A Resolution Is Just A Fancy Word for "Goal."

According to USA.gov, the ten most popular New Year's Resolutions are as follows:

• Drink Less Alcohol
• Eat Healthy Food
• Get a Better Education
• Get a Better Job
• Get Fit
• Lose Weight
• Manage Debt
• Manage Stress
• Quit Smoking
• Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle
• Save Money
• Take a Trip
• Volunteer to Help Others

More than half of them are health-related, which tells you that: (1) People know they're in piss-poor shape, and (2) they know something has to be done about it. But the problem, it seems, is that folks aren't sure how to achieve their goals. According to University of Minnesota psychology professor Marti Hope Gonzalez, research indicates that 80 percent of those who make New Year's Resolutions fail to keep them past February -- only to start over again the following January.

Ten years ago, a study published in American Psychologist termed this cycle of futility the "False Hope Syndrome" -- a phenomenon "particularly common among those who resolve to lose weight" due to “unrealistic goals and a misunderstanding of [their] own behavior.”

So what's the answer? How can we set goals and actually achieve them?

My thoughts:

Be reasonable. All goals -- not just resolutions -- should be S.M.A.R.T: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Simply saying that you want to "get healthier" isn't going to give you any metrics by which you can track progress or hold yourself accountable. Instead, set milestones and deadlines to check up on your incremental progress. And don't go crazy with unattainable resolutions -- otherwise, you'll rob yourself of the satisfaction you'll feel when you hit your goals.

Focus on behaviors and actions, not results. A resolution like “I wanna drop 30 pounds” or "I wanna deadlift 3 times my bodyweight" offers you no path to success. Instead, make a checklist of concrete, doable actions that’ll put you in the right direction -- like "I'm cutting sugar from my diet for the next 21 days" or "I'm signing my ass up for a 100-burpee challenge."

Do some research. So what if Gwyneth Paltrow eats nothing but twigs and does hundreds of reps of 3-pound lifts? And who cares if Rich Froning subsists on a diet of chocolate milk, protein shakes, and peanut butter and jelly? Blindly copying others won't transform you into a skinny movie star or the Fittest Man on the Planet. Before you set a goal, consider whether it's something that's actually likely to do you (or others) some good.

Tell people about your goals. It's all too easy to let yourself off the hook. If no one knows about your goals, no one'll get on your butt about sticking to them. But if you're serious about your resolutions, yell it from the mountaintops. (Or, more realistically, Facebook.) You don't have to be annoying about it, but make sure your support system of friends and family are aware that you're marching towards a goal so they can: (1) help you; (2) understand why you're not eating bread all of a sudden; (3) kick your ass if you try to give up. Plus, I've found that one of the greatest motivators is peer pressure (a.k.a. public shaming.)

Make it fun. If it's not enjoyable, it's not sustainable. Want to know why people don't stick to super-restrictive diets? Because they feel deprived. And why don't folks keep going to the globo-gym after January? Because endlessly climbing a StairMaster in slow motion is mind-numbing. So devise ways to keep things fun and interesting -- whether it's by using a kick-ass iPhone app to track your weight loss progress or by joining a running group.

Lastly, don't save your resolutions for January. Who says you can only set personal goals once per annum? Keep setting short- and long-term goals for yourself throughout the year, and work to methodically check 'em off the list.

Go to it, people.

Let's Not Go Crazy

Classic.

[Via]

This Is Not Okay

Yesterday, M showed me this tweet by @SFoodie, the food blog run by SF Weekly:

This made me want to reach into the Internet and throttle the writer for: (1) poor reading comprehension skills, (2) sloppy reporting, and (3) irresponsibly handing people a "science-based" excuse for ignoring a potentially life-threatening health problem.

Let's be perfectly clear: The study referenced in the tweet DOES NOT SAY THAT BEING FAT IS HEALTHY.

The real story? Canadian researchers looked at whether people with high Body Mass Index (BMI) scores are uniformly at high risk for an early death. To test this, they looked at a bunch of people they classified as "obese" BASED ON THE SUBJECTS' BMI SCORES, ranked their health according to the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS), and compared mortality rates. A subject with an EOSS score of 0 was one who showed no problematic symptoms, while a person with a score of 4 (the highest possible score) was one with severe chronic diseases and disabilities.

The conclusion? Not all folks with high BMIs are at risk of early death.

This is not rocket science, folks. A high BMI tells you absolutely nothing about the state of a person's body composition or health. A muscle-bound person with little body fat might have a very high BMI and a flabby "skinny fat" smoker might have a "normal" one, but it doesn't mean that the former is obese any more than it means that Michael Jackson was a super-healthy fella. Body mass should not be mistaken for body fat. And while the researchers (unfortunately) used "high BMI" interchangeably with "obesity," let's be real: When most people think about obesity, the dictionary definition comes to mind -- and it's all about "excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body."

Take elite CrossFit firebreather Rob Orlando. His BMI is above 29, which puts him in borderline "obese" territory. But does he look fat to you? Would you use the word "obese" to describe him?



Let's face it: BMIs are completely useless as an indicator of health. And in fact, this is precisely what the Canadian researchers were seeking to show. As a recent CNN article pointed out, "[t]he main question was whether BMI alone could determine who dies early, said Dr. Arya Sharma, the lead author [of the study]." Unsurprisingly, the answer was "no." (Duh.)

You wouldn't know it from the articles written about the study, though. SF Weekly's article, for example, looks like this:

That's right: "[Y]ou can have your cake, eat it, and, um, have some more."

And this wasn't an outlier. Other "respectable" publications wrote headlines like:

• "Being Obese Not Necessarily Bad" (Toronto Sun)

• "Obese And Healthy: Not All Overweight People Need To Worry" (The Huffington Post)

• "Study: It's Okay to be Fat" (Voice of America)

• "Study: Obese People Live as Long as Slimmer People" (WebMD).

• "Obesity Police Busted? Study Says Fat Folks Can Be Healthy"(CBS News)

Similarly, Facebook and Twitter lit up with further distortions of the study's conclusions:

No one's going to spend even a minute on Google to track down the original study. They're not going to hear that BMIs are bunk. But they will take away the message that "being fat can be GOOD for you" -- so why worry?



P.S.: WTF, Barry Sears?

Almost Atkins

A few weeks ago, in my company’s café, I ran into a co-worker I hadn’t seen in quite a while. We were both juggling lunch plates in our hands, and after exchanging pleasantries, we started eying each other’s food choices.

I kept my assessment of her tofu and Asian noodle salad bowl to myself.

She, on the other hand, looked at my bacon-topped grass-fed beef patty and side of vegetables and smirked. “Atkins, huh?” she chuckled.

“Oh, no -- I’m not on Atkins,” I stammered. My co-worker furrowed her brow. “Well, you see, I’m on something called a Paleo Diet,” I added. I began reciting the Whole9 elevator pitch, but I clearly wasn’t getting anywhere fast. My co-worker smiled and nodded, but she clearly thought I was a freak.

Back at my desk, as I devoured my now-cold lunch, I got to thinking: Why didn’t I just tell her that I’m on the Atkins Diet? Wouldn’t it have been easier -- on both of us? Why the reluctance to be associated with Atkins?

More after the jump...

100 & Counting

Twenty-three-year-old Ernesto Madrigal has dropped 100 pounds -- 80 of which were lost after starting CrossFit and adopting a Paleo diet.

Madrigal was attending only once or twice a week before being challenged by the CrossFit [Brea] staff to come more often...and to change his diet. He started eating a Paleolithic, or caveman's, diet consisting of meat, vegetables and fruit. No bread. No grains. No refined sugars.

About a year ago, CrossFit Brea held a "biggest loser challenge," which Madrigal won by losing 18 pounds in a month. Since then, Madrigal has become CrossFit Brea's first 100-pound loser in the four-plus years the facility has been open, [CrossFit Brea owner Erik] Arevalo said.

As someone I know likes to say, "It's almost like this stuff works."

[Source]

A Fool & His Money...

I just finished reading the Wall Street Journal's recent article about The Ranch at Live Oak in Malibu. The author of the piece, Christina Binkley, plunked down thousands of dollars to spend one week at this “120-acre ranch tucked into the Santa Monica Mountains,” a health resort that “caters to wealthy A-listers with Spartan but perfectly appointed private cottages, and niceties such as laundry service and a daily aphorism placed on pillows.”

But at its heart, The Ranch appears to be just another expensive fat camp, with an approach centered around starvation and overexercise.

Among Binkley’s observations and experiences:

• For one month before her visit, Binkley was told to “prepare with daily hikes and yoga” and to abstain from eating certain foods -- including meat.

• A typical vegetarian lunch at the Ranch consisted of two baby beets, a baby turnip, “sprigs of red-ribbon sorrel and micro-arugula.” Dinner? “Artichoke heart with fava bean puree, a glazed cipollini onion, pea shoots and tendrils.” Daily caloric intake? 1,100 calories.

• Guests begin their day with yoga at 5:30 a.m., and then head out on a six-hour mountain hike, during which “[s]everal guests vomited —- repeatedly.” (The Ranch’s program director told Binkley that diarrhea is also to be expected.)

• Of course, The Ranch provided a mid-hike snack for each guest: 3 almonds and 2 cashews.

• No rest for the weary: Afternoon exercise classes -- including TRX resistance routines and more yoga -- are mandatory at The Ranch.

But somehow, by the end of the week, Binkley had succumbed to the Stockholm Syndrome. Her article ends with a rosy view of her experience.

And sadly -- shamefully -- I know just how she felt.

More after the jump...

See-Food Diet?

According to some, wearing blue-tinted sunglasses suppresses your appetite because all your food looks gross.

The problem, of course, is that disgusting-looking food never stopped anyone from eating stuff like this:

Another downside: If you wear blue-tinted sunglasses and you're not Johnny Depp, Elton John, or a small child, you'll pretty much look like a massive douchebag.

A Panda Goes Low-Carb

Since the offseason began, bloated slugger Pablo "Kung Fu Panda" Sandoval of the (World Champion!) San Francisco Giants has lost 20-30 pounds so far, and recently tweeted that the secret to his success is a "low carbohydrate and high protein diet." (Maybe he picked up "Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It" over the holidays...)

Could it be that Sandoval has actually given up eating Colossal Brownie Sundaes at Buca di Beppo?

Losing Your Appetite

Remember last month's reports about how the thought of stuffing your face actually helps curbs your appetite? Now comes research that says that "a brisk walk around the block can significantly dampen cravings," too.

But why stop there? Supercharge your weight loss with other appetite suppression strategies, including:

• Drugs!
• Acupuncture!
• Wasabi!
• Dunkin Donuts coffee!
• And watching incredibly gross things on the Internet!

So grab your walking shoes, stick some needles in your skin, throw a hunk of wasabi and a handful of Phendimetrazine tablets in your coffee mug, watch "2 Girls 1 Cup" (again), and imagine sinking your teeth into this. You'll lose that spare tire in no time flat!

Or not.

No, Really: Skip Breakfast

In the news: More evidence in support of fasted training and minimizing carb intake.

Belgian researchers worked with three groups of human lab rats: One group ate a ton of food and remained sedentary. The other two groups exercised -- one after eating a "hefty, carbohydrate-rich breakfast" and the other after eating nothing at all. (They ate post-workout.)

The experiment lasted for six weeks. At the end, the nonexercising group was, to no one’s surprise, super-sized, having packed on an average of more than six pounds. They had also developed insulin resistance -- their muscles were no longer responding well to insulin and weren’t pulling sugar (or, more technically, glucose) out of the bloodstream efficiently -- and they had begun storing extra fat within and between their muscle cells. Both insulin resistance and fat-marbled muscles are metabolically unhealthy conditions that can be precursors of diabetes.

The men who ate breakfast before exercising gained weight, too, although only about half as much as the control group. Like those sedentary big eaters, however, they had become more insulin-resistant and were storing a greater amount of fat in their muscles.

Only the group that exercised before breakfast gained almost no weight and showed no signs of insulin resistance. They also burned the fat they were taking in more efficiently.

(Source: New York Times)

Weight Watchers: The New Math

Last week, Weight Watchers drastically overhauled its points system for the first time in 13 years, and as the New York Times reports, some members are going batshit crazy over the change.

“It’s a complete overhaul; it doesn’t get any bigger than this,” said Karen Miller-Kovach, the chief scientific officer for Weight Watchers International. “Fifteen years ago we said a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you ate 100 calories of butter or 100 calories of chicken, it was all the same. Now, we know that is not the case, in terms of how hard the body has to work to make that energy available. And even more important is that where that energy comes from affects feelings of hunger and fullness.”

Some people were drawn to the Weight Watchers point system by the idea that it seemed almost like an anti-diet: you could eat whatever you wanted, as long as you gauged the portion, counted the points and, if necessary, scrimped elsewhere. And while many members are lauding what one blogger described as a “Weight Watchers meets Michael Pollan,“ and celebrating the advent of the guilt-free fruit cup, others are pushing back.

“I don’t want to be forced to choose veggies. I do NOT like veggies or fruit,” one member wrote in an online discussion on the Weight Watchers Web site. “I feel like I am being forced to ‘diet,’ and that is what I DO NOT WANT.”

Of course! I mean, if I paid good money to join Weight Watchers, the last thing I'd want to do is watch what I eat, or consume anything other than packages of Little Debbies and Cool Ranch Doritos.

Weight Watchers is taking a (very, very small) step in the right direction by backing off of its long-held "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" nonsense, and recognizing that folks should avoid carbs and processed food (by increasing the number of points for such foods).

But IMHO, the company's overall approach remains pretty awful. With its closely monitored points system, Weight Watchers is still encouraging obsessive weighing and measuring. And while it's not strictly calorie-counting anymore, members can still choose to eat incredibly unhealthful shit -- all they'd have to do is pare back their overall intake levels. In other words, they can still starve on Cinnabon and cupcakes.

Plus: Under the new system, "[a]ll fruits...are point-free," while the points for fatty foods (including stuff we know are actually good for you) have been bumped up. So under this plan, a person struggling to lose weight is allowed to gorge all day on bananas -- a fruit that's 93% carbohydrate in content -- without having to tally a single point. Smart.

(Source: The New York Times)

Junk Food, Junk Science

Tim pointed me in the direction of this freak-of-the-week article from CNN.com, which profiles Kansas State University nutrition professor Mark Haub, who ate a diet consisting of two-thirds junk food (Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos, etc.) for ten weeks to "prove" that "in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food."

Lo and behold, he ended up dropping 27 pounds. But to do so, he severely restricted his daily caloric intake, and went on a starvation diet. Is it any wonder that a person who takes in significantly fewer calories than his body burns will end up converting some fat and muscle to energy? Starving people do tend to lose weight, you know.

The article also points out, however, that other biomarkers of health improved, including his cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"

But wait a second:

Did he test his LDL particle size and density? What about his blood glucose levels? Did he take a hemoglobin A1c test? How's his insulin sensitivity? Did he exercise during his diet? And what the fuck was Haub eating BEFORE he went on his junk food diet? Without these answers, Haub's results don't amount to a hill of beans.

(P.S.: Since when do we draw conclusions based on the results of a self-administered "study" with a sample size of ONE PERSON? Answer: When it's a slow news day, and the media needs an attention-grabbing headline.)

Sweet Thang

I have a confession to make: Although my diet has been pretty much free of sugar (aside from the fructose in berries, root vegetables, etc.), I've been getting blasts of sweetness from two very un-Paleo sources: Artificially sweetened gum and diet soda.

I'll pause while you recover from this earth-shattering news.

I chew gum only when I'm driving -- sometimes to help keep me awake and alert during my mind-numbing daily commute -- but I log a lot of miles, so I frequently go through Costco-sized boxes of the stuff. I'm sure the parking valets in my office building are revolted by the number of wadded-up gum wrappers scattered like so much confetti all over the interior of my car.

My Coke Zero intake, however, isn't limited to the car. I've stockpiled a few dozen cans of the stuff in my garage, ostensibly for "guests" who crave the sweet, sweet taste of aspartame. But even when no one else is around -- especially when no one else is around -- I'll pop open a can. And at work, the company cafeteria has Coke Zero in the soda dispenser, and it beckons me every time I pass by. I resist -- usually.

In my defense: In "The Paleo Diet," Loren Cordain -- the Yoda of caveman eats -- includes artificially-sweetened diet sodas in his list of "foods you can eat in moderation." And it's not like I guzzle the stuff.

BUT:

• Artificial sweeteners may sabotage weight loss and weight management efforts. In the words of Robb Wolf and Mat Lalonde, artificial sweeteners "cockblock fat loss."

• Despite being "sugar free," products containing sugar alcohols like sorbitol, maltitol and xylitol can raise your blood sugar.

• Use of artificial sweeteners has been linked to a two-fold increase in insulin resistance and diabetes. (Of course, the skeptic in me suspects this correlation could be explained by greater intake of diet soda by unhealthy pre-diabetic and diabetic folks who are trying to cut their sugar intake.) 

• High doses of sucralose have been shown to reduce normal, healthy gut flora by half (in rats, anyway).

• Adverse reactions to aspartame include everything from migraines and moodiness to cramps and diarrhea. (My wife, a drug dealer by trade who has a degree in nutrition and food science, puts it this way: "Some sugar substitutes are osmotic laxatives -- they can't be broken down and makes your gut hyperosmotic, which gives you the shits.")

Looks like I have some more weaning to do.

Sometimes, Paleo is no fun at all.

(Photos: bukowsky18, mastermaq)

Appetite Suppressant

Having trouble staying away from that plate of food? Trying to lose some flab but can't curb your appetite? Then watch this:



Yay, maggots!

(Source: Devour)

The Incredible Shrinking Celebrities

Check 'em out here.

But who the eff is Josh Peck? And yes, I'm old.

(Source: Buzzfeed)

Tweet Your Goals

I've mentioned this before, but a great way to keep yourself accountable to your goals is to tell everyone about them. That's the reason I started this blog (waaay back in August '09); fear of public humiliation was (is) a huge motivating source, as well as the encouragement and support that I've received online. But blogging can take a lot of time and effort. For those of you who have fitness or weight loss goals but little time to devote to maintaining a full-blown blog, give Twitter a shot. Tweeting about his weight loss goals worked for Drew Magary of Deadspin, and now Brian Stelter of the New York Times is doing it with a lot of success, having lost almost 75 pounds in six months on a "Twitter Diet":

I started this Twitter feed at 270 pounds. I think I maxed out between 275 and 280. But now I’m at 220. I’d like to be under 200. -- 8:47 a.m., June 28.

Finally, I felt comfortable publishing my starting weight. “I’m embarrassed by it,” I added that day. “But now I feel comfortable, because I know I’m never going back.”

Today, I’m under the 200-pound mark, and by Sept. 3 I’ll have lost 75 pounds. I’m already thinking ahead to the fall, when I’ll have to learn how to maintain my new size. I have ordered a specially made scale that posts its results onto Twitter every week. It will confess -- or brag -- for me automatically.

In case you're interested, I think this is the scale he's talking about.

(Source: NYT, Engadget)

A Farewell to (Fat) Arms

Is the extreme weight loss approach used on "The Biggest Loser" extreme, unsafe and ineffective (in the long run)? Yes, yes, and yes.

But am I going to tune in for tonight's season finale? Totally. To miss it would be un-American.

You'll find me on my couch tonight, BodyBugg strapped on my arm, gnawing on a Subway sandwich dipped in Brita-filtered water, and fondling my collection of Ziplock bags, Extra Sugarfree Gum and Fiber One cereal.

Biggest Loser: Behind the Scenes

It's not all about peeing blood!

Following up on yesterday's post about "The Biggest Loser," I think you should also check out Lyle McDonald's Q&A with a former contestant on the show. I found this nugget to be particularly fascinating:

While a TV episode [purports to cover] 7 days in length that is not the case behind the scenes. So some ‘weeks’ the [weight loss] numbers are larger because some weeks we had 14 days between weigh ins. My season if you lasted until the final day you would be on the ranch 101 days (I got voted off on episode 7 and lost 83 pounds in 62 days). This season is like 121 days start to finish. And all that gets condensed into a 12-14 week show-airing schedule.

(Source: Body Recomposition)

Exercise and Weight Gain Go Together Like Daris and Orange Afros

On Tuesday night's episode of "The Biggest Loser," the final four contestants -- Michael, Ashley, Daris and Koli -- were sent home and given a month to train for a marathon.

After shedding 150 pounds (and trimming back his Chia curls), Daris appears to be in the best shape of the bunch. He's under 200 pounds, and can exercise like a maniac. During his training runs, he must have pushed himself harder than anyone expected -- Jillian Michaels circled in a helicopter for what seemed like an eternity before spotting Daris running around the open fields of rural Oklahoma in his orange t-shirt.

But as NBC's eerie-green night camera footage shows, intense training for a 26.2-mile footrace makes Daris hungry. He raids his kitchen late at night (but remembers to turn on the videocamera and aim it at the refrigerator first), and confesses that he can't help himself.

His hardcore training paid off, though: Daris broke the "Biggest Loser Marathon" record by finishing the race in just 4 hours and 2 minutes -- more than 2 hours ahead of second-place finisher Koli, who looked like he was going to seriously fucking die of cardiac arrest when he crossed the finish line. Michael and Ashley strolled in sometime after everyone stopped caring.

At the weigh-in, however, our man Daris was the only contestant to have gained weight, going from 195 to 197 (even after the removal of 65% of his hair)! Cue the flabbergasted stares and accusatory WTFs from Jillian and Bob, whose eyes looked like they were going to shoot across the stage and riddle Daris' naked torso with holes. Daris, you sabotaged yourself! You have no self-control! Stop eating like you're stoned! AAAAAAGH!

But let's take a deep breath and consider: Was Daris' weight gain all that unexpected?
The guy trained for a marathon by busting his ass. You don't go from looking like a life-sized Cabbage Patch Kid to running an almost sub-4:00 marathon by kicking back. And guess what exercise does to your appetite?

As I've mentioned before, intense physical activity makes people hungrier. I know: This isn't rocket science. But for some reason, the "Biggest Loser" trainers appear to pin the blame on Daris' lack of willpower rather than on the physical demands he put on himself in order to kick everyone else's ass in the race. The harder you train, the greater the likelihood you're going to eat more. As Time Magazine put it:

"In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless," says Eric Ravussin, Chair in Diabetes and Metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise researcher. Many recent studies have found that exercise isn't as important in helping people lose weight as you hear so regularly in gym advertisements or on shows like "The Biggest Loser" -- or for that matter, from magazines like this one. The basic problem is that while it is true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

There are plenty of reasons to squeeze in some vigorous physical activity. But on a show like "The Biggest Loser," where the name of the game is pure weight loss (and not setting marathon records or even achieving optimal health, for that matter), simply cranking up the intensity level of exercise isn't going to do the trick.

Kale Kale Kale Kale Kale

Does your preferred workout style reflect your core personality?

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, Robert Downey Jr. employed a highly improvisational, sledgehammerific, crazy/weird/fun-sounding training program to prep for Iron Man 2, which seems to fit his reputation as an outsized, off-the-wall actor.

His co-star Gwyneth Paltrow, however, followed an achingly strict and monotonous regimen that involves doing black & white workout DVDs from an oddly silent Tracy Anderson and ingesting massive amounts of kale. I wish I could spend the rest of this post speculating about what this narcolepsy-inducing routine says about Ms. Paltrow's personality, but...can't...stay...awake...

Zzzzzz.