accurately reflects the real differences in how our bodies handle what we eat. My calorie goal is arbitrary anyway; if over time my slight undercounting of good foods is skewing the results and I'm not reaching my target waist size, then I'll weep a few bitter tears and adjust downwards again. But otherwise, I might be too tempted to say goodbye forever to old friends like guacamole and trail mix, and hello to some artificially sweetened, fake-fat "lite" treat that makes the numbers look pretty at the end of the day.

5. Don't Forget Exercise

Some people track this separately, but my calorie target is based in part on how much I exercise. If I do more, I can eat more. If I do less... well, no dark chocolate and merlot for you tonight Crabby!

For me, I get best results making sure my workouts include a variety of cardio activities, high intensity intervals, strength training, flexibility, and balance training.  I've cut way back on the amount I sit during the day by using stand up desk and finding excuses to walk around. Plus, figuring in exercise to the calorie targets has resulted in my taking more after-dinner walks, riding my bike more on errands, and even going out dancing more. I'm a simple, easily manipulated creature: I love getting "credit," especially for things I enjoying doing anyway.

6. Allow Yourself Treats!

I function better knowing that nothing is truly forbidden. I can earn treats by making smart choices most of the time and having enough "in the bank" to withdraw on something frivolous. Some of these are relatively healthy expenditures (like dark chocolate or a low-sugar brand of kettlecorn) and some of them must go unnamed here because they are Ridiculously Evil and Indefensible. But I feel far less guilty when I do have something decadent now that it's part of an overall plan. Strangely enough, I'm finding the "restrictions" of calorie counting actually feel quite liberating.

However, it's only been a little over a month. Who knows, the novelty might wear off any moment, and the Grizzly Bear could emerge again, terrorizing nearby bakeries, ice cream parlors and burger joints.

Must. Have. Cupcakes.

So, does anyone else count calories? Or have I jumped on the bandwagon after everyone else in the world has jumped off?

Where's the Giveaway?

Some Fridays we have giveaways here at Cranky Fitness, but I'm afraid this is not one of them. However, in honor of "healthy barbecue week" there is a George Foreman Grill giveaway over at The Juice. Isn't it, um, cute?


You can also catch Crabby pondering the impact of gender roles on grilling, or offering up sneaky low-cal cocktail recipes. Or are you parent, and already dreading the whole back to school deal? Org Junkie comes to the rescue with some back to school organizing tips.

And have a great weekend!

Should Restaurant Menus Fess Up To Calories Counts?

Do You Really Want To Know?
Photo: linecook

So it was big news last summer when New York City started requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts on their menus. There was much outcry amongst folks who felt such government regulation was intrusive, and cheers from health advocates who argued that such regulation was necessary, given the rising obesity rates, diabetes risks, etc., etc.

Skeptics have said these kind of laws won't help anyway, because people don't want the information and are just going to ignore it.

Now that the requirement has been in place for a while, guess what?

Intrusive or not, these regulations seem to be working. Calorie counts at restaurants are providing consumers with information they didn't know, and even changing the way they behave.

According to a recent survey on how calorie counts affect consumer behavior, 86 percent of restaurant patrons surveyed were surprised by the calorie count information. Eight two percent said it affected what they ordered, and sixty percent said knowing calorie information influenced which restaurants they'd visit. ("Honey, I know "McLardy's Big-Ass BurgerLand" is your favorite place, but have you seen the nutritional information on the Triple Bacon LardBurger SuperMeal? It's 236,047 calories!)

Note: I couldn't find a handy-dandy link to the survey methodology--so it could be an itty bitty survey done by someone's fourth grade class, or a great big survey done by serious scientists. I have to confess that discovering that there is anything that 86% of New Yorkers agree on is a bit of a shock.

Other cities are also enacting or considering such legislation, so we may see more of this in the future. Do you have an opinion on whether restaurants should be legally required to post calorie counts?

I do!

(That's the main reason I like to blog, after all--I've got more opinions than the Biggest Loser has product placements.)

But there are pro's and con's to regulation--and of course I'd love to know what you folks think.

Here's my take on the advantages and disadvantages of making restaurants display calorie information.

Reasons not to require restaurant menu regulation:

1. It's a Free Country! Generally, rather than require business establishments to do something that's good for us, it's nice if you can let the market decide to do the right thing on its own. This is an especially appealing argument if you think individuals are smarter than governments, which a lot of people do.

So in theory, if enough people want restaurants to provide calorie listings, then more people should patronize restaurants that have them. And then the restaurants that serve gargantuan 20,000 calorie dinners without telling anyone how bad they are for you will go out of business! (Tee hee. Giggle giggle. Laugh laugh laugh snort guffaw).

2. Focusing on Just Calories Is Misleading: Our health problems are only partly due to high-calorie/low exercise lifestyles. It's WHAT we eat that gets us in trouble. A big healthy meal full of fruits, vegetables, protein, fiber, and good fats may have more calories than an ice cream cone--but there are folks dumb enough to look at the calorie difference and feel like they're taking the high road by getting ice cream instead of lunch or dinner.

3. Don't F-ck With My Birthday Dinner. Some people dine out only on special occasions, and otherwise eat wisely and moderately. For these folks, having a menu rub one's face in the fact that a "Bloomin’ Onion" appetizer at Outback Steakhouse has over 2,000 calories could totally spoil the mood. There are definitely times when we Don't Want to Know.

4. The Information Is Out There For Those Who Want It. Those of us who actively try to avoid eating high calorie, fat-and-sugar packed Giganto Meals tend to avoid the sort of chain restaurants that are famous for them. But if we do decide to go, we tend to: (a) use common sense, (b) ask if they've got a pamphlet with nutritional information, or (c) look on the web ahead of time to a site like Calorie Lab, which has a huge compilation of nutritional information. (Calorie Lab is also the home of one of our favorite commenters, Dr. J.). People who care enough to educate themselves are less likely to "accidentally" eat a 4,000 calorie dinner.

5. Calorie Counts Are Often Wrong. In real-life tests, it's been shown that often restaurants under-report calories of their supposed "healthy' meals. And it's not necessarily just to be Evil. In an interview about the difficulties of enforcing New York's calorie law, an employee at Nathan's said: "My small fries look like medium fries and my medium fries look like large fries... I figure if they're paying $7 for a meal, people want to get their money's worth. I've got extra bacon in the salads, extra everything."

Reasons we should require restaurant menus to post calorie information:

Sorry, this is a shorter list.

1. Because Chain Restaurant Portion Sizes Are INSANE and Most People Are Either Willfully Ignorant, Dumb As Rocks, or In Total Denial About How Stupid Their Choices Are.

That's why I think restaurant patrons need those damn calorie counts staring them in the face, however flawed a measurement of nutritional worth they may be. If we were a fit and healthy nation, my opinion might be totally different. But we're not.

Nanny State? Bring it on! We don't let drug stores sell hard drugs, even though I suspect if we left it to the free market, they'd be a crack cocaine display at every Walgreens. If we, as a population, are going to act like selfish clueless babies and kill ourselves with gratuitous calories, we indeed need Menu Nannies to at least let us know we're being childish.

(And no one is trying to regulate what you order--they just to make the information you need to make healthy choices more available.)

Since I was too lazy to post more than one reason in support of my opinion that hell yes let's make them put nutritional information on the menus, you may want some additional convincing. As it happens, Lynn of Lynn's Weigh has a similar post with a lot more in the way of actual arguments and research on this topic. And over at Thufferin' Thuccotash, POD has a tale of an evening at Marie Callendar's that's quite amusing. And Hungry Girl has one of those shocking roundups of typical chain meals and how much worse for you they are than you thought.

So what do you folks think: should restaurants be required to post calorie counts or other nutritional information? Do you think it would affect your food choices when eating out?