Author, obesity researcher .

Statins with your burger? Better add a pregnancy test too

This story came out on 12 August 2010. I follow BBC Health news on Twitter and they announced:

“Fast food outlets should consider handing out cholesterol-lowering drugs to combat the effects of fatty food, link here

The article opens with: “Fast food outlets should consider handing out cholesterol-lowering drugs to combat the effects of fatty food, say UK researchers. Taking a statin pill every day would offset the harm caused by a daily cheeseburger and milkshake, the Imperial College London team said. It would only cost 5p a customer – similar to a sachet of ketchup.”

Dr Darrel Francis, one of the team of researchers, was quoted as saying: “Importantly, even partial adherence to statin therapy conveys a mortality benefit, suggesting that statins do not need to be taken daily to have some protective effect”.

I checked the source of these incredulous comments (we’ll cover why below). The researchers were Emily A. Ferenczi, Perviz Asaria, Alun D. Hughes, Nishi Chaturvedi MDa and Darrel P. Francis. Their article “Can a Statin Neutralize the Cardiovascular Risk of Unhealthy Dietary Choices?” was published in the American Journal of Cardiology August 2010. You can read the summary here.

Invariably, I go back to the original medical journal article and find that the media have sensationalised a serious piece of research, taken one statement out of context and blown it out of proportion. Not in this case. The researchers managed to do that in their original summary – here’s an extract:

“The risk reduction associated with the daily consumption of most statins, with the exception of pravastatin, is more powerful than the risk increase caused by the daily extra fat intake associated with a 7-oz hamburger (Quarter Pounder®) with cheese and a small milkshake. In conclusion, statin therapy can neutralize the cardiovascular risk caused by harmful diet choices… Routine accessibility of statins in establishments providing unhealthy food might be a rational modern means to offset the cardiovascular risk. Fast food outlets already offer free condiments to supplement meals. A free statin-containing accompaniment would offer cardiovascular benefits, opposite to the effects of equally available salt, sugar, and high-fat condiments. Although no substitute for systematic lifestyle improvements, including healthy diet, regular exercise, weight loss, and smoking cessation, complimentary statin packets would add, at little cost, 1 positive choice to a panoply of negative ones.”

The only declaration of interest for the article was “Dr. Francis is supported by grant British Heart Foundation, London, United Kingdom.” (Those are the exact words – there may be an ‘a’ and a ‘from the’ missing). Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation is also quoted in the article. It would be fair to say that Weissberg is quite a fan of statins – Dr Michael Eades does a great blog here showing how Weissberg was defending statins back in February 2007. Eades says “The British Heart Foundation is also funded by, among others, companies that make statins.” I did a quick check on the BHF site this morning and found nothing clearly declared. A separate search on Pfizer (makers of Lipitor) and the BHF reveals a funding relationship – small to Pfizer but useful to the BHF.

There are almost too many levels to go into as to why this article is both horrific and irresponsible. I am struggling to recall a more disgraceful recommendation to come from people supposedly interested in our health. I’ll stick to four:

1) Cholesterol is one of the most vital substances in the human body. We literally die without it. The sensible (and non-conflicted) people working in the field of cholesterol understand how statins actually work. The body makes cholesterol (it is too vital a substance for the body to rely on you to have to consume or get from another source in any way). Statins stop the body making cholesterol. You may think that this is how they impact on heart disease (the evidence for impact is also conflicted and not compelling despite this). The more sensible view is that statin drugs work as an anti-inflammatory agent in some way and the cholesterol lowering is a very unfortunate side effect. The key reason for it being so unfortunate is that statins stop the body’s own working ‘up-stream’ of the production of CoQ10, which has been called the energy spark plug for the body, and this explains side effects from tiredness, being less able to be active and as extreme as irreversible muscle wasting. Given that the brain has one of the highest requirements for cholesterol within the body, forgetfulness and generally being less cognitive are also well known and serious mental side effects.

2) I have no idea where Francis gets his idea of mortality benefit. The evidence is the converse. Lowering cholesterol has been shown to increase mortality – the lower your cholesterol, the more risk of dying kind of relationship. This makes sense given the life vital role of cholesterol.

The Honolulu Study was a 20 year study of cholesterol levels and mortality in 3,572 Japanese American men. The study concluded that “Only the group with low cholesterol concentration at both examinations had a significant association with mortality”. The authors went on “We have been unable to explain our results”. (I.e. we were expecting lower cholesterol to equal lower mortality, not the other way round). All credit to the team for their honest reporting of these unexpected results and their final statement in the abstract: “These data cast doubt on the scientific justification for lowering cholesterol to very low concentrations (<4·65 mmol/L) in elderly people.” (Schatz, Masaki, Yano, Chen, Rodriguez and Curb, “Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu heart programme”, The Lancet, (August 2001).)

Framingham similarly concluded that “There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels).” (Anderson, Castelli and Levy, “Cholesterol and Mortality: 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham Study”, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), (1987).)

Dr Malcolm Kendrick in the brilliant “The Great Cholesterol Con”, does a clever calculation on this quotation and translates this into – a reduction in cholesterol from 5 to 4 mmol/L would increase your risk of dying by 400%.

3) This study makes the usual mistake of not starting from a clear control basis. Remember the item chosen? A 7-oz hamburger (Quarter Pounder®) with cheese and a small milkshake. So we have all three macro nutrients – fat, protein and carbohydrate. We have primarily, if not exclusively processed food. We have sugar, white buns, processed meat and cheese. What were these guys trying to measure? Fat always takes the attack in the media, but this is processed food being analysed. I would mind less if the headings were “eat processed food – pay the price” but it is in the interests of the food industry to attack fat when the precise culprit is their processed food.

4) I almost can’t find the words to describe the irresponsibility of  the proposal that Statins should be given out like Smarties as an antidote to eating processed food. Two very bad wrongs don’t make a right. I detest processed food and yet I would rather eat a burger every day than take statins. Read The Great Cholesterol Con and learn from a non-conflicted doctor what these drugs really do and how they are implicated in cancer, muscle damage, liver damage, mortaility we have seen above and, perhaps the ultimate irony, there are those who think that statins are responsible for the heart failure they are supposed to alleviate. Again – if you know the role of CoQ10 in heart muscle, you can see that this is highly plausible.

However – the ultimate irresponsibility must surely be that a pregnant woman can walk into a burger bar, day and night, and, if this bunch of drug pushers get their way, she can pick up a statin as well as a ketchup sachet and risk deforming her unborn child. Drugs are not tested on pregnant women for a reason. Cholesterol levels rise in pregnant women because it takes a lot of cholesterol to make a healthy baby (this is why eggs are relatively high in cholesterol – it takes a lot of cholesterol to make a healthy chicken or duck etc). To lower a woman’s cholesterol levels while she is trying to make a healthy baby is medical malpractice in my view. Check out the patient info for Lipitor - the statin worth about $12 billion (last time Ben Goldacre kindly quantified it for us).

“Do not take Lipitor if you are pregnant or think you may be pregnant or are planning to become pregnant. Lipitor may harm your unborn baby.”

“If you get pregnant stop taking Lipitor and call your doctor right away.”

“Do not take Lipitor if you are breastfeeding. Lipitor can pass into your breast milk and harm your baby.”

“Do not take Lipitor if you have liver problems.” (presumably because it’s going to harm your liver, so you’d better have a strong one?)

Dear people of the world – your doctor may be conflicted, your heart charity may be conflicted. Anyone who tells you that statins are the wonder drug and should be given out like sachets of ketchup had better be conflicted, because I cannot think of any other reason for being so irresponsible.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Weight Watchers works – according to a study funded by Weight Watchers

“One pound of fat contains 3,500 calories. To lose 1lb a week you would need to cut out 3,500 calories from your overall weekly nutritional requirements, this equates to needing a deficit of 500 calories a day.”[i] (Zoe Hellman, Weight Watchers dietician)

This is the formula believed by Weight Watchers, NICE, the NHS, the Department of Health, the National Obesity Forum, British Dietetic Association, the Association for the Study of Obesity (the organisation of which Susan Jebb is the chair) and 99% of public and private health diet advisors.

I have two points to make:

1) None of these organisations even know from whence this formula came and none can prove that it is true[ii];

2) This study has beautifully proven the formula wrong – as has every study of calorie restriction since 1917.

Weight Watchers sets out to create a deficit of approximately 1,000 calories a day (a typical female needs 2,000 calories, but is ‘allowed’ 18-20 points. One point is roughly 50 calories, so this is an approximate 900-1,000 calories a day diet). Weight loss, with a 1,000 calorie deficit, over one year, should be 104 pounds in fat alone (more in lean tissue and water)[iii].

The Medical Research Council (MRC) presentation for the results of the study[iv], contain a graph for weight loss over the 12 months for the GP vs. WW groups (slide 8). (Please note the regain starting at 9 months with WW). Jebb says that the GP group lost an average of 2.8kg and the WW group lost an average of 5.2kg. Slide 10 confirms the difference between the two weight loss approaches as 2.4kg at 12 months.

This means, however, that the Weight Watchers group lost an average of 11 pounds in one year – less than one pound a month. According to Weight Watchers own dietician (Zoe Hellman) and the ASO’s believed formula (Susan Jebb), they should all have lost 104 pounds (in fat alone) and there should have been no difference between people, with the same deficit – a formula is a formula.

In my experience of working purely in the field of obesity – two pounds a week is the minimum that people want and expect to lose. One woman said to me “With nearly half my current weight to lose, I can’t cope with two pounds a week”. Why was I the first person to be honest and tell this 60 year old woman that, if she lost two pounds a week, week in week out until she reached target weight, she would be the first person in the world ever to do so.

Weight Watchers have just admitted – you will be considered a success, worthy of the headline “Weight Watchers works”, if you lose one tenth of what you have been led to believe you will lose.

The headline should have been:

“Weight Watchers works better than just going to the GP, says study funded by weight watchers; but you will be lucky to lose one tenth of your lowest expectation.”

Maybe not as catchy, but far more honest.

Zoë Harcombe

p.s. Susan Jebb points out that she has not been paid for her involvement. a) Her involvement has likely been small (slide 7 suggests that she has not even been the key advisor to the study group). b) The MRC employs over 4000 people[v]. They need work to do and it would be interesting to know how much Weight Watchers have paid towards their employment costs for this endorsement. c) Susan Jebb is presenting at the Weight Watchers Symposium in Stockholm tonight[vi], expenses paid?

---

[i] http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/your-life/diet-advice-10-big-diet-myths/v1 (under point 6)

[ii] Full FOI available upon request – or on a scribd post on www.zoeharcombe.com/thecaloriemyth/

[iii] 1000 calories deficit multiplied by 365 days and divided by 3500 = 104 pounds

[iv] http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/BSUsite/CHTMR/AM_forweb.pdf

[v] http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/Factsfigures/index.htm

[vi] http://www.ico2010.org/documents/WeightWatchersprogrammeec23.06.10.pdf (or view it here)

(the original reference to (vi) expired)

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Please spend 90 minutes of your life watching the video on Youtube called “Sugar: The Bitter Truth“. The speaker is Dr Robert H. Lustig.

There are a couple of errors, but please don’t let them detract from the brilliance of this video. It is vitally important that we change our views on ‘a healthy diet’, because the UK Eatbadly Plate (I refuse to call it Eatwell) and the American Food Pyramid are the cause of the obesity epidemic – never will they be the cure. Hopefully – at the end of this 90 minutes you will appreciate many of the themes that independent obesity researchers are actively working on. You may never drink fruit juice again and you should certainly think twice before giving a child fruit juice again.

The errors, by the way, are:

1) The use of the 3500 = 1lb of fat formula and applying this literally to arrive at a calculated number. I’ll forgive Dr Lustig this one,  as virtually every other person in the world takes this as fact also – I hope ‘blowing this myth apart’ will be my legacy. Lustig actually has the info to see that the maths doesn’t hold for himself. At c. 3 mins he says “we all weigh 25 lbs more than we did 25 years ago – all of us.” (I’ve seen the same statistics from NHANES – US official data). He then says (c. 7-8 mins) that “we are all eating more now than we did 20 years ago“: Teen boys are eating 275 more calories a day; men 187 calories more per day and women 335 more per day. According to the literal application of the 3500 theory (which is what everyone does and it is wrong) – boys should be gaining at the rate of 29lbs per year, men at 20lbs per year and women at 35lbs per year. Over the 20 year period that we have been doing this – that should be 574lbs for boys (c. 41 stone gained); 390lbs for men (28 stone) and a whopping 699lbs for women – 50 stone gained! The formula simply does not hold (please see The Calorie Myth for more on this). Lustig uses the example that an extra 150 calorie soda a day would equate to 15.6lbs gain a year – it might if the calorie theory worked – but it doesn’t.

2) The second error is a bad one. At c. 33 minutes, the countries in the Ancel Keys seven countries study are USA, Japan, Finland, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and the Netherlands. The Seven Countries study does not include Canada, Australia, England & Wales, as is stated here. I know the graph that Lustig is looking at (and it’s a very useful graph) – but it was from a report from Keys in the 1950′s – before the 1970 write up of the Seven countries study in “Circulation.”

These aside, this is an outstanding video – anyone prepared to call sugar a poison and to talk about “The Coca-Cola Conspiracy” and to say “that’s the smoking gun” – gets my vote. Plus we share a hero – Professor John Yudkin.

Thank you so much if you do watch it and even more if you spread the word.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

The calorie myth & eating 36,000 calories a day

Here’s the link to a great programme on super morbid obesity

Great programme spot from one of our super fans – Melissa. This is worth the 47 mins to watch. I just wanted to draw your attention to yet another example of the calorie myth being completely absurdly applied…

The programme features 4 morbidly obese people:
Paul is 45 years old and he weighs 48 stone and consumes an estimated 36,902 calories a day.
Larry is 38 years old and he weighs 50 stone and consumes an estimated 14,349 calories a day.
Lisa is 39 years old and she weighs 45 stone and consumes an estimated 9,277 calories a day.
Jacqui is 40 years old and she weighs 26 stone and consumes an estimated 15,880 calories a day.

Quick couple of observations:
1)     Where on earth do they get the 2 calories at the end of Paul’s estimate?! The calories in 1 gram of fat/carb/protein are not even accurate – how do they think that they can estimate a day’s consumption to that level of accuracy.
2)    Why is Paul not massively heavier than Larry? He’s eating 2.5 times the number of calories and can’t move around (as Larry proved he could when food was put in the other room!)

Ian Campbell (former head of National Obesity Forum) is the main expert speaker on the programme.

With reference to Paul – Ian says it is physically and physiologically impossible for Paul to burn off the calories he consumes. I agree – this is a factual statement using hours in the day and maximum activity rates possible – notwithstanding the fact that Paul is bedridden. However – I would like to see what would happen if Paul’s intake were changed from predominantly processed carbs to real fat/protein. He would be unable to store fat in the absence of carbs and insulin and he would be unable to consume anywhere near that intake of real food.

With reference to Larry (I made a note of the time for this one – so see how they do this for Larry at c. 12 minutes) – the narrator (Samantha Bond) quotes the usual statement that the average man needs 2,500 calories a day. Ian Campbell estimates that Larry needs about 4-4,500 calories a day “and so that extra 10,000 calories a day would equate to 3lbs of weight gain on a daily basis.” Did you spot that use of the unproven calorie formula – applied directly as if fact – without even being quoted? Ian has divided 10,000 by 3500 to get 3lbs and has assumed that every excess of 3500 will gain 1lb (in fat alone – we are forgetting water and lean tissue for now), just as Ian assumes that every deficit of 3500 will lose 1lb. Neither surplus or deficit works with this formula – I have yet to find even one study to prove this formula and would be astonished if I ever did.

Let’s apply some common sense here – Ian is saying that Larry will be gaining weight at the rate of 3lbs a day – that’s 1095lbs EACH & EVERY year. That is 78 stone and 3lbs EACH & EVERY year. Let’s forget water and lean tissue and assume he is the first person in the world only to gain fat. So – if the programme checks in on Larry next year – he should be 128 stone.

With reference to Lisa (they do this for Lisa at c. 44 minutes) – the narrator again says that the Recommended Daily Intake for an average woman is just 2000 calories. They obviously allow 3000 calories a day, for Lisa being larger and then the narrator says “If she continues to eat this daily excess of over 6000 calories, Lisa will gain almost 2lbs every day.”

Ditto on the common sense – Lisa is supposed to gain 52 stone, 2lbs each & every year she continues to eat in this way.

With reference to Jacqui – Ian says that Jacqui is having “perhaps seven times the number of calories she needs just to keep her body healthy.” The narrator then says “To burn off what Jacqui eats in a day she’d have to walk briskly non-stop for almost two days.”

The last point is interesting because so many government officials and dietary advisors continue to think that our ‘sedentary behaviour’ is to blame for the obesity epidemic. Ian Campbell makes the point that Olympic rowers could not need this number of calories (my comment – and they would eat their intake in a hugely healthier way). Surely it is vastly more important to NOT put something in one’s mouth in the first place than it is to think we can burn off that fuel in some way. Aside from the fact that we can only ‘burn fat’ when there is no glucose or glycogen more readily available for the body. These four are eating carbs continuously every waking minute (Lisa in the middle of the night also) and therefore are continually storing fat and are never in a physiological environment in which they can burn fat.

Check also – around 40 mins into the programme – the serious issue about fat cell number and size, which has become more widely accepted in recent years. It is estimated that Lisa’s fat cells will have multiplied from a ‘normal’ number of 40 billion to 100 billion. If she loses weight, these fat cells do not disappear – she will still have 100 billion – they just shrink in size.

p.s. daftest thought of all – if Ian Campbell estimates that Larry needs 4-4,500 calories a day, let’s assume that Paul needs the same. Paul is therefore eating 32,000 calories a day more than he needs.  I bet Ian Campbell did the maths – that’s a gain of 9lbs EVERY DAY; 2 stone every 3 days; so Paul should gain 238 stone over the coming year – and then thought “no, that’s mad!” Then he would have thought – let’s stick to using the 3,500 calorie theory for Larry and Lisa – it seems daft for Paul. It’s daft for all of them Ian! (And everyone else who uses this formula on a daily basis – NHS, Dept of Health, NICE, dieticians, nutritionists (not me, of course!)…..)

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Olive Oil can Tap Dance!

Time to set the record straight on olive oil, or it won’t be long before we see the title of this thread as the next Daily Mail article!

Here is the Daily Mail article from 19 April 2010. Olive oil can now apparently switch off genes and previous articles have told us that olive oil cures depression, saves lives and makes people live to over 100 and dance around tables in adverts for margarine.

Now for some common sense – olive oil is oil squeezed out of mashed olives (we do the same with avocados and make avocado oil – avocados must have a different PR Agency). Olive oil with acid levels below 1% can be called “extra virgin” and 1-3% acid levels can be called “virgin” (I have no idea what virginity has to do with any of this!) Non virgin olive oil is more acidic than this. And that is it!

In terms of composition, olive oil is pure fat (water and fat can’t mix so oil is always 100% fat). In 100g of olive oil there are 75g of mono unsaturated fat, 14g of saturated fat and 11g of polyunsaturated fat. In 100g of pork chop (the USDA example called “Pork chop boneless, raw, lean AND FAT” – I deliberately chose a piece of meat with no bone and still with fat on), there are 75g of water, 21g of protein and 4g of fat (slightly under 4g actually). Of this fat – 1.5g is saturated, 1.8g is mono unsaturated and 0.5g is poly unsaturated. So 60% of our ‘lethal/red meat pork chop” is the unsaturated fat, which apparently is going to save the world! (And remember how low the fat is in the first place).

This is how I can say olive oil has 6 times the saturated fat of pork – in this example it actually has 9 times (14g per 100g vs 1.5g per 100g). In another super extra fatty pork example, olive oil still has 6 times the saturated fat – I try to be fair!

So let’s look at the nutritional content of olive oil. There are 2 very useful measures of nutrition and the US Department of Agriculture has some really useful analysis of food products against these:
1) is the amino acid score. Anything over 100 indicates a “complete” food from an amino acid perspective i.e. it delivers all the 22 standard amino acids used by a human;
2) is an overall nutrition score weighing up vitamins, minerals etc delivered in the product. This one is measured out of 100 – where 100 is the ‘perfect’ nutritious food – can’t find any with 100!

Sugar scores zero on both measures – no protein, so no amino acids and no nutrients, so no score.

Our Pork chop with 4g of fat above scores 151 on the amino acid score. I keep a database of real food and I have nothing higher than this on my list of 50 standard products. The same pork chop scores 39 on the nutrition scale. The maximum is 100 and the highest I have on my list is broccoli at 92 (there will be a nutrient density thing in the calculation, so broccoli has huge nutritional value to energy/calorie level).

Olive oil (get ready) scores 0 on the amino acid score – it has no protein so it cannot score anything other than zero. It then scores 5 on the nutrient scale (5 out of 100). Olives themselves score 25 on the nutrient scale – so we’re better off eating olives (of course we are – we are always better off eating food in nature’s most natural form).

A whole egg, by the way, scores 136 on amino acids and 50 on nutrition. Egg yolk on its own scores 146 on amino acids and 50 on nutrition – so that’s where the nutrition is in the egg – the bit that Californians throw away!

Please use any of this as ammunition the next time you see a claim made about olive oil. It’s a useful food – good for salad dressing; butter and lard are better for cooking (saturated fats are chemically more stable) – but that’s it. Unless we can run power stations on olive oil, it’s not going to save the planet!

p.s. Please note – We’ve now got a club forum for all questions – please post at The Harcombe Diet Club – it will appear instantly after you sign up – no moderator necessary!

Many thanks – Zoe x

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Exercise – personal experience

Hi all – I’ve just got back from a week’s skiing in Italy, so here’s a blog on my experience of doing more activity than normal.

Andy and I normally share 3 dog walks a day. We always do the morning half hour together and Andy generally does the night walk and then whoever is able to do a lunchtime half hour does so. Andy, therefore, usually walks 60-90 minutes a day and I walk 30-60 mins a day. The walks are up and down gradients, as we live in the countryside, but nothing that steep. I go swimming about 3-4 times a month for 20 mins each time (and am always hungry afterwards!) We are both generally active, as we have loads of energy from eating well. We do our own cleaning (and notice your arms aching if you clean the windows and your stomach muscles working if you mop the floor etc) and we garden every now and again (it’s quite low maintenance).

The first observation is that you don’t need to go to the gym to get skiing fit. We were in pretty good shape just from our general active lifestyle and regular walking. Plus there are some muscles that only seem to get used skiing, no matter what, so you’re always going to be a bit stuffed!

The second observation is that you don’t use up as much energy as you might think! I don’t know why this didn’t occur to me earlier, but I was skiing one morning and suddenly thought that the exercise calculators take into account BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate). Hence, if watching TV requires 68 cals an hour (this is the calculation for a 140lb/10 stone person) and moderate walking burns 200 calories an hour (for the same person), then going for a walk should really be viewed as the additional energy needed beyond doing nothing (i.e. 130 calories in this case). I understand that Weight Watchers lets people have an additional 4 points if they jog for 20 mins. This is approximately 200 calories and it is quite UNlikely that someone would use 200 calories in 20 mins jogging ABOVE what they would need anyway pottering around the house or being at work.

The calorie calculator says that I (at 110lbs) would need 299 calories (bit precise!) for 1 hour of moderate skiing (in between light and intense). Remember that it takes about 2-3 hrs to do 1 hrs skiing as you spend 5 mins going down a run and then 10 mins sitting on the lift going back up. AND we need to think about what we would have been doing otherwise. I would be using about half this number of calories in an hour of thinking/researching/calculating etc, so I was only adding about 150-200 calories every 3 hours to my fuel need. Then you see people tucking in to a huge pizza or huge bowl of white pasta for lunch and you know they are likely to go home heavier than they arrived.

The third interesting observation was that you get really hungry on a ski holiday! People often say the fresh (mountain) air makes you hungry – I can’t think why this would be – but skiing for a morning does make you hungry. For a carb addict, it would be very easy to consume significantly more energy at meal times than had been used up. For people who stick to real food, it is far more difficult to overeat. Andy and I had porridge and whole milk for breakfast; wholegrain bread, cheese and salad for lunch (mixing good foods) and a huge fat meal in the evening -  (meat for Andy), fish, seafood, loads of salads and veg, loads of cheese, berries & cream etc. We snacked on dark chocolate continuously, which leads to….

The fourth interesting observation – as I’ve often said – eating for weight loss and eating for exercise/fitness are really not compatible. Because there were so few good carbs available (no couscous, brown rice, whole meal pasta etc), we probably didn’t get enough carbohydrate loaded into our glycogen store room. The porridge and bread helped (and we had a few croissants), but it wasn’t always enough. Even at this moderate level of exercise, we hit a burn a couple of times and we were eating dark chocolate regularly throughout the day and also getting lots of milk in (decaf) cappuccinos throughout the day. Had we been doing some of the exercise that some of my clients try to do (training for marathons, 3-5 hour mountain cycle rides etc), I hate to think what kind of state we would have been in! If you are very active, the body wants lots of regular carbs several times a day. If you are trying to lose weight the body should have carbs as INfrequently as possible. The two could not be more different!

For interest, we were the same weight when we got home and slightly lower in body fat content, so we would have swapped a bit of fat for muscle (there had to be some impact on leg muscles from all that pain!)

Other observations:

- obesity in Italy is a fraction of what it is in the UK. Even in the towns and airport on the way it was rare to see an obese person. We travelled from Geneva through France and into Italy and all three countries were similarly slim.

- the (lack of) snack food is the single biggest difference in Europe. The shops just do not have aisles of crisps, biscuits, cakes, sweets etc. There are a few ‘junk’ options scattered around the shop, but the supermarkets are full of fruit, veg, meat, risotto rice, grains, cheese etc. The newsagent type shops sometimes have no confectionery on sale whatsoever. You can buy your paper or magazine, but there are no confectionery bars to tempt you. People eat three big, healthy meals a day and they just don’t snack.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Kellogg’s Special K Mini Breaks

I saw a full page advert in a Sunday supplement magazine yesterday for Special K Mini Breaks – Chocolate variety. Described as “Mmmmmmmmmm”; “crunch”; “delish”; “biscuit”‘; “chocolate”; “crispy”; “choccy”; “biscuity”‘; “crunch”; “moreish”; “99 calories a bag”; “crunchy, delicious, biscuity bites”.

How to get every word possible to tempt a dieter to eat stuff that they should be avoiding?! And, of course, as people who eat Special K are Queens of calorie counting, the 99 calories a bag is going to appeal.  99 calories of what, however? This is the full ingredients list from the Kellogg’s web site:

Cereals (Rice, Wheat Flour, Whole Oats, Wholewheat, Rice Flour), Sugar, Vegetable Oil, Chocolate (5%)(Sugar, Cocoa Mass, Cocoa Powder), Wheat Gluten, Glucose Syrup, Defatted Wheatgerm, Dried Skimmed Milk, Partially Inverted Sugar Syrup, Salt, Oat Fibre, Barley Malt Flavouring, Raising Agents (E500, E450a), Flavourings, Emulsifier (Soy Lecithin), Antioxidant (E320), Vitamin C, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Ignore the vitamins added to give this product a false impression of containing nutrients and you have sugar in the form of sugar (twice), glucose syrup, partially inverted sugar syrup and the flavourings are no doubt sweet ones. Then you have wheat flour, whole wheat, wheat gluten and defatted wheat germ. Ever wondered how we end up eating more sugar and wheat than any other ingredients out there?!

- 100g of this product is 72g of carbohydrate and 414 calories.

- 100g of pork chop is 0g of carbohydrate and 123 calories!

- 100 of apple is 14g of carbohydrate and 52 calories.

- 100g of porridge oats (dry oats, no water) is 69g carbohydrate and 379 calories.

Even if you care about calories – there are far better ways to consume calories than to eat 100g of this frightening selection of ingredients.

I had an eating disorder once, so I know what it is like to binge and starve and be horrible to oneself. I truly believe that putting this product in your mouth is being horrible to yourself. Be nice to yourself and eat real food! Nature makes the healthiest food – not Kellogg’s.

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Diet Pills – Part 5 – Multiple claims

I’m going to do a series of short blogs on different diet pills and what they claim to do. They fall into different categories:

1) Fat binders/blockers;

2) Carb blockers;

3) Metabolism boosters;

4) Appetite suppressants;

5) Those that claim to do most of the above and then some!

This fifth blog is on the ones that claim to do everything:

Nature’s Best Verdesse™: The blurb says “Verdesse™, a product designed for people following a calorie controlled weight loss diet. Verdesse™ is a decaffeinated green coffee extract called Svetol™ containing high levels of active compounds called ‘chlorogenic acids’, and one in particular which is called ‘5-caffeoylquinic acid’.”

Body Perfect: The blurb says “If you’ve decided it’s time to lose weight or want to banish the flab to show-off your muscle development then Bio-Synergy’s Body Perfect is what you are looking for. This totally herbal, natural capsule will stimulate fat loss and sculpt your body to perfection. The key ingredients which Make it Happen in Body Perfect are Green Tea, L-tyrosine and Citrus Aurantium. Body Perfect promotes weight loss through thermo genesis – which can accelerate calorie burning, fat mobilisation and breakdown body fat. For centuries green tea has been a staple in the Far East and recently Western medicine has recognized its many health benefits. It’s effect on boosting immunity, in preventing cancer and as an antioxidant are far reaching. It’s also highly effective in reducing ‘bad’ cholesterol. But it’s also proved a great aid for weight loss – by both increasing the rate at which fat is burnt and also reducing the absorption of calories from the diet. Green tea may be useful as a glucose regulator – meaning it slows the rise in blood sugar following a meal by reducing the action of a particular digestive enzyme called amylase. Amylase is responsible for breaking down starches after a meal – which can increase your blood sugar level quickly. Citrus Aurantium extract may help control appetite and has been found to increase metabolism. Also known as ’bitter orange’, Citrus Aurantium raises body temperature but without increasing nervous energy – so unlike some other slimming aids you won’t get the ‘jitters’ or find it hard to sleep. L-tyrosine, another fantastic ingredient in Body Perfect capsules, has been shown to lift mood and fight depression. Many dieters find it hard to stick to their eating and exercise plan because they comfort eat. By including this amino acid you should be able to stay positive and see great results because you haven’t been tempted to reach for the chocolate! So give yourself the figure you have always wanted. Bio-Synergy’s Body Perfect will help you fight the flab – and win!” (I decided to put the full monty in for this one – Shakespeare would have been proud of that!)

Slender Pu’erh Tea: The blurb says “Pu’erh tea has been hugely popular in China for over 1,700 years where it is known as “wonder tea”.  It can help the body to digest fatty foods, whilst boosting metabolism and reducing cholesterol levels, plus it is very rich in antioxidants which can prevent sun damage. Slender Pu’erh Tea, with its smooth rich flavour, not only tastes great but also aids digestion and fat metabolism making it an ideal tea to include in a balanced weight loss plan.  Many coffee drinkers may also enjoy Slender Pu’erh Tea’s rich deep flavours. ”

Zoë comment: Some diet pills claim to do everything – suppress appetite, boost metabolism, regulate blood sugar levels, metabolise fat, reduce cholesterol, block carbs (all in some magical way) and they can probably arrange for the kids to be dropped off at school in the process! One claims to ‘sculpt’ your body and another claims to prevent sun damage. Puh-lease! The good news is that the ones we have looked at are mostly green tea based (or even green coffee based!) Hence they are not likely to harm anything other than your purse (again). If you like green tea – this is OK as part of your daily liquid intake (it’s not going to turn you into Madonna, however). Green tea is better than soft drinks or strong coffee, but not as good as other herbal teas. Green tea has (on average) 11mg of Caffeine (mg) per 100 mls, which is the same level as Pepsi.

The bottom line is – save your money and put your effort into eating real food in the form that nature delivers it. Oranges grow on trees, cartons of orange juice don’t; fish swim in the sea, fish fingers don’t. That’s how to work out what real food is and eat only real food, in three good meals a day (no snacking) and you will be the size you want to be quicker and safer than trying any pill and continuing to eat processed food at the same time.

Having reviewed the different types of diet pills my overall conclusion is – if any of them work, they must be messing with the natural functioning of the body in an unnatural way and that is not good. If they don’t work, the only damage done is to your purse! Save the money for meat, fish, veg and salad xx

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Diet Pills – Part 4 – Appetite Suppressants

I’m going to do a series of short blogs on different diet pills and what they claim to do. They fall into different categories:

1) Fat binders/blockers;

2) Carb blockers;

3) Metabolism boosters;

4) Appetite suppressants;

5) Those that claim to do most of the above and then some!

This fourth blog is on the Appetite Suppressants:

Examples of products include: Bio-Synergy Pinnothin. The blurb says: “The primary component of Bio-Synergy Pinnothin is pine nut oil (a natural plant source), which comes from Korean pine tree nuts. It is scientifically proven to increase the body’s release of satiety hormones such as CCK which means that you feel fuller for longer and are less likely to snack.”

Hoodia: The blurb says “Traditionally, South African Bushmen have suppressed their hunger on long hunting trips by chewing Hoodia Gordonii, which also sustains energy levels. In the UK, the prickly plant has a new use as part of a calorie-controlled diet and is hailed by some experts as a weight loss wonder.”

Higher Nature Full Stop!: The blurb says “This revolutionary, new, patented extract from white potato helps manage appetite and hunger naturally.”

Zotrim – appetite suppressant: The blurb says “By using our natural herbal supplement, you can give your body the support it needs to make significant changes to your eating habits, whilst experiencing credible weight loss results.” Zotrim contains  maté, guarana and damiana.

Appesat – appetite suppressant: The blurb says “Appesat is for people who have got used to eating larger portions.  It is made out of seaweed is been likened to a gastric band – but without the invasive risks of surgery.”

Zoë comment: There is a well known diet book that advises “when you are hungry – eat”! I would be the size of a small village if I had followed this advice! The problem with people desperate to lose weight is that we don’t eat because we are hungry. We eat because we have particular cravings for particular foods. The Harcombe Diet explains all about these and how to overcome them.

The fundamental problem with appetite suppressants, therefore, is that most overweight people have no sense of appetite and/or fullness anyway. We generally manage to finish almost every meal before any food reaches the stomach and starts registering fullness. More importantly, people who find themselves eating things that they don’t want to, despite desperately wanting to be slim, are addicted to food. Food addicts have no concept of feeling full and they have a physical ‘need’ for a particular food – driven by Candida, Food Intolerance and Hypoglycaemia. Appetite has very little to do with any of this. So curbing appetite will also have very little effect.

Generally the ingredients in appetite suppressants are harmless (and ineffective). However, some are worth taking extra care before you take them. Zotrim, for example, contains the extracts of three herbs: maté, guarana and damiana. The product leaflet says that guarana contains caffeine, but so does maté (along with other stimulants). Guarana contains approximately twice as much caffeine as coffee beans. Damiana, interestingly, is better known as an aphrodisiac! Hence Zotrim would appear to be trying to work on the basis of making the consumer hyper active, sexy and jittery! Caffeine stimulates the production of insulin and this will lower your blood sugar and make you vulnerable to food cravings. Not an ideal outcome!

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Diet Pills – Part 3 – Metabolism boosters

I’m going to do a series of short blogs on different diet pills and what they claim to do. They fall into different categories:

1) Fat binders/blockers;

2) Carb blockers;

3) Metabolism boosters;

4) Appetite suppressants;

5) Those that claim to do most of the above and then some!

This third blog is on the Metabolism Boosters:

Examples of products include: Pukka Herbs Weight Balance Organic Bio Nutrient. The blurb on this says “Weight Balance supports the body’s natural ability to maintain metabolism, digestion and a healthy weight. It contains fruits, grass juices, green freshwater plants, seeds, seaweeds and spices, all renowned for maintaining healthy weight naturally when taken as part of a balanced diet“. (Zoë comment - note that almost all of the blurb talks about ‘the product works as part of a balanced healthy diet. Some even mention exercise. More likely the healthy eating that will have an impact if any is noticed!)

Bio-synergy Skinny Cola: The blurb on this says: “A low-calorie Cola, enhanced with a unique combination of ingredients to help(YOU) lose and maintain YOUR weight. Skinny Cola contains selected nutrients, which combine the benefits of hydration with amino acids and minerals that suppress appetite, block carbohydrates from converting into fat, and increase fat burning.” (One of the nutrients is chromium – see below for better ways to get chromium). (I could have put this in the ‘claims to do everything category’)!

Napiers Kelp and Clivers – metabolism booster: The blurb on this says: “Contains herbs such as kelp and pokeroot, which may help to stimulate the metabolic rate and the breakdown of fat. Useful as part of a healthy weight loss plan. Simply put 5ml into a glass of water three times per day.”

Zoë comment: The best way to boost your metabolism is to go for a walk! The best way to boost your metabolism all the time is to get a dog and go for regular walks! (Do bicep curls as you are walking along for extra benefit). Seriously – the best determinant of metabolism is the lean tissue content in your body. Lean tissue needs more energy (calories) than fat tissue, so this is a key driver in determining your metabolism.

Basal Metabolic Rate – BMR – is the general measure used and this tells you the energy – calories – needed even if you were lying ill in bed and didn’t move for a whole day. It often surprises people that the energy needed when you are up and about is not massively more than this BMR. E.g. someone with a BMR of 1500 calories may only need 2000 on a ‘going to work’ day.

The good thing about diet pills that claim to boost metabolism is that the only harm they are likely to do is to your purse! They are almost always herb or vitamin based and some of the herbs and vitamins do have some benefit. However, they are better ingested in dietary form. So, you could just find out the food that naturally contains that substance (e.g. eggs are a good source of chromium) and have eggs for breakfast instead. If you want to go the supplement route – take a tablet rather than falling for any mad ‘delivery mechanism.’ The idea of drinking a cola drink as a source of chromium is (in my view) ridiculous!

Tweet This Post Delicious Digg This Post Facebook MySpace

Next Page »