Exercise cannot turn the obesity tide

I lost 90 pounds without exercising.

I'm not saying that works for everyone, but I know exercise alone is not the panacea for the obesity crisis in America.

In fact you can exercise and not lose any weight. But it's extremely difficult to not to lose weight if you simply cut down on the number of calories you eat (no matter what the kind).

I lost 90 pounds by cutting my calories in half. In the process I learned to eat more healthy foods (because they are lower in calories). I stopped going to any fast food restaurants because I realized the hamburgers and fried foods were killing me. I realized over-sized portions were wrong, not only for my wallet but where I keep my wallet.

The TV reality show, "The Biggest Loser", shows an unsustainable amount of exercise. What they rarely show is the gigantic change in eating habits in order to lose hundreds of pounds.

To stop childhood obesity, we can't completely rely on exercise as Forbes.com reports:

Physical fitness programs in schools improve many aspects of children's health, but they don't appear to combat obesity, a new study in the Canadian medical publication CMAJ shows.

Improvements in blood pressure, muscle mass, bone mineral density, lung capacity and flexibility were some of the benefits experienced by the more than 18,000 students participating in "physical activity interventions" at their schools; however, the program's did not noticeably lower the children's body-mass index (BMI) -- a common measurement of obesity.

Most people can't find calorie information

Do you want calorie information at your fast-food restaurant? Most people couldn't or wouldn't find it.

This from the Washington Post:

Researchers from the psychology department at Yale University hung out in a handful of fast-food eateries (McDonald's, Burger King, Au Bon Pain and Starbucks) in Manhattan's Upper West Side; New Haven, Conn.; and Connecticut suburbs of New York City, keeping an eye on customers' behavior. Of 4,311 people they observed, only six looked at the nutrition information provided by the restaurant, whether it appeared on a poster, in a pamphlet or on a special touch-screen computer.

The authors of the study, which appears in the April issue of the American Journal of Public Health, say their findings suggest that nutrition information needs to be made more prominent, even added to menu boards. Moves are afoot in Maryland and several other states to require chain restaurants to provide nutrition data; restaurants argue that that information is already available by request at restaurants and on their Web sites. More...

NYC restaurants can't be trusted

You knew this was the case!

In NYC, you picked up a breakfast tart -- which Starbucks says is a healthy 120 calories -- and as you ate it you knew that wasn't right. We all can taste 300 calories of sugar and flour.

Well, you know you were right. That tart wasn't 120 calories...and that muffin wasn't 420 calories. They are much more!

You can't trust restaurants to ever tell you the truth. So the new law in NYC that calories must be displayed doesn't stop restaurants from still hiding the truth about unhealthy food from you.

This story from limelife.com:

Just when you thought you could trust your food, you can't.

Remember when food was actually food? Remember when it wasn't packed with excess dyes, sugars and calories? Hmmm, probably not. And guess what? Food is even sneakier then we originally thought. Well, packaged food is anyway. That's right America, nutrition labels are lying to us. They're lying to us and they're getting away with it.

Are you mad? You should be.

Recently, reporters from New York City's WCBS-TV sent snacks such as, muffins, scones and sandwiches to a calorie lab for testing. Not surprisingly, the real amount of calories didn't match the label.

For example, Dunkin' Donuts' turkey, cheddar, and bacon sandwich masqueraded around as 360 calories but tested at 460. A Starbucks blueberry muffin, labeled 420 calories, came back as 580. And its peachy apple tart, disguised as a 120 calorie delight, actually weighed in at 280.

Toxic food assets

Two years ago I told you fast-food and chain restaurants were in trouble.

The portions were too big, too over priced, and too unhealthy.

Those restaurants are just like Wall Street. Their excesses were disguised for only so long. Now with a contraction in the economy, the emperor is exposed. Those restaurants cannot increase sales by opening another 1,000 stores next to schools and in the inner city.

It's not surprising Americans have stopped going to the over-fried, over-red meat, over-portioned fast-food restaurants. It's too expensive for your wallet and for your health.

Two stories this week have come together for me: 1) a study that links eating red and processed meat with increasing your risk of dying prematurely, and 2) restaurant chains are struggling so they have lowered the price on a couple their entrees.

Why over-pay at a chain restaurant and eat unhealthy food? Many Americans are choosing to say no.

The industry must expunge those toxic food assets, just as Wall Street needed to.

Obama's first small step against obesity

The Obamas have started to lead the charge against obesity.

From CNN.com: First lady Michelle Obama helped break ground on a new White House "kitchen garden" Friday. It will be the first working garden at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue since Eleanor Roosevelt planted a so-called "victory garden" at the height of World War II.

This time, however, the enemy is obesity. The first family is hoping to send a clear message to a fast food-driven nation that often seems to be losing the battle of the bulge.

"We're just hoping that a lot of families look at us and say this is something that they can do and talk to their own kids about and think a little bit critically about the food choices that they make," presidential mother-in-law Marian Robinson said

Don't look at this food (# 1)

Applebee's will not publish its nutritional information.

Now you know why.

Did you think that the Chicken Wings could possibly be 1,545 calories?

But that's not the worst. The Chicken Broccoli Pasta Alfredo Bowl (for god's sake, it's broccoli) is 1,644 calories with 84 grams of fat.

But wait, there's more. The Boneless Buffalo Wings with Blue Cheese Dressing tops out at 1,724 calories and a whopping 132 grams of fat.

You'd have to walk the dog for six hours to burn off those wings.

Applebee's, officially, has the worst food of the day.

Fast food salads to make you fat!

The Today show along with "Eat This, Not That" took a look at salads. You have to watch this video to see one salad which is the caloric equivalent of eating an entire pizza, and another salad that has the same calories as eight donuts.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Fast food near a school means fatter students

Sara Mead of The Internet Food Association reports that a McDonald's close to schools means fatter kids.

A new study by economists from Berkeley and Columbia University finds that 9th graders who attend schools within a tenth of a mile of a fast food restaurant are 5.2 percent more likely to be obese. Such students consume 30 to 100 more calories a day than their peers.

The good news: Having a fast food restaurant a quarter to a half mile away from the school doesn’t increase students’ risk of obesity, nor does having non-fast food restaurants in close proximity to a school. Proximity to fast food restaurants also seems to have greater impacts on youngsters’ consumption and risk of obesity than it does for adults. More...

Indiana trails in everything

Nobody has ever accused Indiana of being on the forefront of anything. That now includes children's health.

State Rep. Charlie Brown of the Indiana General Assembly tried to follow New York City's lead and have fast-food restaurant display calorie counts. But the lobbyists made sure the proposal would not get out of committee. And what's the rationale?

The yellow legislators said the federal government might pass a national law soon, and Indiana should wait rather than lead.

It seems the entire nation has past by Indiana...and Notre Dame football, and Indiana basketball.

From the Post-Tribune:

If a bill to force fast food restaurants to prominently display the nutritional value and calories of their menu items isn't dead this year in the General Assembly, it's definitely on life support.

No word on whether the proposal suffered a heart attack due to morbid obesity and calcification of the arteries.

State Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary had hoped showing Hoosiers some of the nasty stuff they eat would move them to eat less of it.

He predicted children and teens would lead the way, convincing their parents to stay away from the more nutritionally reprehensible products on the menu.

But opponents argued restaurant owners would face unreasonable costs to comply.

They also pointed out a federal statute governing fast food nutritional information could soon become standard across the country, and said Indiana should wait rather than putting its restauranteurs at a disadvantage.

The bill languished on the House agenda for weeks, as Brown tried to privately drum up support.

When he finally called it to the floor, Brown's proposal failed on a tie vote, 48-48.

He hopes to introduce the bill again, and find the votes necessary to get it passed.

Early death for obese teenagers

From WebMD.com it is reported obesity in teens is as unhealthy as smoking.

Teen Obesity as Deadly as Smoking
Study Shows Obese Teens Have Similar Risk for Early Death as Teen Smokers
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Feb. 25, 2009 -- Obese teens are just as likely to die before they reach old age as teens who are heavy smokers, while those who are overweight, but not obese, have the same risk for early death as lighter smokers, a new study shows.

Researchers followed 45,000 Swedish men from the time they were drafted into the military at the age of 18 until most were in their mid-50s.

They found that those who were obese in their late teens had nearly double the risk of dying during the almost four decades of follow-up, compared to those whose weight was normal at age 18.

This was a similar increase in risk as seen in men who smoked more than 10 cigarettes a day in their late teens.

Men who were overweight, but not obese, in their teens and did not smoke had a similar risk for early death as normal-weight teens who smoked one to 10 cigarettes a day.

The study appears in the latest issue of the journal BMJ Online.

"Most parents would warn their child about the dangers of even moderate smoking, but most probably wouldn't associate being overweight with the same level of risk," study researcher Martin Neovius, PhD, of Sweden's Karolinska Institute tells WebMD.

Why do our taxes pay for unhealthy fast food in schools?

One of the worst lunches our children eat is at school. The government through the National School Lunch Program promotes extremely poor food choices.

Our taxes pay for $9 billion worth of processed cheese, high-fat, meats, chicken nuggets and pizza, ready to be thawed and reheated. How good can these foods be? The value is 20 cents a meal.

This is shameful in America. This is wasteful in America. And this is terribly unhealthy in America.

You must read the Op-Ed section of the NY Times to understand this problem.

THIS new era of government bailouts and widespread concern over wasteful spending offers an opportunity to take a hard look at the National School Lunch Program. Launched in 1946 as a public safety net, it has turned out to be a poor investment.

When school districts allow fast-food snacks in the lunchroom they provoke widespread ire, and rightfully so. But food distributed by the National School Lunch Program contains some of the same ingredients found in fast food, and the resulting meals routinely fail to meet basic nutritional standards. Yet this is how the government continues to “help” feed millions of American schoolchildren, a great many of them from low-income households.

Many nutrition experts believe that it is possible to fix the National School Lunch Program by throwing a little more money at it. But without healthy food (and cooks and kitchens to prepare it), increased financing will only create a larger junk-food distribution system. We need to scrap the current system and start from scratch. More...

Everyone agrees this diet works

There is only one kind of diet that works, says the latest 2-year federal study.

And it's exactly what I have been telling you in this blog for more than 2 years.

Reduce the calories and you reduce your weight. It doesn't matter whether you listen to Atkins, Zone or Ornish. It doesn't matter if you visit Weight Watchers, Medifast or Jenny Craig. It doesn't matter if you eat only grapefruit, cabbage or red meat.

There's only one way: eat less calories than you burn. For most Americans you need to eat about 1,200-1,500 calories a day to lose weight.

Take it from me. I stopped eating 1,000 and 2,000 calorie meals, and in six months I lost more than 90 pounds. I did it through Nutrisystem, but any type of food would have worked in the right portions. And this is what this blog is all about. Let's get all of America eating the RightSized portions. Let's get all the restaurants to serve smaller portions at smaller prices. 

The study was published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine.

MSNBC.com reports: LOS ANGELES - Low-fat, low-carb or high-protein? The kind of diet doesn’t matter, scientists say. All that really counts is cutting calories and sticking with it, according to a federal study that followed people for two years.

However, participants had trouble staying with a single approach that long and the weight loss was modest for most.

As the world grapples with rising obesity, millions have turned to popular diets like Atkins, Zone and Ornish that tout the benefits of one nutrient over another.
Some previous studies have found that low carbohydrate diets like Atkins work better than a traditional low-fat diet. But the new research found that the key to losing weight boiled down to a basic rule — calories in, calories out.

“The hidden secret is it doesn’t matter if you focus on low-fat or low-carb,” said Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which funded the research.

Limiting the calories you consume and burning off more calories with exercise is key, she said.

The study, which appears in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine, was led by Harvard School of Public Health and Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana.

When is health.com not healthy

On the web there is a lot of good being done -- informing and motivating people towards the RightSizing of America. I have tried to highlight those websites and let you know where you can get good healthy information.

On the other hand, there are many, many websites that look like good information, but they are not. These sites have names that sound like they are healthy, but look again. Sometimes the articles just don't make sense. Last year I told you about HealthyDiningFinder.com. Sounds like a great idea. It's not. Burger King, Domino's, Hooters, and Chili's support it. Type in your city and all you get -- for healthy eating -- is the worst fast food restaurants in your area. You can guess who pays for the site. Not your locally produced, locally owned eatery.

Yesterday, I visited Health.com. Wow, you'd really expect good healthy ideas on this site. Wrong! I was curious about its article: "America's Top 10 Healthiest Fast Food Restaurants". Immediately I got sick to my stomach. This pretend health web site proceeded to tell me McDonald's and Chipotle are two of the MOST healthiest fast food restaurants in America.

(It shouldn't have surprised me to discover that Health.com's research is supported by Coke AND Pepsi.)

Luckily, I'm not the only person in America that can see fraud. Below are comments from Health.com's own website:

seth
healthy? really? It’s articles like this that perpetuate the myth that “eating fast food can be healthy.” And perpetuating such myths is one of the many reasons why our country’s citizens are generally obese or overweight.

CUFlatlander
A lot of these places have many food choices that end up in the ‘Not That’ category (of the ‘Eat This, Not Fat’ website).
When Chipotle and McDonalds (SNACK WRAPS HEALTHY?!?!) make this list… makes me think that there wa$ $ome in$entive to get the$e companie$ on thi$ li$t…..

Italians love Pizza Hut! Huh?

My wife and I laugh every time, I see the Pizza Hut commercial on its new lasagna. If you haven't seen it, the commercial shows Italians in Rome eating Pizza Hut's new menu-item, lasagna, and of course, lauding its praises. Hard to believe, because that lasagna bears no relationship to any kind of food I have ever seen or ate in Italy.

In fact, I have never seen a 3-pound entreé with 2.5 pounds of cheese ever in Rome. Meals are simple, cheese is sparse, and the tastes are layered with fresh ingredients. I don't need to tell you that this commercial has no basis with reality.

What is real is the number of calories and grams of sugar (yes, sugar) in Pizza Hut lasagna (which comes with bread sticks)? How about 710 calories in 12 oz. of lasagna and one breadstick, and don't forget the 13 grams of sugar (more sugar than two of Pizza Hut's desserts). And don't forget the 1 gram of trans fat thrown in for flavor.

I'm not sure I believe Pizza Hut's website on how many calories are in its lasagna. At other restaurants lasagna can really put you over the scale:

Pizza Hut -- 570 calories.
Olive Garden -- 858 calories.
Macaroni Grill -- 1048 calories.
Sbarro's -- 650 calories.
Old Spaghetti Factory -- 850 calories.

Here's a sweet tax

There's two things you can't avoid: death and taxes. But now a tax might delay the first.

In New York they are considering a tax on sugar drinks, the scourge of all healthy life. Gov. Paterson is thinking of lumping soda pop with tobacco and liquor, as something "sinful" and thus, needing for his citizens to limit their intake.

I applaud his actions, though, good luck against the Pepsi, Coke and corn lobbyists. Sugary drinks have ZERO nutritional value...at least a Big Mac provides a few nibbles of protein. And it's not like any of these drinks have real plantation-grown sugar. They are just made up of some chemical-lab-born corn syrup.

(A quick story: My aunt in the early 60s would always complain to me about how Coke in the 12-oz. cans tasted different than her supply of the 6.5 oz. real-glass bottles. I thought she was a little nuts, because I couldn't taste the difference, nor could there be a difference. It was all Coke, wasn't it? Later I found out that the little bottles of coke had real sugar, while the new-fangled cans had corn syrup. My aunt knew those laboratory boys were fooling around with her coke.)

If we want to win the war on childhood obesity, one way to start is to tax Mountain Dew, Coke and all the rest.

Here is why. Americans now consume 200 to 300 more calories each day than we did 30 years ago - and a great deal of these extra calories come from sugar-sweetened drinks. A fast-food burger, for all its shortcomings, does have some nutritional value. A 20-ounce soda provides none. And sugar-sweetened beverages now supply 10% to 15% of total daily calories, both in children and adults.

It gets worse. Rigorous scientific studies have shown that consumption of sugared beverages is associated with poor diet, increased rates of obesity and an increased risk of diabetes. In studies where the same people are followed over time, and other studies where people are assigned randomly to reduce sugared beverage consumption, diets improve and subjects lose weight.
Obesity rates in New York State are staggering - 58% of adults are overweight or obese, and the current prevalence of diabetes represents a 50% increase since 1993. When a harmful product is legal, cheap and readily available, a modest tax is the single best way to change behavior.

Yes, we've all heard the complaints from the soft drink industry. I've been an advocate for soda taxes for 15 years - and have heard the special interests cry foul at every turn. Soft drink companies bombarded Maine with money and consultants to successfully overturn a smaller tax there last year.

In fact, in jurisdictions around the country, this debate has unfolded with neatly scripted predictability. In scene one, the industry claims it's just standing up for hardworking taxpayers. To counteract the credible scientific evidence linking sugar sodas to obesity, the industry pays a stable of scientists to write papers saying the evidence is weak, just as the tobacco industry paid scientists who claimed for years that smoking does not cause lung cancer and nicotine is not addictive.

There's no Joy of Cooking at home

Most excess calories are consumed away from the home. That's why I created this blog. To alert Americans -- and especially parents -- of the dangers of eating away from your own kitchen table. That includes fast-food restaurants, office cafeterias, 5-star hotels and, even, hospitals. Every time you eat away from your house, you are in danger. In danger of "mindlessly" overeating because of the portions and cues you receive when dining.

Now I find out, that the portions are clearly creeping up even at home, and you don't even know it. Why? Because the bible of cookbooks, "The Joy of Cooking", has been pumping up the calories in its recipes. I don't know about you, but I frequently consult the "The Joy" when I am cooking. I use it exclusively for my Cincinnati (turkey) chili, and banana nut bread. But Brian Wansink has taken the time to review all the recipes from all the "The Joy of Cooking" books, and has discovered some startling information, but not surprising data.

Though restaurants often take the blame for portion distortion - the trend of serving up ever larger helpings - cookbook recipes have done some Supersizing of their own, a study published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine found.

"There's so much attention that's been given to away-from-home eating and so much attention that's been focused on restaurants and the packaged food industry, it makes me wonder whether it's actually deflecting attention from the one place where we can make the most immediate change," says Cornell University marketing professor Brian Wansink, who directed the study.

The study, which looked at how classic recipes have changed during the past 70 years, found a nearly 40 percent increase in calories per serving for nearly every recipe reviewed, about an extra 77 calories.

The study identified the trend in numerous cookbooks, but it focused on American kitchen icon "Joy of Cooking," first published during the '30s and regularly updated with new editions since then, most recently in 2006.

Of the 18 recipes published in all seven editions, 17 increased in calories per serving. That can be attributed partly to a jump in total calories per recipe (about 567 calories), but also to larger portion sizes.

Only the chili con carne recipe remained unchanged through the years. The chicken gumbo, however, went from making 14 servings at 228 calories each in the 1936 edition, to making 10 servings at 576 calories each in the 2006 version. Read more...

Restaurant critics are part of the problem

Today I read that one of the restaurant trends for 2009 will be smaller plates with a smaller price point.

That makes a lot of sense in this economy depression, and it makes a lot of sense for your waistline. This is a fantastic trend for our health, as are some of the other trends. See all of Joseph Baum & Michael Whiteman Co.'s predictions. 

However, most restaurant critics don't get it. They continue to revel in the larger portions, telling you to take home part of your food for later on. Now I know most of us have taken home a doggie-bag. But I also know that most of us have thrown out leftovers which have spoiled after forgetting about them for two weeks. 

Larger portions in the long run are not healthy and contribute to wasting food. (And -- I don't know about you, but -- leftovers are never as good as the food at the restaurant.) Most of the times you ruin the food with the microwave, toughen the meat, destroy the pasta, kill the vegetables, and mostly make the food mush.

RightSizing portions also means RightSizing the price for those smaller portions. And restaurant critics need to look at portions from the RightPerspective, and not fall into the 1950s cliche that bigger is better.

Queen business: Let them eat peanut butter!

Many, many times on this blog, critics have suggested Americans don't need big government to protect them from obesity. The argument is we don't need government to tell business what to do. Let the consumer decide. Let the individual decide. Let the company decide.

So these so-called individual rights advocates want government out of our lives when it comes to gun control, and when it comes to tobacco use and when it comes to unhealthy fast foods.

However, if the Wall Street (and Main Street) crisises have taught us anything: it's business only care about making money and mostly making money and bonuses for themselves. To the point that businesses will kill people to make money.  Witness the salmonella outbreak in peanut butter.

The company tried to keep the salmonella outbreak secret. But they are not the only company keeping salmonella poisoning secret. ConAgra Foods -- maker of Peter Pan peanut butter -- hid salmonella in its products from the public for THREE years.

All you "individual rights" advocates, all you caveat emptor people, all you fat-cat executives: Are you ready for your PB&J sandwich from Peanut Corporation of America?

If you want to get sick (or not get sick), read today's article in the NY Times:

Problems emerged in southwest Georgia’s peanut country in 2004, when a whistleblower reported that the food-product giant ConAgra Foods had found salmonella in peanut butter at its plant in Sylvester, Ga., 75 miles from Blakely. But when plant officials declined to release their laboratory tests, the Food and Drug Administration did not pursue the records and was unable to confirm the report of salmonella.

The government finally demanded the records three years later, and verified the whistleblower’s claims, after hundreds of people were sickened by salmonella-tainted peanut butter produced at the plant in 2007. Even then, ConAgra insisted that the government not make those records public, according to documents obtained last week by The New York Times. Calling its testing proprietary, ConAgra told the food agency in a Feb. 27, 2007, letter: “Once F.D.A. has completed its review of the documents, please return them to ConAgra Foods or shred.”

Papa John's founder warns against eating too much pizza

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that eating too much pizza is not good for you. Now the founder of Papa John's is taking the courageous step of pointing out the obvious: "Eat pizza, not too much".

It seems even pizza millionaires are starting to worry about 30, 40 and 50 percent obesity rates in the U.S. and even in the U.K.

Let's thank Papa, and all the Mamas telling their children to eat the RightSize.

CNN.com reports:

The founder of one of America's latest pizza chains has offered unexpected advice to his customers to limit themselves to only one or two slices.

During an interview on BBC's Radio Four program in the United Kingdom, John Schnatter, said, "you can't eat five or six slices."

He was responding to a question from presenter Adam Shaw about whether he was concerned about the impact of the British government's anti-obesity drive on pizza sales.

"No. Pizza's actually healthy for you if you don't eat too much of it," Schnatter replied, adding, "You can't eat five or six slices but if you eat one or two slices it's very nutritious."

Biggest losers must stop going to fast foods

The "Biggest Loser" reality show on NBC never shows the contestants heading off to McDonald's or Wendy's. And of course they never mention the cravings the people must get for food. In fact, the show barely mentions food at all. It's all about 10 hours a day of exercise.

But the NY Times reveals the contestants must make huge changes to their diets -- along with the unrealistic amount of exercise -- in order to lose weight. That's the real story the producers and trainers don't tell you. And that's the story all Americans can participate in. Very few of us can exercise with a dedicated trainer for 10 hours a day for eight weeks. But all of us can stop eating fast foods.

Some experts say it's nearly impossible to become morbidly obese eating home cooked food. But it's fairly easy to become obese stopping at Burger King several times a week, and even easier if you stop for breakfast and lunch.

Even if home cooking is of the fried-chicken-and-mashed-potatoes variety, it rarely produces extreme obesity, said Barry Popkin, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Almost any kind of cooking you can produce in a kitchen is healthier than fast food.” The decline of home cooking worldwide, he said, is an underlying cause of obesity.

“People are eating more, and more often,” Dr. Popkin said. “And the foods that they are consuming almost always replace meals cooked in a kitchen and eaten at a table.” It is difficult to quantify a decline in cooking skills, but many studies show that time in the kitchen has declined steeply since 1965, when American women spent a weekly average of 13 hours cooking. Last month the government of Britain, where obesity is spreading rapidly, passed a law requiring all secondary-school students to attend cooking classes.

“Twenty minutes in the kitchen will save you three hours on the StairMaster” said Devin Alexander, a chef in Los Angeles who developed the recipes for the cookbooks. “You can’t trust restaurant food to be low fat.”

There you have it. If you don't want to be the biggest loser, lose the fast food.