Digesting 'Food Inc.'

Hopefully, you got a chance to catch Food Inc. on PBS last night. If you missed it, watch it on DVD. It will make you view the supermarket in a whole new, somewhat disturbing light. No longer will it appear to be a cornucopia of wholesome plants and meats. In reality, as the narrator states at the beginning, "it isn't a tomato, it is the notion of a tomato."

Food is manufacured like a pair of Nikes. Using the cheapest raw materials, lowest labor expenses, and fancy packaging, all to generate increasing revenues for a few corporate giants. And, it is the bottom line that drives these companies.







Conglomerates like Monsanto, Tyson, and Pepsi continue to increase their respectable market shares. Not with the noble goal of nourishing the growing American population, but producing more addicting, empty-Calories. What does Pepsi make that provides nutrition? They are now marketing the fact that they are cutting Calories in the beverages they are selling in schools by replacing sugar with artificial sweeteners (but still have all the other chemicals you have always enjoyed). Basically, lip service in response to Michelle Obama's campaign against childhood obesity, IMHO.







The most important point Food Inc. elucidated was the 'hidden costs' of foods we buy and eat. Healthcare reform starts with your own lifestyle and choices. The Dollar Menu may appear on the surface to be a great value, but what are the health, social, and environmental costs associated with eating these foods? Economically, one dollar for a meal is a value. However, the cheap, unhealthy meals contribute to the cost of managing chronic diseases (like $150/month for Type 2 diabetes medicine), health insurance premiums, oil consumption (the average meal was said to have traveled 1500 miles), and supports the disrespectful treatment of workers, challenges small farmers, and encourages the unsanitary and inhumane treatment of animals.






The average American's disconnect with the food production process is another big issue. Quick, easy food is a staple in our culture. Heck, few people even cook anymore. Fast food outlets and large food processors like the idea that you don't know where your food came from or how it was produced. They don't want you to know that 90% of the soy beans produced are genetically modified. They spend millions of dollars lobbying against laws requiring labelling or that give the USDA power to shut down facilities that are repeatedly the source of E. Coli and Salmonella outbreaks. They want to 'keep the veil lowered'.






In spite of the depressing state of modern food production, the power still lies with the average American. You could vote against your representative that turns a blind eye to the greed of food conglomerates. Though, there is a more powerful way; vote with your dollars. It works. Why does Wal-Mart now sell organic produce and dairy? Because that is what their customers want. Take your money away from the General Mills, Coca-Colas, and McDonalds. Spend your dollars at the farmer's market. Plant a garden. Buy foods that label where it comes from and how it's made. Cook and eat a meal with your family. Talk to your friends and family about the importance of local food. Trade your Costco membership for a co-op membership. Explain to your kids why you are not eating certain foods.

The food you buy and eat goes beyond your own health, now. It affects the health of our families, our communities, and our planet. We have neglected one of the most vital aspects of our existance and food corporations have taken advantage of that. Time to reverse that trend, one meal at a time.

New Exercise Guidelines for Women: The Medical Community Still Doesnt Get It

A recent study on weight loss and exercise in women published in JAMA has all of the media outlets buzzing again about exercise and weight loss. It reminds me of the Time article last year. They are both approaching it the wrong way! The authors and researchers just don't get it. Low-intensity exercise doesn't result in a net fat loss. So, doing more of it is futile! Yet, the medical community and government recommend doing more. It is all based on a flawed hypothesis, bad research, ignorant interpretation of this research and thought-less regurgitation by the media. If you want to lose fat and keep it off, go to the people that get results. I have consistently produced outstanding results in a fraction of the time! It is not a scam or starvation. It is a better understanding of the physiology of fat loss! More on that later.












First of all, this study involved no dietary intervention at all. The researchers wanted to see how many minutes of low-moderate intensity exercise middle-age women needed to perform to prevent weight gain without dietary manipulation. Yeah, if you haven't realized it, diet is extremely important for fat loss. The average American female (and male) eats tons of processed, sugar-laden garbage. More than ever, people eat for reasons beyond for just physiological needs. They eat because they are bored, or they are sad, or they are happy, or they are alone, or they are out with friends. It doesn't matter. They have some psychological reason to eat. However, as the saying goes "you can't out-run a donut!"












Not all exercise is created equal. This drives me crazy! The medical community calls all physical activity, exercise. Going for a walk and performing a timed-set of jump pull-ups are as different as night and day (ask my clients). Yet, they are all grouped as exercise. Big mistake. In terms of metabolic demands and fat burned, there is an exponential difference. There is also a dramatic time difference. Two minutes of timed jump pull-ups are equivalent, in my book, to walking 30 minutes.












It is not about Calories In-Calories Out. This is a simplistic application of thermodynamics that gets thrown around (out of context- the human body is not a closed system) but the evidence shows it is flawed. It is more about the control of energy storage and utilization. Which is influenced more so by hormones (that are affected by the type and intensity of exercise) and genes (which are turned on and off by the type and intensity of exercise, epigenetics). Low-intensity exercise has little influence on these factors. In fact, the body may get even more energy-efficient with regular, low-intensity exercise.












Why aren't women encouraged to do heavy resistance training? This is one of the best ways to burn fat, but is never recommended. Get over the myth of bulking up! That is utter nonsense! You will bulk-up by drinking orange juice and eating fat-free muffins, not strength training. The so-called 'experts' never even mention it. They should say "heavy resistance training is one of the best things you can do for your health, strength, and body composition. If you don't know how to do it properly, seek out an experienced trainer to help you lift safely and effectively."












This research is poorly designed and the data is misinterpretted. This study, like many are simple observational studies. They can show correlation, but shouldn't be extrapulated to show causation. This is how many of the fitness myths start. I don't have access to the full article, but the authors conclude in the abstract:

"Among women consuming a usual diet, physical activity was associated with less weight gain only among women whose BMI was lower than 25. Women successful in maintaining normal weight and gaining fewer than 2.3 kg over 13 years averaged approximately 60 minutes a day of moderate-intensity activity throughout the study."

So, there is a correlation between women with a BMI under 25 and not gaining weight. This seems unfair. The skinny stay skinny, but the fat get fatter! Also, the women who stayed under a BMI of 25 averaged 60 minutes of exercise a day. Quickly, experts are now recommending an hour of exercise a day for females. That is, of course, if your BMI is below 25. If it is higher, just give up! Ugh, correlation does not imply causation. Haven't we learned our lesson?

For all of you females who hear these experts spouting their recommendations and feel like it is a lost cause, I have good news. You don't need to workout seven hours per week. I have helped numerous females significantly improve their body composition with less than two hours of exercise per week (but high-intensity). As I posted before in my post on The Fat-Loss Time Management Hierarchy, some things give you more bang for your buck. Low to moderate-intensity 'cardio' doesn't give you much bang for your buck. In fact, some clients don't do any low-intensity 'cardio', but have seen good results. Sleep, diet, and high-intensity strength training are the keys to transforming your body in an efficient manner. Get off the elliptical trainer and spend your time moving some iron. Read back through my blog on nutrition, it is vital for fat loss. Finally, quit listening to the media for your health and fitness advice. Get your information from someone working "in the trenches" of fat-loss training, who has consistently produced outstanding results.