Healthy Byte: ‘Starvation Mode’ the Myth

close-up on a man's stomach as he rubs itCould this man be experiencing starvation mode? | iStock.com

If you eat healthy, count every calorie, keep track of your nutrients, and work out day in and day out, then you’re probably expecting your body to get lean and strong in no time. So, if you find yourself hitting a weight-loss plateau without cheating on your diet or slacking on your exercise routine, you may assume you’ve hit starvation mode. This phenomenon, according to Livestrong, affects anyone who eats below their recommended daily caloric intake and makes weight loss nearly impossible. But is there any truth to this claim? It’s time to dispel myth from reality.

This is what starvation mode in dieting is said to be — a complete halt in weight loss when you’ve gone too far with your extreme dieting. Here’s the truth: While your body will have a response to cutting calories, it won’t be strong enough to completely prevent you from losing weight.

healthy foods and a tape measure

Healthy fresh produce for weight loss | iStock.com

In truth, The Washington Post explains metabolism will slow when you’re cutting calories. This is your body’s natural response to a significant change in your diet and your routine, but this doesn’t happen overnight. In fact, this slowing of your metabolic rate doesn’t even happen within the first six to eight months of extreme dieting, which is when most people find that they hit their first plateau and look toward starvation mode as a reason. It takes years and years of severe calorie restriction for your metabolism to completely offset a reduction in calories.

The idea that you won’t lose weight when your caloric intake is too restricted is completely dispelled when looking at The Minnesota Starvation Experiment outlined by the American Psychological Association. In World War II, men were worked to physical extremes and were given less than 1,600 calories to eat a day, resulting in extreme hunger, gaunt bodies, and malnutrition. They were rehabilitated back to full health by being fed a proper number calories, but nowhere in this study did they find the men stopped losing weight because they were eating too little. In fact, all of the participants lost about 25% of their body weight.

If you’re at the point in your diet where you’re unable to lose weight further, A Workout Routine suggests this may be because your body simply isn’t burning as many calories as it did when you weighed more. When your body weight decreases, you burn fewer calories in general, meaning the diet that worked for you when you were 50 pounds heavier may not be working so well for you anymore.
weighing-man
You also may think you’re eating the same exact diet that you were a few months earlier when you first started, but take a closer look. Have you allowed any unhealthy foods to sneak into your diet that may be sabotaging your weight loss? Keeping track of each food you eat every day is a good way to know if something like this is happening without your noticing it.

So, while starvation mode may not really be what’s keeping you from losing weight, there is some truth to the idea. Your metabolic rate will slow when you go to extremes with calorie restriction. However, this metabolic slow-down is not enough to completely halt weight-loss progress, and it happens very slowly Restricting calories may also cause you to feel intensely hungry and crave foods you ordinarily wouldn’t, and you may even feel like you’re mentally slowing down. It’s important to always listen to your body and to eat health-conscious meals packed with vitamins, healthy fats, and fresh produce to maintain your desired weight.

Going hungry for weight loss is never the answer, and a diet that strict likely won’t last long, either. While starvation mode is largely a myth, you’ll feel and look your best when you’re eating plenty of nutritious meals.

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Lose Weight AND Be Happy

NOTE: These exact list of things, like anything else won’t work for everyone. However, I think the general approach has a broad enough applicability to warrant consideration. If we can only implement on 1 thing to eliminate entirely that would bring us one step closer to being healthy in body, mind, & spirit, then this was worth the post.

Losing 70 pounds is tough. Keeping it off for more than a decade is even tougher. Trust me, I tried everything. Once I lost the weight, I thought I’d feel relieved and proud all the time, but what I didn’t expect were the feelings of panic and fear.

I was constantly afraid that I’d end up back where I started and keeping the weight off became an obsession. When I overindulged or wasn’t able to work out, my first thought was that I was going to gain the weight back. It was exhausting and nerve-racking.

But somehow I’ve managed to keep it off and eventually found a way to do it that’s effective, effortless and doesn’t mean living in fear. Here’s what I’ve learned about what it takes.

1. Workouts that I dread.

I used to assign value to workouts purely on the number of calories that they burn so I stuck to brutal, high-intensity workouts that sorta made me miserable and ultimately got me injured and left me feeling burned out. Then, it occurred to me that I’m more than just muscle and fat. So I started only doing workouts that felt good in my body and contributed to the overall well-being of my body, mind and spirit. Now, I actually look forward to my workouts, which means I’ve got no problem getting them in regularly.

2. Eliminating entire categories of food.

Legit food sensitivities and allergies aside, cutting out a whole classification of food is not sustainable, making it a one-way ticket to Frustration City. Our bodies were designed to take in quality fats, protein and carbs (in moderation of course) and each plays a vital role in proper bodily function. Now, over time, I’ve learned that there are certain foods that don’t make me feel the greatest — for example, gummy candies cause my skin to break out, cereal makes me gassy and fried foods make me sluggish — but will an order of fries, a few celebratory cocktails or a birthday cupcake (or two) derail my inner peace and send me into a downward spiral of self-loathing and guilt? Absolutely not. I don’t give food that much power over me anymore.

3. Thinking in terms of calories.

Calories get far too much attention considering that they only tell a small part of the story. So many other things have a direct effect on your body weight and overall health and well-being — for example, hydration, sleep and stress levels all affect how well your body’s internal processes work, including digestion and metabolism. When we focus on calories, we learn that low-calorie means better … but it doesn’t. Many of the most nutritious foods on the planet are calorie dense and many very low-calorie foods have little or no nutritional value. Remember that food is fuel, so quality and nutrition definitely matter.

4. Punishing myself for “slipping up.”

Workouts aren’t punishment and deprivation is cruel. Think of it this way: if your child or pet screwed up, is it okay to run them into the ground or withhold a meal from them? No. So why, oh why, it is okay for us to do it to ourselves?

5. Ignoring the need for recovery.

I used to wear my perpetual muscle soreness like a badge of honor and told myself that I had to work out every day in order to “earn” my calories for that day. Honestly, I wish I could get back all that time I wasted — it didn’t make me stronger, leaner or happier. Our bodies can self-heal, but only if we give them the time to do so. Pushing yourself to the limit every day may seem bad-ass, but it’s robbing your body of the chance to rebuild, adapt and grow stronger.

6. Choosing my workouts based on what I want to look like.

My current workout routine reflects how I want my body to function so that I can do all the things that make my life fun and enjoyable — like teaching yoga, running ultra marathons, playing with my 3-year-old niece and carrying all my groceries in one shot. Here’s the thing: I’ve been a size 18 and I’ve been a size 0 — and everything in between — and it didn’t change how I felt about myself. Losing 70 pounds didn’t make me any less self-conscious about my body. You know what did make a difference? Learning what my body is capable of and developing my strengths. The shape and size of my body don’t define me or affect my overall quality of life.

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Depression & Antidepressants

Sad

The sadness often descended like a curtain — heavy and dark.

But even when my depression threatened to cut me off completely from the world around me, I struggled with the decision to take antidepressants. It wasn’t just that I’d been taught to believe that “going on meds” was giving up. No, what really worried me was how I’d cope if the drugs didn’t work.

This is one of the biggest problems with our current methods of treating mental illness — it’s virtually impossible to know if drugs will help.

“Right now, [going on antidepressants] is very much trial and error,” Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, the chair of the department of psychiatry at Columbia University, told Business Insider.

A group of Stanford researchers wants to change that. They’ve created a two-part test which they say could one day help predict — with striking accuracy — if someone with depression will respond to antidepressants. Their results were published in October in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

At its essence, the test looks at two factors in someone with depression.

1. Specific patterns of brain function in one area of the brain that’s thought to play a key role in depression.

The researchers looked specifically at brain activity in the amygdala, a small structure deep in the center of the brain. The amygdala is part of our limbic system, a group of structures linked with emotions like anger, sadness, pleasure, and fear. People with depression tend to display higher activity in the amygdala, which can continue even after recovery.

To get a snapshot of what was going on in people’s amygdalas, the Stanford researchers showed their study participants images of emotional (angry and sad) faces while they sat in an MRI machine.

2. Exposure to stress in early life.

play alone sand girl sad lonely

People who are exposed to high levels of stress in childhood, either from experiencing a single traumatic event or as the result of being repeatedly abused or neglected, tend to be at higher risk for depression than people who are not.

As a result, the Stanford researchers included this factor in their diagnostic test by having patients fill out an early life questionnaire designed to assess their exposure to things like abuse, family conflict, illness, and natural disasters before they were 18 years old.

What the test showed

Based on someone’s “score” on the two measurements above — i.e. Did they show high patterns of brain activity when exposed to the emotional faces? Were they exposed to lots of early life stress? — the researchers were able to come up with a predictive snapshot of how well that person might respond to an antidepressant drug like Prozac or Zoloft.

The people who were the most likely to respond to antidepressants were those who’d experienced high levels of early life stress and were also highly reactive to specific emotional stimuli.

In other words, people with depression in the study who revealed that they’d been abused as a child and whose brain scans showed that they were highly reactive to the angry and sad faces were more likely to have a positive outcome on the drugs. Scientists believe that a stressful childhood experience like abuse can heighten our sensitivity to emotions, especially negative, potentially threatening ones. Eventually, this could make someone less sensitive to positive cues as well. The role of antidepressants in this scenario, then, would be to help normalize how our brain’s amygdala reacts to emotional stimulii, especially positive cues.

The same outcome was predicted for people who’d experienced low levels of early life stress and were also not very reactive to the faces. In these people, the role of the drugs would be to heighten their brain’s reactivity to emotional cues.

On the other hand, depressed people who said they’d experienced high levels of early life stress but did not react much to the faces (or people who experienced low levels of early life stress but were very reactive to the faces) tended to respond poorly to the drugs.

This jives with other research which suggests that exposure to early life stress, such as abuse or neglect, can change the structure and function of the amygdala, the structure linked with processing emotions. Scientists believe

‘Racing towards the same goal’

The test results are promising, not just because the test appeared to work, but because the researchers’ efforts are part of a bigger push towards transforming how we diagnose and treat mental illness.

For the vast majority of medical problems, there’s a diagnostic test that can tell you what course of treatment you should embark on. If you think you may have type 1 diabetes, for example, you take a blood test. If it’s positive, you’ll likely be prescribed insulin. If you think you may have a heart problem, you get an EEG. Depending on the outcome, you might be given several different kinds of drugs or told to start a specific exercise regimen. With mental illness, there are virtually no such diagnostic tests.

hug friend friendship couple love relationshipStrelka Institute for Media, Architecture and Design Follow/Flickr

The Stanford researchers aren’t the only ones who see this as a huge problem. They’re part of a growing number of scientists who are trying to create diagnostics for mental illness.

“This is one of many initiatives that are pointing towards how diagnostics will become a kind of standard of care,” said Lieberman. “Everybody is racing towards the same goal but they’re taking different paths.”

“I believe [this] is one very important way to transform how we manage depression,” Leanne M. Williams, a psychiatrist at Stanford University and one of the authors of the new paper, told Business Insider. “This could help close the gap between the insights we get from our research and the current devastating impact of depression.”

Here’s how it might work one day. Picture a scenario where someone with depression walks into a clinic, takes the test, and finds out she probably won’t respond well to antidepressants. Then, she has options: First, she could either go on the drugs anyway and see what happens (the test does not predict the future — depression is complicated and there’s still a chance that someone who performs one way on the test might have a different real life experience). Second, she might be encouraged to try a different route of treatment, such as talk therapy.

Like any new study, however, the present research has limitations.

For starters, the test has only been given to people with diagnosed depression in preliminary study settings so far. Researchers are still at the stage in their work where they’re deciphering how well it works and for whom. In other words, you aren’t going to see the test popping up at your doctor’s office tomorrow. Still, the scientists who designed the test told Business Insider that they plan to start deploying it in limited real-world settings at Stanford University in the next few months.

“Anything that would help identify such individuals or give doctors an idea of how they’d respond to treatment would be beneficial,” said Lieberman. “This is one piece of putting that bigger puzzle together. But it’s not the final piece.”

 

 

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: It Just Take a Little

Image result for little exercise

Past research has indicated that metabolic function is critical for women to prevent cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes after they reach menopause. Now, according to new research from the University of Missouri, minimal exercise may be all it takes for postmenopausal women to better regulate insulin, maintain metabolic function and help prevent significant weight gain. These findings suggest that women can take a proactive approach and may not need to increase their physical activity dramatically to see significant benefits from exercise.

“Diseases and associated with metabolic dysfunction skyrocket after menopause,” said Vicki Vieira-Potter, assistant professor of nutrition and at MU. “The intent of this research was to determine what role exercise plays in protecting women, specifically less-active women, metabolically as they go through menopause.”

Vieira-Potter’s research team compared how exercise training maintained metabolic function in sedentary rats versus highly active rats. The rats were provided a running wheel which they could use as much or as little as they wanted. The sedentary rats only ran 1/5th of the distance as the highly active rats did; yet, the limited physical activity still maintained their metabolic function and normalized insulin levels. Moreover, the previously sedentary rats saw a 50 percent reduction in their fat tissue as a result of that small amount of exercise.

“These findings suggest that any physical activity, even just a small amount, can do wonders in terms of maintaining ,” Vieira-Potter said. “This is significant for as they deal with weight gain associated with menopause as well as the increased risk for disease.”

Vieira-Potter says sedentary women can be proactive as they enter menopause by:

  • Going on regular walks with friends;
  • Taking the stairs rather than the elevator;
  • Joining beginners’ fitness programs;
  • Monitoring through use of fitness trackers.

“Voluntary running attenuates metabolic dysfunction in ovariectomized low-fit rats,” recently was published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Jaume Padilla, assistant professor; and Jill Kanaley, professor and associate chair; in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology co-authored the study. Other contributors from MU were Young-Min Park, a former graduate student; Terese Zidon, graduate student; Rebecca Welly, lab manager in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology; and Frank Booth, professor of biomedical sciences. Researchers from the University of Michigan medical school and the University of Kansas medical center also contributed to the study.

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Bread Matters

navigating the bread aisle

The bread aisle in the grocery store can seem like an endless sea of bagel flats, multigrain slices, and whole-wheat rolls (with an old-school loaf of Wonder bread thrown in the mix). While it’s clear that not all bread is created equal, it can be hard to know how to make the healthiest pick. “It’s a good idea to arm yourself with some information beforehand—that way you know what to look for and what different terms actually mean,” says Katie Cavuto, R.D.
The truth is, there’s no need to fear this carb. Bread can be an incredibly nutritious addition to your diet, says Keri Gans, R.D.N., C.D.N., and author of The Small Change Diet.
navigating the bread aisle
1/4 SHUTTERSTOCK
WHOLE IS KEY

When choosing bread, always opt for the whole-grain option. Whole-grain products use the entirety of the grain. This includes the endosperm, germ, and bran, which provide fiber, protein, vitamins, and minerals for your body, says Keri Glassman, R.D., C.D.N.

Hate the taste of whole wheat? Don’t panic.”You basically want to be looking for the word ‘whole,'” says Gans, a spokesperson for Arnold Bread. She recommends scoping out ingredients like whole barley, brown rice, whole oats, or whole flax for a different flavor, but all the same nutrients.

navigating the bread aisle
2/4 SHUTTERSTOCK
…BUT BE SURE TO LOOK FOR LABELS THAT SAY 100 PERCENT WHOLE-GRAIN

Breads can label themselves ‘whole grain’ even if only 51 percent of the ingredients qualify, according to Cavuto. That’s why it’s important to examine packaging for the “100 percent whole grain” stamp. If you see that, it means your loaf contains 16 grams of whole grains per serving, says Cavuto.

And when it comes to choosing between organic or conventional breads, you can save your money and skip the organic. It’s not a make-or-break factor when it comes to bread.

navigating the bread aisle
3/4 SHUTTERSTOCK
FEWER INGREDIENTS MEANS BETTER BREAD

“The absence of artificial flavors, colors, and preservatives is important as well,” says Cavuto, who’s also a spokesperson for Arnold Bread. She recommends avoiding hard-to-pronounce additives and partially hydrogenated oils. Try reading the ingredients out loud. If you can’t pronounce it or understand what it is after a quick Google search, toss it. “Learn to read food labels,” Gans says. She says to chuck a brand that’s giving you trans fats or high fructose corn syrup, too. (Lean how to reset your diet with Women’s Health’s The Body Clock Diet.)

navigating the bread aisle
4/4 SHUTTERSTOCK
FOCUS ON FIBER

You’ve heard it before and we’ll say it again—fiber is crucial to your diet. It helps keep you full, encourages healthy bowel movements, and improves gut health. “See how many grams of fiber there are per slice, and ideally, you’re going to want anything over three grams,” says Gans. The fiber comes from the endosperm that’s left intact in whole grains. According to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, you should aim for 25 grams of fiber per day, and half of your daily grain intake should be whole grains.

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: New Non-Diet Approach

NOTE: Here’s an article that I don’t necessarily agree with but I do realize that what has worked for me (counting calories via MFP) does not work for everyone. So here’s some encouragement for those who is looking for the life style transformation that will last.

Image result for calorie counting

We are gathered, dear friends, to pay honor and, just maybe, to say farewell forever to an acquaintance not-so-dearly departed: the calorie-restriction diet. Because in this world where women sip small-batch nut milk before barre class, legions of people who aren’t actually sensitive to gluten won’t touch a dinner roll, and eating like a cavewoman is considered a viable nutritional plan even though most cavewomen didn’t survive past 35, it has become devilishly hard to find someone who admits she follows a straight-up calorie-counting diet anymore.

Skeptics will say the shift is purely semantic, a case of political correctness in which everybody is still dieting but nobody wants to utter the dreary word itself. But if you doubt that the trim-at-any-cost mass culture is changing, consider that Lean Cuisine, which has had two years of falling revenues, recently revamped its frozen-food recipes and added words like “organic” and “freshly made” to its packaging. “We realized that low fat and low calorie were not the modern definition of what people were looking for in healthy cuisine,” says the company’s marketing director, Julie Lehman. It’s a similar story at Weight Watchers, the company that first implanted the calorie-counting chip in the collective brain of American women more than 50 years ago. “It’s a different age,” says R. J. Hottovy, a consumer-equity strategist at Morningstar, an investment-research company, which keeps an eye on Weight Watchers, whose sales had taken a hit thanks to things like fitness trackers and meal-plan apps (the brand has since gotten in on the game, too). Even with the help of the planet’s most effective pitchwoman, Oprah Winfrey, “[the company is] still facing headwinds,” says Hottovy.

And the most recent weight-loss trend to gain popularity, so-called intermittent fasting, alternates periods of “normal” eating with short bursts of severe calorie restriction. By some jujitsu of dieting logic, these programs, like the 5:2 plan, allow those who follow them to enjoy a sense of balance and satisfaction at most mealtimes.

The hard truth is that the once nearly universal obsession with cutting calories and eliminating entire food groups is simply no longer trendy. When was the last time you heard someone say she was doing the South Beach Diet, the Master Cleanse, or Ideal Protein? Women from all walks of life (including but not limited to bloggers, social-media stars, actresses, and activists) have dropped more-restrictive regimens in favor of plans that promise health, wellness, and mind-body balance. ” ‘Diet’ has become”—wait for it—”a four-letter word,” says Susan B. Roberts, a professor of nutrition and psychiatry at Tufts University in Boston who studies weight-loss habits. It’s not that people don’t want to lose weight and get healthy and feel better; even if they don’t use the D word, more than half of all U.S. consumers are on a diet of some kind, according to a 2015 report by the market-research firm Mintel. “The problem is that they’ve tried so many things and struggled, and for what?” Roberts says.

Deprivation, after all, has a dark side. Remember this scene from the front lines of weight loss? You’re in your bathroom, you haven’t eaten a carbohydrate in weeks, you’re living on foods high in protein but no individual servings larger than your fist, and you’ve just urinated on a small wooden ketosis strip to see if it’s working. “All of these diets have created such angst for people around eating,” says Judith Matz, a coauthor of The Diet Survivor’s Handbook (Sourcebooks), who advises her clients to eat a wide variety of healthy foods. “It’s meant to be a source of nourishment, energy, and pleasure. But when you have to pee to make sure you’re eating properly, you take that pleasure away.”

Not that calorie-restricting diets don’t work. They generally do—just not for long. Many studies have shown that, except for a small sliver of the population, the average dieter sheds perhaps 10 percent of her weight during an exhilarating honeymoon phase, then returns to her original size within a couple or three years or even puts on extra pounds. Traci Mann, a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and the author of Secrets From the Eating Lab (Harper Wave), echoes a newly familiar sentiment: Eat healthy and stop counting calories. She has delivered her message about the futility of food restriction to audiences around the country. These days, she often feels she’s preaching to the choir. “I talk a lot about all these physical changes from calorie deprivation that make it harder to keep dieting, and people say, ‘That’s exactly what happened to me. I started dieting, and suddenly I was hungry even when I ate things that used to make me feel full,’ ” she says.

Even among the very large number of women who still eat for their bathroom scale, the tendency now is to dispense with calorie counting in favor of a “lifestyle.” Thirty-day challenges, the paleo diet, eating “clean,” even locavore or artisanal-food obsession can be ways to limit your overall intake without having to refer to a system of points—although any experienced nutritionist will tell you the only reliable way to lose weight is to take in fewer calories than your body burns.

Still, what the lifestyle plans do enticingly offer is a sense of control, possibly even joy. Maybe this is the most crucial point of all: You’re signing on to a new way of living, rather than chipping away at the one you’re used to. And some of them, at least, like the so-called Mediterranean diet, actually emphasize health and well-being over rapid, unsustainable weight loss. “As we get away from calorie counting, we move closer to nutrition,” says New York City registered nutritionist Keri Gans, the author of The Small Change Diet (Gallery Books). “People are starting to realize they have to be patient, move slowly, and give themselves time to create new habits.”

The lifestyle approach has another advantage. By choosing to go macrobiotic or to explore the benefits of cold-pressed juices, to name a couple of examples, the modern dieter can at the same time be a part of the infectious fun of the food-cultural revolution that is so dramatically remaking our grocery stores, restaurants, and entire channels of cable TV. “I don’t care if you live at the very edge of the forest during this Whole Foods moment, you still know there’s a buzz about kale and avocado,” says Amanda Chantal Bacon, the founder of the Moon Juice plant-based apothecary and food stores in Los Angeles, where Gwyneth Paltrow and Shailene Woodley come to shop for things like reishi mushrooms (believed to boost the immune system), mineral-rich maca root, and shilajit tonic, which is used in Ayurvedic medicine. In that sense, the new way of dieting is all about the benefits (#gainz, if you do your boasting online) and not just the losses.

Bacon’s esoteric brand of holistic living—a combination of kundalini and Vedic meditation, exercise, and meals designed to promote wellness—includes managing one’s weight without being consumed by it. A typical lunch might be zucchini ribbons with basil, pine nuts, and sun-cured olives with a cup of green tea. Outside experts could debate for days whether that actually constitutes a healthy meal or is just low-calorie dieting dressed up in New Age finery. But Bacon is evangelical about the need to “bust the myth of traditional dieting,” as she puts it. “I stand in good company, which includes medical doctors, when I say that what I put in my body can definitely help me maintain my weight. But along with that, my skin is different; my energy levels are very different; my personality is different. Food affects everything.”

THE ONCE NEARLY UNIVERSAL OBSESSION WITHCUTTING CALORIESAND ELIMINATING ENTIRE FOOD GROUPS IS SIMPLY NO LONGER TRENDY.

The scientific community has long accepted that idea, of course, along with the understanding that our weight is also determined by genetics and other physiological factors beyond our control. All of which encourages the emergence, in a parallel universe that coexists with all the super skinny fitness stars of social media, of the idea that a woman’s body can be considered beautiful and healthy no matter how it happens to be shaped and sized. Hashtags like #fatkini (accompanied by photos of large women in bathing suits) make the rounds on Instagram, where the extraordinary yoga instructor and “fat femme” Jessamyn Stanley has 168,000 followers and counting.

Popular women’s websites decry fat-shaming and celebrate body positivity. When Kelsey Miller, the author of Big Girl: How I Gave Up Dieting & Got a Life (Grand Central Publishing) and the creator of the Anti-Diet Project column at Refinery29, first joined that website in 2012, one of the dieting buzzwords of the day was “detox.” (“We now know what bullshit that was,” she says.)

Today’s buzzword is more like “DGAF” (look it up). Miller, who says she has spent her entire conscious life in the dieting cycle, now practices what’s known as intuitive eating, in which her meal choices are guided by what she’s hungry for coupled with an understanding of which foods make her feel healthy and energetic and, conversely, which ones slow her down. “It’s about getting over the idea that kale is the savior and the cheeseburger is the enemy,” she says.

Here’s what it looks like at mealtime: When Miller is in the mood for, say, a steak, potatoes, and spinach, she eats it. Or she gives it some thought and decides, “You know what? That sounds really heavy and not comfortable right now,” says Miller. The goal either way is to take worrying about her weight out of the equation and to focus on comfort, health, and satisfaction—to reach a state of Zen-like food neutrality.

Miller is the first person to say there’s a utopian, if still somewhat attainable, quality to her anti-diet philosophy. And there’s no going back—for her, and many others who have had enough of the old way of dieting. Elizabeth Angell, a digital editor in New York City, can’t imagine ever going back to Weight Watchers, although she found the program helpful when she wanted to lose baby weight after the birth of her daughter three years ago.

But ultimately it was no more helpful than accepting the fact that her weight will fluctuate, and the best thing she can do for herself is eat lots of fresh vegetables, prepare as many of her own meals as possible, keep sweets out of the house, and try to limit her consumption of carbs to once a day. “On a diet, you’re always ten pounds away from your goal, and I just don’t want to always be short of my goal,” Angell says. “I’m tired of saying no.”

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Walking vs Running for Weight Loss

running vs walking calories burned

Two weeks ago, I began planning an update to a walking vs running calorie-burn article that I had written for Runner’s World magazine in 2005. When that article subsequently appeared on the RunnersWorld.com website, it attracted a lot of interest and comments. Some of those comments displayed the widespread confusion and outright disbelief that’s common to this topic.

Most people believe that walking one mile and running one mile burn the same number of calories. You know, a mile is a mile is a mile. Sounds reasonable. But it doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.
So I thought I’d write another blog post to clarify the confusion as much as I can. Fortunately, I got some help. A group of researchers from California State University have just published a new run vs walk paper.It’s the best one yet, and it confirms (to a very high degree) the data I presented in 2005, which was mostly based on this paper. Even better, this group of investigators have included the “after burn” in their calculations. That’s a first.

It’s also entirely appropriate. Whether you finish your workout by collapsing on the grass, drinking a smoothie, or taking a shower, your body continues burning more calories than usual until it returns to its basal metabolic rate. These calories are “free,” yet real.

The subjects in the new study were 15 male college students, and 15 female, with an average weight of 156 lbs. One day they ran a treadmillmile in 10:00 minutes; another day they walked a mile in 18:36. Afterwards, they sat quietly for 30 minutes, by which time their metabolic rate had returned to normal.

Table A: Calories Burned Per 1-Mile Walk vs 1-Mile Run For A 156-lb Subject

WALK* RUN**
CALS/MILE 88.9 112.5
CALS/MINUTE 4.78 11.26
AFTER-BURN/MILE 21.7 46.1
NEW TOTAL/MILE 110.6 158.6
CALS/MINUTE 5.95 15.86

*one mile walk in 18:36; ** one mile run in 10:00

I always add a calories/minute result to these calculations, because, frankly, it’s how most of us live our lives. We only have so many workout minutes in a day or week, and we’d like to know what the payoff is. Clearly, running burns more than twice as many calories per minute (11.25) as walking (4.78). This difference increases when you consider the after-burn.

However, you have to be careful about the way you apply the after-burn. You only get one after-burn per workout, not one per mile. So if you run five miles, your after-burn might still be just 46.1 calories (or minimally higher). You don’t get to multiply five by 158.6 calories/mile, which would yield 793 calories burned. Instead, you should multiply five by 112.5, and then add 46.1. That yields 608.6.

Probably it’s smartest to just multiply your total miles by 112.5, and consider the after-burn a nice little bonus. To increase your bonus, run faster during your workout. One recent study showed that a modestly-hard workout could produce 190 after-burn calories in the following 14 hours.

Lastly, I like to produce calorie-burn charts that adjust to your body weight. As noted, the above chart only works if you weigh 156.2 pounds. Which you probably don’t. Here’s a very simple chart that lets you compute your personal calorie-burn per mile per pound.

Table B: Your Calorie Burn Per Mile (Or Minute) Walk vs Run

WALK RUN
CALORIES/MILE .57 x wt in lbs .72 x wt in lbs
CALORIES/MIN .03 x wt in lbs .07 x wt in lbs

To use the above, simply multiply your weight (in pounds) by the number shown. For example, if you weigh 188 lbs, you will burn about 107 calories (188 x .57) when you walk a mile, and about 135 calories (188 x .72) when you run a mile.

As you can see, running a mile burns roughly 26 percent more calories than walking a mile. Running a minute (or 30 minutes, or an hour, etc.) burns roughly 2.3 times more calories than the same total time spent walking.

OK, now a few caveats. These calculations are all derived from an “average” weight of the subjects; there may be individual variations. Also, age and gender make a difference, though quite a modest one. Your weight is by far the biggest determinant of your calorie burn per mile. When you look at per-minute burn, your pace (your speed) also makes a big difference.

These calculations aren’t meant to be precise. They are good approximations, and much more accurate than the old chestnut: You burn 100 calories per mile.

Lastly the calculations only apply to walkers doing an 18:36 pace and runners doing a 10:00 pace. Running faster or slower than 10:00 pace doesn’t make much difference in your calorie-burn per mile. (But has a major impact on your burn per minute.)

Walking is a different kind of animal. Increases in walking speed dramatically raise calorie burn per mile as well as per minute. Indeed, at about 12:30 per mile, walking hits a point where it burns about the same calories/mile as running. Walk faster than 12:30 and you will burn more calories/mile than running at 10:00 pace.

However, almost no one but competitive race walkers goes faster than 12:30 per mile. Indeed, when I look out my front window at walkers circling the block, very few are walking faster than 18:36. Most are in the 18:00 to 20:00 range—great exercise for the elderly and the overweight, but not a big calorie-burn activity.

Finally, this time around I haven’t made a distinction between net calorie burn and gross calorie burn, which is what you’ll get by doing the math shown above. The net versus gross argument is important to some people, but, frankly, it’s almost never reported in health and journalism circles, and is probably more complicated than most people want to know.

Do what you can to burn as many calories as possible in exercise and daily living. That’s the ticket to good health and weight. (Some individuals take this too far, but they are in the distinct minority, and don’t constitute a national public health crisis. I just read a health economics paper that estimates 20 percent of national health care costs are related to obesity-related illnesses.)

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

%d bloggers like this: