Showing posts with label Fast food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fast food. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Friday, January 10, 2014
Monday, December 31, 2012
2012 Goals!
2012 was a great year. Accomplished many things health wise. I've completely stopped eating meat and chicken. Still eat seafood, need a little variety.
March I placed second in a weight loss challege.
In June I started working out at Train Studios. They emphasize on core training using ropes, kettle bells, TRX and your own bodyweight. My waist dropped 2 inches and my shirt size went from XL to L.
2013 will bring many changes including juicing. My biggest goal is to be down 60 ibs by my 1 year annivesary at Train Studios.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
9 Foods You Should Be Eating for Type 2 Diabetes
Healthy eating for type 2 diabetes is about losing weight and preventing dangerous spikes in blood sugar. Nutrition and health expert Joy Bauer explains how these nine foods can help.
Foods for Diabetes
Monday, September 17, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
Welcome back!
July and August were hard months for me. Now I'm taking it back, getting rid of everything bad. Sugar, cheese, bread, etc. I'm back on my grind. Watch out!
Monday, June 4, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Fasting Part 2
Ok, I started a fast on the 1st and planned to go 90 days. After researching again, I've decided it's not worth the chances of getting gallstones. I'm just going to keep my approach of a limiting certain foods from my diet and stick basically with raw foods. I've already been meat and chicken free for 2 months. So I'm doing well on my journey to eating right plus losing weight.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Big numbers in March! Broken records..
Biggest month since I've been keeping track of workouts since 8/2010!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Red Meat Can Be Unhealthy, Study Suggests.
I haven't eaten meat or chicken in over a month. Yes I miss it and it's hard. But the study below reinforces why I stopped.
Eating a lot of red meat may shorten your life, while consuming more fish and poultry may extend it, a new study suggests.
Red meat is associated with a higher risk of dying from heart disease, cancer and any other cause, the researchers reported.
For many people, red meat is a primary source of protein and fat. But meat has been associated with increased risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers in other studies, the researchers noted.
"We should move to a more plant-based diet," said lead researcher Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "This can substantially reduce the risk of chronic disease and the risk of premature death."
For the study, Hu's team collected data on more than 37,600 men who took part in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and more than 83,600 women in the Nurses' Health Study.
Over 28 years, almost 24,000 of the study participants died. Nearly 6,000 of the deaths were from cardiovascular disease and more than 9,000 were from cancer, the researchers found.
Hu's group calculated that for every daily serving of red meat, the risk of dying increased 12 percent. Broken down further, the researchers found the risk was 13 percent for a serving of unprocessed red meat and 20 percent for processed red meat.
A single serving is about the size of a deck of cards, Hu noted.
By replacing a daily serving of red meat with a serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products or whole grains, however, the risk of dying was lowered, the researchers said.
The risk of death decreased by 7 percent for fish, 14 percent for poultry, 19 percent for nuts, 10 percent for legumes, 10 percent for low-fat dairy products and 14 percent for whole grains, the researchers found.
If people ate less than half a serving of red meat a day, deaths during the 28 years of follow-up could have been reduced by 9.3 percent for men and 7.6 percent for women, the researchers noted.
The report was published online March 12 in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
A representative from the beef industry took issue with the findings.
"The scientific evidence to support the role of lean beef in a healthy, balanced diet is strong and there is nothing in this study that changes that fact," said Shalene McNeill, a registered dietitian and executive director of nutrition research at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
"Research clearly shows that choosing lean beef as part of a healthful diet is associated with improved overall nutrient intake, overall diet quality and positive health outcomes," she added. "Overall, lifestyle patterns including a healthy diet and physical activity, not consumption of any individual food, have been shown to affect mortality."
"This was an observational study," McNeill also noted. "Observational studies cannot be used to determine cause and effect."
Another dietary expert said cutting back on red meat might not be a bad idea.
Samantha Heller, a dietitian, nutritionist, exercise physiologist and clinical nutrition coordinator at the Center for Cancer Care at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Conn., took issue with the notion that meat is somehow intrinsic to the human diet.
"'But we are born carnivores,' is the cry I hear when I suggest that my patients and students reduce their intake of red and processed meat," Heller said. What most people do not realize, Heller said, is that humans are not designed to handle the huge amount of saturated fat, iron and other compounds in red and processed meats that they consume.
"A diet high in red and processed meats deluges the body with inflammatory compounds like saturated fat and nitrites," she said. Over time, the body's best efforts to cope with the influx of unhealthy compounds are overwhelmed.
"We get heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases," Heller said. "There are numerous studies showing a link between eating red and processed meat and chronic diseases and death."
Research suggests that going meatless even a few days a week can significantly reduce the risk of these devastating diseases, she said.
"Cut back to eating red or processed meat once or twice a week to start," Heller said. "On other days, substitute chicken, fish, beans, soy, nuts, whole grains like quinoa, and low or nonfat organic dairy for your protein sources."
Eating a lot of red meat may shorten your life, while consuming more fish and poultry may extend it, a new study suggests.
Red meat is associated with a higher risk of dying from heart disease, cancer and any other cause, the researchers reported.
For many people, red meat is a primary source of protein and fat. But meat has been associated with increased risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers in other studies, the researchers noted.
"We should move to a more plant-based diet," said lead researcher Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. "This can substantially reduce the risk of chronic disease and the risk of premature death."
For the study, Hu's team collected data on more than 37,600 men who took part in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and more than 83,600 women in the Nurses' Health Study.
Over 28 years, almost 24,000 of the study participants died. Nearly 6,000 of the deaths were from cardiovascular disease and more than 9,000 were from cancer, the researchers found.
Hu's group calculated that for every daily serving of red meat, the risk of dying increased 12 percent. Broken down further, the researchers found the risk was 13 percent for a serving of unprocessed red meat and 20 percent for processed red meat.
A single serving is about the size of a deck of cards, Hu noted.
By replacing a daily serving of red meat with a serving of fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy products or whole grains, however, the risk of dying was lowered, the researchers said.
The risk of death decreased by 7 percent for fish, 14 percent for poultry, 19 percent for nuts, 10 percent for legumes, 10 percent for low-fat dairy products and 14 percent for whole grains, the researchers found.
If people ate less than half a serving of red meat a day, deaths during the 28 years of follow-up could have been reduced by 9.3 percent for men and 7.6 percent for women, the researchers noted.
The report was published online March 12 in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
A representative from the beef industry took issue with the findings.
"The scientific evidence to support the role of lean beef in a healthy, balanced diet is strong and there is nothing in this study that changes that fact," said Shalene McNeill, a registered dietitian and executive director of nutrition research at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
"Research clearly shows that choosing lean beef as part of a healthful diet is associated with improved overall nutrient intake, overall diet quality and positive health outcomes," she added. "Overall, lifestyle patterns including a healthy diet and physical activity, not consumption of any individual food, have been shown to affect mortality."
"This was an observational study," McNeill also noted. "Observational studies cannot be used to determine cause and effect."
Another dietary expert said cutting back on red meat might not be a bad idea.
Samantha Heller, a dietitian, nutritionist, exercise physiologist and clinical nutrition coordinator at the Center for Cancer Care at Griffin Hospital in Derby, Conn., took issue with the notion that meat is somehow intrinsic to the human diet.
"'But we are born carnivores,' is the cry I hear when I suggest that my patients and students reduce their intake of red and processed meat," Heller said. What most people do not realize, Heller said, is that humans are not designed to handle the huge amount of saturated fat, iron and other compounds in red and processed meats that they consume.
"A diet high in red and processed meats deluges the body with inflammatory compounds like saturated fat and nitrites," she said. Over time, the body's best efforts to cope with the influx of unhealthy compounds are overwhelmed.
"We get heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases," Heller said. "There are numerous studies showing a link between eating red and processed meat and chronic diseases and death."
Research suggests that going meatless even a few days a week can significantly reduce the risk of these devastating diseases, she said.
"Cut back to eating red or processed meat once or twice a week to start," Heller said. "On other days, substitute chicken, fish, beans, soy, nuts, whole grains like quinoa, and low or nonfat organic dairy for your protein sources."
Sunday, March 11, 2012
THE WORST DRINKS IN AMERICA
THE WORST DRINKS IN AMERICA
15. Worst Light Beer: Sam Adams Light
124 calories, 9.7 g carbs
Light beers generally range from 95 to 110 calories, but the Sam Adams Light contains 124. Kind of defeats the purpose of a light beer, especially when you can choose a regular Guinness Draught for just one more calorie. Choose a true light beer: Beck's contains 60 fewer calories than the Sam Adams (that's almost as little as one-half the caloric impact!).
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Beck's Light
64 calories, 3.9 g carbs, 3.8% alcohol by volume
14. Worst Lemonade: Minute Maid Lemonade (20-ounce bottle)
250 calories, 67 g sugars
This classic lemonade favorite has the sugar equivalent of 5 Good Humor Vanilla Ice Cream Sandwiches, and you’d need to do a full hour of vigorous housecleaning to burn off all the calories. Switch to the much-less-caloric (and equally refreshing) Crystal Light option.
Click here for today's nutrition, health, and fitness news!
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Crystal Light Pink Lemonade On-the-Go Packet (16 ounces prepared)
10 calories, 0 g sugars
13. Worst Energy Drink: Rockstar Original (16-ounce can)
280 calories, 0 g fat, 62 g sugars
Americans spent $4.2 billion on high-octane elixirs in 2008. Even with dozens of brands found in the cooler, Rockstar stands out as the most sugar-loaded of the various and sundry energy drinks. Compared with its closest competitor, it has 20 extra calories, which is just enough to make it the worst possible choice for instant energy. And with research on the long-term effects of taurine and guarana still cloudy, you're better off getting your buzz from coffee, a proven source of antioxidants and other beneficial nutrients. But if you must grab a can, you can't get better than the low-carb concoction below.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Monster Lo-Carb Energy (16-ounce can)
20 calories, 0 g fat, 6 g sugars
12. Worst Bottled Coffee: Starbucks Vanilla Frappuccino (9.5-ounce bottle)
200 calories, 3 g fat (N/A g saturated), 31 g sugars
Most people don't associate coffee with milk shake-like loads of sugar, but that's exactly what's happening inside this bottle. Add one of these to your diet every morning and you'll add about 21 pounds of flab to your body in a year.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Java Monster Vanilla Light Coffee + Energy (15-ounce can)
100 calories, 3 g fat (2 g saturated), 10 g sugars
11. Worst Beer: Sierra Nevada Bigfoot Ale (12-ounce bottle)
304 calories, 32 g carbohydrates, 9.6% alcohol
You know a beer is in trouble when it needs to invoke the image of an oversize mythical beast just to describe itself. Perhaps a better name would have been Jabba the Hut Ale. Beer gets most of its calories from the booze itself, and with nearly 10 percent alcohol in each bottle, this brew is likely to create a beer belly nearly as quickly as it creates a buzz.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Guinness Draught (12-ounce bottle)
126 calories, 10 g carbohydrates, 4% alcohol
10. Worst Bottled Beverage: Sobe Liz Blizz (20-ounce bottle)
310 calories, 1 g fat (0.5 g saturated), 77 g sugars
Don't be fooled by the natural motifs that adorn Sobe's bottles. Spin this one around and you'll see that it's made from water, sugar, skim milk, and cream. We've said it before and we'll say it again: Don't buy products with cartoon animals on the front. This repugnant reptile will shatter your weight loss dreams. In fact, this one bottle contains more sugar than 11 Rainbow Popsicles.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Sobe Cherimoya Punch Lean Machine Lifewater (20-ounce bottle)
0 calories, 0 g fat, 0 g sugars
9. Worst Soda: Sunkist (20-ounce bottle)
320 calories, 84 g sugars
All full-sugar sodas are evil, but they weren't all created equal. A 12-ounce can of Coke-the tooth-rotting standard-contains 140 calories and 39 grams of sugar. That same size can from Sunkist packs 190 calories and a staggering 52 grams of sugar. Tack on the extra 8 ounces in this orange monster and you begin to understand why soft drinks are often cited as one of the top contributors to obesity and diabetes in this country.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Honest Ade Orange Mango (16.9-ounce bottle)
100 calories, 24 g sugars
8. Worst Juice Imposter: Arizona Kiwi Strawberry (23.5-ounce can)
360 calories, 0 g fat, 84 g sugars
If kiwi and strawberry are both fruits (and they are, we fact-checked it), then why does this can contain only 5 percent juice? Because it's made from watered-down high-fructose corn syrup-enough of it, in fact, to give this drink the sugar equivalent of 7 bowls of Froot Loops cereal. The most disturbing part of this beverage is that it normally costs just $.99, making it the cheapest source of empty calories we've ever uncovered.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Diet Snapple Noni Berry Juice (17.5-ounce bottle)
33 calories, 0 g fat, 2 g sugars
7. Worst Slush: Sonic Route Large Lemon-Berry Cream Slush (20 ounces)
600 calories, 24 g fat (17 g saturated), 88 g sugars
To be fair, this belly blaster is more of a shake-slush hybrid: half sugar-saturated ice and half high-fat ice cream. Think it sounds tasty alongside a Sonic Cheeseburger and fries? Maybe so, but that's a meal that will cost you more than 1,500 calories.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Small Lemonberry Real Fruit Slush (14 ounces)
190 calories, 0 g fat, 50 g sugars
6. Worst Holiday Coffee Drink: Starbucks Venti 2% Peppermint White Chocolate Mocha (20 ounces)
640 calories, 21 g fat (13 g saturated), 94 g sugars
Between the candies and the casseroles, we already have plenty of temptations to deal with during the holidays. We certainly don't need Starbucks' surreptitious sugar overload thrown into the mix. The name implies indulgence, sure, but the fact that this cup holds more sugar than 9 Krispy Kreme doughnuts is pretty appalling. Settle for a candy cane in your coffee or find a different drink.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Grande Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte (16 ounces)
120 calories, 0 g fat, 16 g sugars
5. Worst Hot Chocolate: Starbucks Venti 2% White Hot Chocolate (20 ounces)
600 calories, 23 g fat (14 g saturated), 78 g sugars, 360 mg sodium
Thanks to Starbucks' monstrous creation, this classic winter comfort beverage is now sullied with more than a full day's worth of saturated fat and as much sugar as nearly 4 Hershey's chocolate bars.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Grande Nonfat Vanilla Crème (16 ounces)
270 calories, 7 g fat (4.5 g saturated), 38 g sugars
4. Worst Cocktail: Red Lobster Traditional Lobsterita
890 calories, 0 g fat, 183 g carbohydrates
Lobsterita means a lobster tank-size glass filled with booze and high-fructose corn syrup. You'd have to drink 4 regular on-the-rocks margaritas to outdo the massive calorie load. Pair that with a dinner and you might be pushing a full day's calories in one meal. If you want to get drunk, take a shot. If you want to enjoy a cocktail, make sure it doesn't start with a bottle of mix-your body and your taste buds will thank you.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
Malibu Hurricane
200 calories, 0 g fat, 35 g carbohydrates
3. Worst Float: Baskin-Robbins Large Ice Cream Soda with Vanilla Ice Cream Float (32 ounces)
960 calories, 40 g fat (25 g saturated, 1.5 g trans), 136 g sugars
If you're going to have a float, it's best to limit yourself to one small scoop of ice cream and a reasonable pour of soda, yet Baskin-Robbins' smallest portion is 32 ounces! Unfortunately, if the ice cream mogul doesn't begin offering smaller sizes, your options are limited. Either split a small float or cut the soda out of the equation.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Vanilla Ice Cream Scoop (4 ounces)
260 calories, 16 g fat (10 g saturated, 0.5 g trans), 26 g sugars
2. Worst Smoothie: Smoothie King's The Hulk, Strawberry (40 ounces)
2,070 calories, 64 g fat (26 g saturated), 250 g sugars
To be fair, this smoothie is designed to help people gain weight—and for that reason alone, it isn’t our Worst Drink in America. The problem is that we live in a nation in which two-thirds of us are overweight, and the number of professional body builders doesn't constitute a significant demographic. Plus, if you really want to put on some pounds, just eat 9 Odwalla Super Protein bars. That's how many it would take to match this caloric load.
DRINK THIS INSTEAD!
The Shredder, Strawberry (20 ounces)
356 calories, 1 g fat, 41 g sugars
1. Worst Drink in America: Cold Stone Creamery PB&C Shake Gotta Have It Size
1,750 calories, 118 g fat (64 g saturated, 2 g trans), 140 g sugars
The PB&C is intended to denote peanut butter and chocolate, but the more accurate translation might be potbellies and cardiovascular disease. After all, this one drink does pack more calories than a dozen ice cream sandwiches and more saturated fat than nearly 20 large orders of McDonald's French fries. And what's even more depressing is that no shake on Cold Stone's menu, not even the small sizes, falls below 900 calories. Choose a small ice cream and use the 1,380 calories for something with at least a trace of nutritional value.
Monday, March 5, 2012
2nd place winner "8 Week Weight Loss Challenge"!
It became a family affair, my sister came in 3rd, me in 2nd and my brother-in-law 1st! I lost a total of 15.5 ibs. Due to me taking January off for my birthday, I was surprised to be that close. Great fun!
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Day 1 - Insanity 20 minute workout!
Whew! That's all I can say! Let's see what results I have in 60 days.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
I was lied to about BMI..
When I started this blog over a year ago, my focus instead of weight was BMI score. I always thought it was somewhat flawed, due to everyone having different muscle mass. The index is basing everyone have the same muscle mass.
The Truth about BMIAmericans think the body mass index can tell them if they're at a healthy weight. But they're wrong
The next time you happen to catch a Minnesota Vikings game, take a look at Adrian Peterson, the team's 6'1, 217-pound running back. Now ask yourself: what kind of physical characteristics would you attribute to him? Athletic? Lean? Fit? All of these certainly sound like valid answers to us—but his clinical classification might surprise you.
By any normal standards, Peterson is one of the fittest men on the planet. But by our country's system of measuring body fat, he's overweight. If you're like most people, you've probably heard of the 'body mass index,' or, as it's more informally known, BMI. It's a popular formula used to not only gauge if a person is overweight or obese, but also how great their risk is for future health problems.
BMI is a relatively straightforward equation that measures a person's body fat by comparing their weight to their height:
(Weight in pounds) / (Height in inches) (Height in inches) x 703
You can also figure out your BMI without doing any math, here: Log onto http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ for an online calculator.
There are four different categories a person can fall into, ranging from underweight to obese. They are:
*18.4 or lower: Underweight.
*18.5 to 24.9: Normal weight.
*25 to 29.9: Overweight.
*30 or higher: Obese.
According to the National Institutes of Health, being overweight or obese by this measure can put you at risk for heart disease, type II diabetes, and even some cancers.
But BMI doesn't work well for individual people. One of the formula's obvious flaws, explains Alan Aragon, the Men's Health Weight Loss Coach and a nutritionist in California, is that it has no way of discriminating between fat and muscle—which is the case with Peterson.
Part of the problem is that BMI was never designed as a tool for judging any individual person's weight—either by physicians or the general public, says Timothy Church, a professor of health at Pennington Biomedical Research Center. In fact, the formula was originally intended to measure the collective weight of an entire population, but because of its straightforward math and distinctive categories (i.e., if you score a 25 on the BMI scale, you're overweight), it soon also took off.
Here's how BMI was born: In the early part of the 20th century, medical studies began to show a link between excess weight and an early death. So doctors and insurance companies started to seek out an easy method to determine a person's body-fat percentage. Insurance companies were especially concerned with this task, and devoted portions of their budget to discovering an obesity-determining calculation.
It wasn't, however, until physiology researcher Ancel Keys published a study in 1972 called "Indices of Relative Weight and Obesity," that the modern version of BMI came about. Keys conducted a series of studies on male populations in order to test if any pre-existing mathematical equations could measure a group's relative amount of body-fat. Fortunately for him, one did. The "Quetelet Index," (a.k.a., weight divided by height, squared) which was developed by Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet in the mid-1800s, proved to be successful.
To Keys' credit, he never intended for physicians or insurance companies to use this equation—but BMI was just too perfect. Because it was simply a math equation, it was quicker, easier, and cheaper to use than more direct and accurate measures—like the underwater weighing test, which measures how much you weigh by how much water you displace, and the skin fold measurements, which calculates how much fat you have beneath your skin.
"BMI was really pushed by [companies like] Metropolitan Life," Church said. "It was meant to give them an excuse to charge [their clients] more."
The formula received its official stamp of approval in 1985, when the NIH cited it as the index of obesity, Ever since then, BMI has gradually become more and more accepted—now it's the standard, go-to formula for determining what makes a healthy weight, even among regular people, says Frank Hu, Ph.D., professor of health and nutrition at the Harvard School for Public Health.
Another issue is gender. The Quetelet Index—and corresponding Keys study—were both created from research on male populations. An entirely different formula was originally used for determining obesity in female populations, and yet, doctors use the same equation for both genders, says Church. In the beginning, the NIH differentiated between men and women by establishing different "thresholds" for one's BMI, to account for the variance between men and women in the equation. But even that difference dissolved in 1998. When pressed for the reasons why, an NIH spokesperson declined to comment.
So why has no one tried to change the system? One reason is that imprecise numbers from BMI aren't dangerous, says Hu. And besides, doctors are able to determine risk factors using other measurements.
Still, the alternatives to BMI aren't perfect either. The most common of which is the waist circumference test, which measures abdominal obesity (a.k.a., the fat around your stomach). It's slightly better than BMI at measuring someone's risk for illnesses like heart disease and diabetes, say our experts, because it measures fat specifically, instead of taking into account the weight of a person's muscle mass.
The truth is, people know if they're overweight—so be your own judge. Look in the mirror, monitor your jean size, and talk to your doctor. But don't rely on a flawed formula to determine your health status.
The Truth about BMIAmericans think the body mass index can tell them if they're at a healthy weight. But they're wrong
The next time you happen to catch a Minnesota Vikings game, take a look at Adrian Peterson, the team's 6'1, 217-pound running back. Now ask yourself: what kind of physical characteristics would you attribute to him? Athletic? Lean? Fit? All of these certainly sound like valid answers to us—but his clinical classification might surprise you.
By any normal standards, Peterson is one of the fittest men on the planet. But by our country's system of measuring body fat, he's overweight. If you're like most people, you've probably heard of the 'body mass index,' or, as it's more informally known, BMI. It's a popular formula used to not only gauge if a person is overweight or obese, but also how great their risk is for future health problems.
BMI is a relatively straightforward equation that measures a person's body fat by comparing their weight to their height:
(Weight in pounds) / (Height in inches) (Height in inches) x 703
You can also figure out your BMI without doing any math, here: Log onto http://nhlbisupport.com/bmi/ for an online calculator.
There are four different categories a person can fall into, ranging from underweight to obese. They are:
*18.4 or lower: Underweight.
*18.5 to 24.9: Normal weight.
*25 to 29.9: Overweight.
*30 or higher: Obese.
According to the National Institutes of Health, being overweight or obese by this measure can put you at risk for heart disease, type II diabetes, and even some cancers.
But BMI doesn't work well for individual people. One of the formula's obvious flaws, explains Alan Aragon, the Men's Health Weight Loss Coach and a nutritionist in California, is that it has no way of discriminating between fat and muscle—which is the case with Peterson.
Part of the problem is that BMI was never designed as a tool for judging any individual person's weight—either by physicians or the general public, says Timothy Church, a professor of health at Pennington Biomedical Research Center. In fact, the formula was originally intended to measure the collective weight of an entire population, but because of its straightforward math and distinctive categories (i.e., if you score a 25 on the BMI scale, you're overweight), it soon also took off.
Here's how BMI was born: In the early part of the 20th century, medical studies began to show a link between excess weight and an early death. So doctors and insurance companies started to seek out an easy method to determine a person's body-fat percentage. Insurance companies were especially concerned with this task, and devoted portions of their budget to discovering an obesity-determining calculation.
It wasn't, however, until physiology researcher Ancel Keys published a study in 1972 called "Indices of Relative Weight and Obesity," that the modern version of BMI came about. Keys conducted a series of studies on male populations in order to test if any pre-existing mathematical equations could measure a group's relative amount of body-fat. Fortunately for him, one did. The "Quetelet Index," (a.k.a., weight divided by height, squared) which was developed by Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet in the mid-1800s, proved to be successful.
To Keys' credit, he never intended for physicians or insurance companies to use this equation—but BMI was just too perfect. Because it was simply a math equation, it was quicker, easier, and cheaper to use than more direct and accurate measures—like the underwater weighing test, which measures how much you weigh by how much water you displace, and the skin fold measurements, which calculates how much fat you have beneath your skin.
"BMI was really pushed by [companies like] Metropolitan Life," Church said. "It was meant to give them an excuse to charge [their clients] more."
The formula received its official stamp of approval in 1985, when the NIH cited it as the index of obesity, Ever since then, BMI has gradually become more and more accepted—now it's the standard, go-to formula for determining what makes a healthy weight, even among regular people, says Frank Hu, Ph.D., professor of health and nutrition at the Harvard School for Public Health.
Another issue is gender. The Quetelet Index—and corresponding Keys study—were both created from research on male populations. An entirely different formula was originally used for determining obesity in female populations, and yet, doctors use the same equation for both genders, says Church. In the beginning, the NIH differentiated between men and women by establishing different "thresholds" for one's BMI, to account for the variance between men and women in the equation. But even that difference dissolved in 1998. When pressed for the reasons why, an NIH spokesperson declined to comment.
So why has no one tried to change the system? One reason is that imprecise numbers from BMI aren't dangerous, says Hu. And besides, doctors are able to determine risk factors using other measurements.
Still, the alternatives to BMI aren't perfect either. The most common of which is the waist circumference test, which measures abdominal obesity (a.k.a., the fat around your stomach). It's slightly better than BMI at measuring someone's risk for illnesses like heart disease and diabetes, say our experts, because it measures fat specifically, instead of taking into account the weight of a person's muscle mass.
The truth is, people know if they're overweight—so be your own judge. Look in the mirror, monitor your jean size, and talk to your doctor. But don't rely on a flawed formula to determine your health status.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
WORST APPS, SIDES, AND STARTERS
WORST APPS, SIDES, AND STARTERS
10. Worst Seafood Appetizer: Long John Silver’s Breaded Clam Strips
320 calories, 19 g fat (4.5 g saturated, 7 g trans fat), 1,190 mg sodium
The restaurant industry began to shift away from frying in partially hydrogenated oil 10 years ago. Now, Long John Silver’s is one of the few places left clinging to their trans-fatty fare. The word that should have set you off was “breaded”—it implies fried in oils, and in this case, those oils are packed with heart-harming trans fat. Who wants to order friend seafood through a squawk box anyway? Luckily, Long John also serves up a number of dishes that will boost good cholesterol, none better than the simple grilled fillet of salmon.
Click here for all of today's nutrition, health, and fitness news!
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Lobster Stuffed Crab Cake
170 calories, 9 g fat (2 g saturated), 390 mg sodium
9. Worst Kids' Side: Bob Evans Smiley Face Potatoes
271 calories, 16 g fat (3 g saturated), 334 mg sodium
These incessantly smiling potatoes are more than just creepy; they’re more fat-and-calorie-packed than Bob’s Sirloin Steak. Let this be a lesson to you youngsters: Just because they’re smiling, doesn’t make them nice.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Home Fries
163 calories, 6 g fat (1 g saturated), 677 mg sodium
8. Worst Drive-Thru Side: Arby’s Large Mozzarella Sticks
700 calories, 35 g fat (14 g saturated, 1 g trans), 1,940 mg sodium
Fried cheese is never a good idea, but as a sandwich sidekick, it spells certain disaster. Anything with as much saturated fat as a Double Whopper should not be called a appetizer or side. Arby’s menu presents a sides conundrum, given that their entire roster of “Sides and Sidekickers” receives the deep-fried treatment, but the Potato Cakes are the clear winner among them. If it’s cheese you crave, order the French Dip ‘N Swiss or Ham and Swiss Melt instead to save more than 300 calories.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Potato Cakes (small)
260 calories, 15 g fat (2 g saturated), 400 mg sodium
7. Worst Starter Salad: Cosi Cobb Salad
720 calories, 55 g fat (12 g saturated), 1,347 mg sodium
Learn to Lighten Up! On sandwiches and salads that include Così Vinaigrette, this little phrase will switch you to fat-free vinaigrette. Easiest 300-calorie savings ever. Ordering salad out is risky business, but this Shanghai standby offers plenty of lean protein and fresh vegetables without the normal salad pitfalls.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Shanghai Chicken Salad
316 calories, 13 g fat (2 g saturated), 850 mg sodium
6. Worst Chicken Appetizer: Denny’s Buffalo Chicken Strips (5)
720 calories, 32 g fat (0 g saturated), 2,780 mg sodium
Another example of how 2 seemingly similar items can be worlds apart in terms of nutrition. We’ve seen worse strips, to be sure, but when you can have a basket of wings for fewer than half the calories, why would you choose these? We’ve never seen a leaner wing than the ones coming from Denny’s. But like any good wings, these should be shared (especially with that sodium count).
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Buffalo Wings
330 calories, 20 g fat (5 g saturated), 1,860 mg sodium
5. Worst "Healthy" Starter: P.F. Chang’s Chicken Noodle Soup
600 calories, 20 g fat (4 g saturated), 2,550 mg sodium
Researchers from Penn State found that starting dinner with a bowl of soup can cut calorie intake over the course of a meal by up to 20 percent. But when you start dinner with 100 percent of your daily sodium allotment, why bother going on? It’s the best part about getting sick: the promise of chicken noodle soup yet to come. Studies have shown it works, too, but no study could have planned on the torrent of sodium that swirls among Chang’s noodles. Experts recommend capping your daily sodium intake at 2,400 milligrams. Any more than that can put you at an increased risk for heart disease, not to mention swell you up with retained water. Unfortunately, all Chang’s soups suffer a similar fate. Your only choice is to swap out your bowl for a smaller cup.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Egg Drop Soup (cup)
60 calories, 3 g fat , 640 mg sodium
4. Trans-Fattiest Side: A&W Breaded Onion Rings (Large)
480 calories, 27 g fat (7 g saturated, 7 g trans fat), 990 mg sodium
No fried food on A&W’s menu escapes the harsh bath in partially hydrogenated oil, with the onion rings absorbing the most. Until they make the switch to trans fat free frying oil, skip all curds, fries, rings, and nuggets. Only the smallest available portion of corn dog nuggets contains little enough trans fat to be rounded down to zero—if you must order a side dish, make it this one.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Corn Dog Nuggets (Small)
180 calories, 8 g fat (2 g saturated, 0 g trans), 520 mg sodium
3. Worst Dip Appetizer: Chili’s Hot Spinach & Artichoke Dip with Chips
1,610 calories, 103 g fat (42 g saturated), 1,610 mg sodium
Sure, there are artichokes and spinach in this dip, but they are drowned in cheese and mayo. Plus, the chip-and-dip combo lends itself to mindless munching at the table. Opt for an app that won’t test your self control, like the eggrolls. With almost half the fat and 1/3 the sodium, they are one of the safest items on Chili’s appetizer menu.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
Triple Dipper Southwestern Eggrolls with Avocado Ranch (2 each)
560 calories, 32 g fat (8 g saturated), 1,320 mg sodium
2. Worst Potato Side: Dairy Queen Chili Cheese Fries
1,020 calories, 51 g fat (15 g saturated), 2,360 mg sodium
This is DQ’s real Blizzard.You can almost feel your blood pressure rise just looking at this catastrophe. Too bad it’s listed as a side, gobbling up an entire day’s worth of sodium and half a day of calories before you move on to your burger. This one’s a no-brainer: chili, cheese, fried potatoes. But even a savvy eater couldn’t possibly anticipate how bad these 3 ingredients could be when combined by one heavy-handed fast-food company. Stick with classic ketchup and recapture nearly a days worth of sodium and 930 calories.
EAT THIS INSTEAD!
French Fries (regular)
310 calories, 13 g fat (2 g saturated), 640 mg sodium
1. Worst Appetizer in America: On the Border Firecracker Stuffed Jalapenos with Chili Con Queso
1,910 calories, 135 g fat (38 g saturated), 6,050 mg sodium
Tex-Mex cooks are never shy with the salt, but this dish breaks even their reckless boundaries. Each little cheese-stuffed popper contains more than 1,000 milligrams of sodium. Appetizers are the most problematic are of most chain-restaurant menus. That’s because they’re disproportionately reliant on the type of cheesy, greasy ingredients that catch hungry diners’ eyes when they’re most vulnerable—right when they sit down. Seek out lean protein options like grilled shrimp skewers or ahi tuna when available; if not, simple is best—like chips and salsa.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Stroke Risk!
Today a cardiologist told me not to exercise because it could be me at risk for a stroke! Imagine that no exercise for me, but health comes first. My blood pressure has been very high, the reason for my visit. Today it was 190/110. So I got more medication and had an ultrasound on my heart. Will know more in 2 weeks.
Friday, December 2, 2011
How to Maintain Fitness Over 40 With Less Weight and More Energy
Maintaining fitness over 40 is easier than you might think. Whether your fortieth birthday is rapidly approaching, or even if you are older than forty, you may be wondering whether you'll ever recapture those youthful, vital feelings that come with being completely healthy and in great shape. Sometimes it feels as though society gives us permission to let ourselves go after we hit the "Big Four-Oh" but we don't have to give in. The fact is, most of us will live to be octogenarians or nonagenarians, and some of us will live to be over one hundred years old. Can you imagine living a sedentary, unhappy life for nearly half a century or longer? Luckily, fitness over 40 years of age doesn't have to be difficult; all it takes is a small amount of effort.
Fitness Over 40: Recapture Lost Energy, Regain Your Youthful, Trim Appearance, and More
Have you ever wondered what happened to the energy you used to have? Do you wake up feeling fatigued rather than refreshed, or discovering mysterious new aches and pains that make you worry that life will never be fun again? Are old problems getting worse instead of going away? If so, imagine yourself finding your way back to a younger, more energetic, healthier feeling you. It really is possible.
If you are over forty and suffering from an ever-expanding waistline and other bulges, then you might be feeling as though your social life is over. If the only clothes that seem to fit lately have elastic waistbands, comfort panels, and other features designed to make living with a high percentage of body fat more tolerable, then you might think your fashion choices are diminishing as you get older. Don't worry - it's not too late to retain your youthful appearance and maintain fitness over 40.
The fact is, there is a simple and effective way to get your life back on track and enjoy all the things you have worked so hard to gain over the years. It does require some effort on your part - after all, no one has developed a magic pill yet!
• You will need to keep an open mind, and be willing to learn about how your choices affect your energy level, your waistline, and your health in general.
• You will need to be willing to try new foods
• You may need to change your attitude about exercise - many of us think we've got to work up a real sweat in order for benefits to occur, and that simply isn't true.
All it Takes is a Personal Commitment to Fitness Over 40
By making a personal commitment to yourself to give your body the tools it needs to rebuild cellular structures properly, get rid of accumulated toxins, and replace old habits with a new and empowering mindset, you really can regain a youthful appearance, improve your energy, enjoy life more and keep your fitness over 40. Best of all, you don't have to do it on your own. A new program, Happy and Fit Over 40, provides you with all the tools you need to make positive, lasting changes. By this time next year, you could be looking at a whole new you...all it takes is a commitment to yourself.
Fitness Over 40: Recapture Lost Energy, Regain Your Youthful, Trim Appearance, and More
Have you ever wondered what happened to the energy you used to have? Do you wake up feeling fatigued rather than refreshed, or discovering mysterious new aches and pains that make you worry that life will never be fun again? Are old problems getting worse instead of going away? If so, imagine yourself finding your way back to a younger, more energetic, healthier feeling you. It really is possible.
If you are over forty and suffering from an ever-expanding waistline and other bulges, then you might be feeling as though your social life is over. If the only clothes that seem to fit lately have elastic waistbands, comfort panels, and other features designed to make living with a high percentage of body fat more tolerable, then you might think your fashion choices are diminishing as you get older. Don't worry - it's not too late to retain your youthful appearance and maintain fitness over 40.
The fact is, there is a simple and effective way to get your life back on track and enjoy all the things you have worked so hard to gain over the years. It does require some effort on your part - after all, no one has developed a magic pill yet!
• You will need to keep an open mind, and be willing to learn about how your choices affect your energy level, your waistline, and your health in general.
• You will need to be willing to try new foods
• You may need to change your attitude about exercise - many of us think we've got to work up a real sweat in order for benefits to occur, and that simply isn't true.
All it Takes is a Personal Commitment to Fitness Over 40
By making a personal commitment to yourself to give your body the tools it needs to rebuild cellular structures properly, get rid of accumulated toxins, and replace old habits with a new and empowering mindset, you really can regain a youthful appearance, improve your energy, enjoy life more and keep your fitness over 40. Best of all, you don't have to do it on your own. A new program, Happy and Fit Over 40, provides you with all the tools you need to make positive, lasting changes. By this time next year, you could be looking at a whole new you...all it takes is a commitment to yourself.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
November wasn't a good month!
Between getting new medication on the 1st that had a great side effect( Weight Gain) to holiday eating it hasn't been a great month for me. Of course I'm not going to give up, I going to go hard on one of the worse months to ever diet! Office snacks, holidays parties and family get-together don't help at all. I'm at my best with challenges like these. Getting back on track.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The McRib Is Actually The McPigIntestines
The McRib is only back through November 14th, but the internet has helpfully come up with a way to ensure you won't miss it much once it's gone: Analyzing the contents of the mysterious sandwich. The reconstituted pork-based patty probably contains tripe, heart, and scalded stomachs. That may sound a bit gross to some, but they're all edible meats already found in products like sausages. Surprisingly, the bun seems more troubling. It contains a tiny amount of azodicarbonamide, which is banned as a food additive in Europe and Australia. The flour-bleaching agent is often used in foamed plastics, like those found in gym mats and shoe soles. On the other hand, when one order a McRib it's for the novelty, not because it's the foundation of a healthy diet.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
FED UP documentary.
We recently discovered Fed Up!, a documentary which focuses on the topic of genetically engineered foods. The movie uses archival footage and interviews to explore the changes in food production, how the Biotech Revolution took place, and it shows the influence of big industry on our food choices. The archival footage will be fascinating to many; showing the battle over genetically modified food labeling, the inevitable contamination of our entire food supply through genetically engineered pollens, how they are wiping-out the butterflies and honeybees, and how the great majority of the first pesticides are now illegal — but they remain for decades in farm soils.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)