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

Healthy Byte: Quality Not Quantity

Image result for regular people workout

Photographer Benjamin Von Wong

It’s no secret that there are a plethora of factors that might make your workouts less frequent. When you’re stuck juggling work, running errands and still trying to get to bed at a reasonable hour, there just aren’t enough hours in the day! Or, perhaps you simply haven’t grown fond of the whole fitness scene, and working out just feels like a daunting chore.

Working out, however, is an essential ingredient in maintaining a healthy body—mentally and physically. But, the best part is, you don’t have to devote hours every day to hitting the gym to see results. We spoke with celebrity trainer Ashley Borden, and YouTube fitness star and founder of Fit Strong and Sexy workout regimen Amanda Russell, to figure out the least amount of time you can work out and still transform your body.

It all comes down to quality over quantity. “It’s really not about the time at all—it’s about the quality of what you’re doing. So you could put in 80 hours a week and see no results, and you could but in three hours a week and see incredible results,” says Russell. In fact, working out for longer at a high intensity can bring you less-efficient results because the longer you work out, the more you have to lower the intensity, which completely changes the exercise. “If you’re doing [high intensity exercises] right, you physically couldn’t be able to do them longer,” Russell explains.

Borden is on the same page when it comes to intensity over time. Her 10-minute workout suggestion is to warm up for two minutes using a foam roller and doing active stretches, and then take eight minutes to do the following: 20 seconds of mountain climbers and 10 seconds of rest four times; 20 seconds of lateral bounds and 10 seconds of rest four times. “That is 10 minutes and you have worked out your entire body with just your body weight. Pushing your intensity and pace is what will dictate the speed of your results.” Her minimum recommendation, however, is full-body strength training and high intensity interval workouts three times each week.

The best part of using just your body weight is that you can do it anywhere, no equipment required. Russell, whose online platform is based on the idea of programs that take up less time, is a huge advocate of that workout technique. “You want something you can literally do in your hotel or bedroom. Your body is hands down the best tool you have.”

All that said, not everyone is built alike, which may be a factor in how often you need to hit the gym. As Borden explains, ectomorphs are on the leaner side and have narrow hips, mesomorphs have round and long muscles and a small waist and endomorphs have thicker bodies with wider hips. One is not better than the other, but it just means you have to work out differently. “An ectomorph would have to focus on eating and getting enough healthy calories in a day,” whereas an “endomorph body would like more of a mix of steady state cardio and short high intensity type of workouts.”

While you make your workouts less frequent, you can make some lifestyle changes to help out your health in the long run. Borden recommends focusing on your posture throughout the day, and emphasizes the importance of water. “Start with half your body weight in ounces of water. If you weigh 160 pounds, you would try to drink 80 oz daily.” Striving for a nutritional diet is also a huge factor, as the foods you put into your body are reflected on the outside. According to Russell, your diet is 90 percent of the deal.

So, luckily for all you busy-bees or gym foes, the overarching point is that, as long as you give it your all, you do not have to stress over the time commitment of exercising. “The busiest people on the planet will either say that they don’t have time to work out, or that they never skip a workout. That’s where it falls into the priority zone for them,” says Russell. No more excuses—grab your sneakers or your yoga mat, and get to it.

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Just Because it is in Print Doesn’t Make it Definitive Truth

NOTE Last Sentence: “The burden, unfortunately, remains on you to think.”

An important new science article has been making the rounds, with apparently every newspaper and internet news aggregator in the world repeating the message: You don’t have to lift heavy weights to get stronger.

I know you read it. Here’s the first place I saw it, and here’s the actual paper.

It’s important because it both seems to confirm what everybody wants to believe, and because it’s actually a pretty good technical study. But it is wrong, because it studies the wrong questions. Nonetheless, you now think that you don’t have to lift heavier weights to get stronger.

In short, the study compared two groups of young men who had been working out in the gym for a while — “gym bros” to us strength training professionals — and assigned them a largely machine-based exercise program, described as “full-body Resistance Training,” to be performed four days a week.

One group performed “low reps” which the study authors considered to be 8-12 reps per set with 75-90% of their 1-rep maximum weight. The other group performed “high reps,” 20-25 reps per set with 30-50% of their 1RM. Each group did three sets to muscle failure with only a one-minute rest between sets.

This was actually not “strength training” at all. It was circuit training.

The strength and conditioning professional will immediately recognize that neither of these groups is a “low-rep” group, and neither of these groups is a “heavy-weight” group.

In other words, there was no low-rep, heavy-weight test group in a study that claims to show that there is no benefit to low-rep, heavy-weight exercise.

From the text: “The loads were adjusted in between each set to ensure that the correct repetition range was maintained,” and the loads were adjusted, either down or up, so that “failure” was achieved within the prescribed rep range for each group. In other words, if you somehow happened to get tired, they lowered the weight, because they had to.

Strength was measured by testing the change in 1-rep max on the lifts. Body composition and muscle tissue changes were assessed by the best laboratory methods available to modern science. Blood was drawn and hormones were measured, and statistical analysis was correctly performed.

The study found no significant difference in either strength or muscle size, or in growth-related hormone levels at the end of 12 weeks between the two groups.

This is not particularly surprising, since:

1.) Heavy weights were not used (you simply cannot do either 12 or 25 reps with a heavy weight, especially if you have to do three sets).

2.) To the extent that the two groups did get stronger, the group doing 8-12 reps to failure got a little stronger than the high-rep group, because they lifted heavier weights for fewer reps.

3.) The 1-Rep Max was therefore not trained. Instead, high repetitions were trained. You don’t get what you don’t train for.

4.) The exercises chosen for the study are widely recognized as ineffective for increasing both strength and muscular size, especially since there is nothing in the paper that details precisely how the movements were performed.

5.) Since a muscle’s size is proportionate to its strength, if you don’t ask the muscle to lift heavier weight it won’t get bigger.

6.) Exercise-induced changes in blood levels of growth-related hormones, while possibly wonderfully lovely for your health, are already understood not to correlate strongly — if at all — with increases in strength or mass.

There are many other problems with this paper. In fact, because of the way the study protocol was designed, it would have been odd if a significant increase in either strength or muscle size between the two groups had been demonstrated.

Basically, the study compared the effects of two stupid, inefficient ways to get stronger and bigger, and then correctly determined that they are both equally stupid and inefficient.

No competitive strength athlete in the entire world will change training programs on the basis of this study — because they all know that to be stronger you have to lift heavier weights in the squat, press, and deadlift, usually for five reps or less.

Yet the mainstream media has restated this paper’s conclusions, and has made their version perhaps the most widely disseminated chunk of “exercise science” in many years: “Lighter Weights Just as Effective as Heavier Weights to Gain Muscle, Build Strength,” or some version thereof.

Because they know this is what people want to read.

For the same reason, about every six months you’ll read an article entitled “Scientists Discover Fat Pill That Replaces Exercise.”

I have detailed the problems with exercise science in other articles, and this is certainly an excellent example of those problems. My point here is that the MSM lives for things like this, so they can throw the hyperbole engines into overdrive. The paper is badly done — the standard deal for exercise and nutritional science — but it’s not this badly done. It simply doesn’t say what the New York Times and everybody else reported that it said.

Take bad journalistic habits like this and apply them to climate science, another area of recently reduced academic rigor, and you get statements from John Kerry about how climate change is as dangerous as ISIS.

Don’t assume that what you read in the MSM about science is true any more than you would assume that what you see on 60 Minutes is true.

The burden, unfortunately, remains on you to think.

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Get Up & Move

The perils of sitting all day aren’t good. Researchers have shown that remaining stationary for extended periods of time (like at your 9-to-5 desk job) can be detrimental to your health. While exercise is a big part of offsetting the harmful effects of sitting, it was unclear how many gym sessions were needed to help — until now.

A new study, published in The Lancet, shows the ideal formula for counteracting the negative effects of a sedentary job. Instead of a fixed number of hours spent exercising, the ratio depends on how much you sit: people who work a typical eight-hour day should spend at least one hour each day moving; if you sit six hours a day, you should spend half an hour exercising. The research also indicated that the exercise doesn’t have to be all at once — or rigorous. It can be spread throughout the day and be as simple as walking.

The team behind the study analyzed data from a pool of a million adults over the age of 45 in Western Europe, the United States, and Australia. Using previous data, the researchers examined data from 16 published studies and used it to determine how much exercise is required to compensate for sitting. Their recommended daily exercise goal is higher than previous advice but not necessarily less attainable, given it can be completed throughout the day.

Fitting in an hour of exercise a day sounds especially daunting if you have a desk job, but there are plenty of workouts you can complete before and after work. Even if it means taking a 10-minute walk during lunch, your body will thank you in the long run.

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Three Steps to Eating Healthier for Life

A happy couple eating in Stockholm, Sweden.Maridav/Shutterstock

Every January, people making resolutions to lose weight are peppered with loads of free dieting advice. Most of it is absolutely terrible, or plain lies. Even worse, many weight loss hucksters over complicate the very simple truths we know about eating for health.

That’s why I love this chart from the Swedish National Food Agency. Its succinct (and still impressively science-based) advice is summed up in this nice graphic:

Sweden’s dietary guidelines summed up in “one minute.”

While American guideline makers are reluctant to urge the public to eat less of anything (lest they offend powerful industry lobby groups), the Swedes are clear about what people really need to cut back on: red and processed meat, salt, and sugar.

Likewise, while fad diet peddlers often suggest people eat a certain “superfood,” avoid some overly specific substance like gluten, or follow a fat-busting workout routine to stay fit, the Swedes keep it real: Just eat more plants and exercise. Instead of suggesting people do the impossible and banish fat from their diets, these Scandinavians are advised to seek out “fabulous fats” in vegetable oils and nuts. (Again, these findings jibe with what researchers have found.)

 “In truth,” the experts at the Swedish food agency write, “most people know perfectly well what they should eat. It’s no secret that vegetables are good for you and sugar isn’t.”
So here’s an idea: Save your money, and tune out the fads you’ll be inundated with this year. Ignore the unreasonable diet plans that time has shown will fail, and forget the punishing workouts. Instead, eat like a Swede.
Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

Healthy Byte: Weight Loss Strategies for the Everyday Folks

Image result for regular people getting healthy

For some reason, people treat changing calendars as an event that marks the beginning of a new lifestyle, usually one that includes a focus on health. Sure enough, the two most popular resolutions are “losing weight” and “staying fit and healthy.” It’s pretty much a given that come January 1, gyms will be slammed and salad bars will be crammed.

But what about the folks who aren’t ready to dive into something extremely demanding, like CrossFit five days a week or a seriously restrictive diet plan? Are there less-challenging, yet still effective ways to lose weight? Absolutely!

 

Nix the sodas and fruit juices
Here’s something to think about: if you currently drink two servings of soda or juice a day, and you simply stopped drinking it right now, opting instead for healthier alternatives like sparkling water or just plain water, you’d easily be able to eliminate 300+ calories from your day and shed almost 1lb a week without any additional exercise.

2016-01-06-1452098034-4041274-weightmain.jpgCredit: Anthony Humphreys/Thrillist

Simplify your coffee
Since coffee contains caffeine, it can stimulate fat burn and weight loss. Unfortunately, coffee loses all of its weight-loss potential when you cram it with unhealthy additives like super-sweet syrups and sugars. End result: a once-healthy black coffee becomes a fattening sugarbomb. So here’s a simple solution for coffee-lovers who also want to lose weight: start taking your coffee black, and if you really can’t stand the bitterness, go for a naturally low-calorie sweetener, like stevia. Bottom line, by going au natural with your coffee, you’ll tighten up your waistline.

2016-01-06-1452098285-8879627-weight2.jpgCredit: Flickr/Jpellgen

Reduce your carbs three days per week
Not all carbs are the devil, but eating a diet high in refined carbs (think white rice, pasta, cereal, bread) can cause elevated blood sugar and insulin. End result: eating a diet high in refined carbs can make you fat and sick— and it can make it harder to lose weight.

 

Originally Posted HERE

HB Sig

%d bloggers like this: