Showing posts with label weight loss. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weight loss. Show all posts

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Obesity Code - is it really new?



"The Obesity Code", a new book out, while saying it's the final solution to weight problems, is nothing new. And, people, tired of dieting, are buying it rapidly off the shelves, over the internet, or whatever.  I read a few reviews of it while deciding if I needed to add it to my always growing library on Weight Loss.

From what I can see, the meat of "The Obesity Code", pun intended, is intermittent fasting. You can fast...water only, or liquids or a bunch of ways. While I don't know what type of fasting is suggested in the book, it all amounts to basically no food... one day a week or one day a month or ?? 

That's supposed to keep off the weight forever. It's not new because I tried it in the 1970's. I lost about 25 lbs but eventually, I got horrendous cravings, couldn't stomach the fasting part anymore and regained the 30 lbs I'd lost and another 70, probably a result of a lowered metabolism and being really, over, fasting! :)

The only thing that really works to lose the weight and keep it off, is calorie restriction and portion control - for life. Staying away from calorie dense stuff like fast foods is a good idea or use the Gwen Schamblin method for fun foods, (from the book, WEIGH DOWN). That is, take one bite of a fun food, and chew it slowly, savoring it. Because as she rightly, points out, the first bite tastes the best and if we slow down enough to experience this, we can find out that this is very true.  Gwen has kept several pounds off for many years and she enjoys her fun foods also.

We all have to experiment with things and see what works the best for us. 

After trying just about everything else, I realized that calorie restriction and portion control is the only way that worked for me, to lose and keep off weight.  

 In 2008-2010 I lost 112 lbs, and have kept off 107 lbs ever since. I count my calories every day on My Fitness Pal, a great website which offers a free  calorie counter and found that a small bite of treats or even programming small amounts into my day, keeps away the cravings monster.

Eating big portions of veggies with no butter etc, fills you up and no one ever got a weight problem from too many veggies!

Every "diet book" claims it's new and revolutionary because the diet-fatigued, overweight public craves an answer that is easier than daily calorie counting or restricting food amounts in some other way... but in reality, "there is nothing new under the sun".

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Eating Coleus for weight loss? Not a good idea! :)



Coleus is a lovely plant. I used to have Coleus plants years ago.  But there is one thing to remember about Coleus. It's highly poisonous.  Best to keep it away from kids (I had a toddler in those days) and pets, and handle it carefully.  It also likes showers about once a week.

Imagine my surprise this AM when I was flooded with ads for coleus extract claiming it causes weight loss. I've heard of a lot of crazy schemes to lose weight but this one seems one of the more insane variety! I found out about this product because they put a bunch of ad links in the comments of one of my blogs (and since I have moderated comments - these never saw the light of day!).  But curious because I was familiar with this plant and it's poisonous aspects, I visited their website.

Not sure what this group is about but you might receive mail from them (or comments on your blogs). If you have a blog, I highly suggest moderating comments - that way, comments which are inappropriate never see the light of day.

I suppose if you eat poison (like Coleus), you might lose weight but ... isn't that getting a bit uh...over the top?  My suggestion is that you enjoy the beauty of the Coleus plant but keep it out of reach of animals and kids and please - don't eat it or "coleus extract". Losing weight eating something poisonous, just isn't worth the trouble.  Just saying! :)

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Losing and regaining weight



So there is this lady I know on the internet. She lost over 200 lbs and attributed it to Weight Watchers and dancing.  I followed her as she posted a video of her getting her lifetime membership award at Weight Watchers and as she started to lead a dance class at a local gym.  She was a real inspiration in my own weight loss journey. And she was even featured in a TV story.

That was in 2009 and I saw a recent video of her - she's still dancing and is fit, but she seems to have regained at least 100 lbs or more.  I starred at her, astonished,  because somehow, I guess I thought she would never again, regain.  I do admire her for still getting out there and teaching dancing though.

In truth, damaged metabolisms can happen for all reasons, including too much dieting. Experts have said that, with every diet, our metabolism shrinks down a few hundred calories a day. And those like me, who had tonsillectomies in the 1950's and 1960's often, got damage to the pituitary gland which tends to greatly lower the metabolism. Bottom line, many of us do not have to really overeat, to gain back the weight.  In fact, if we eat the "normal American diet", even on a moderate basis, we can easily regain the weight and then some, as I found out in my numerous attempts to diet.

This time, I have kept off the 106 lbs for over 6 years. How?  I count every calorie that goes into my mouth.  (we joke that "if it goes internal, it goes in the journal").

What is sad, is that no medical provider has ever told me that I might have to count calories for the rest of my life if I wanted to keep off the weight.  Neither did they tell me that some folks become overweight just by eating normally.  (Society's image is, that if a person is fat, it means they do nothing but sit on the couch eating bon-bons and medical providers, many of them, seem to agree with this image).

Is it worth it to me, to count my calories to keep off the weight?  Yes it is to me,  because I am healthier at a BMI of 27 than I was at a BMI of over 40 and I fit in auditorium chairs and other places better and I don't have to have a wardrobe in 3 sizes and I do not get any negative feedback from medical providers... but it's a matter of preference and lifestyle and anyway, I think we should all accept each other for the beautiful humans we are and not quibble about weight or other superficial things.

That being said, I think that medical providers should give better advice on how to lose weight and keep it off (I suspect it usually requires counting calories, measuring and journaling food intake for those of us with pituitary damage or "those genetics") instead of blaming us for being overweight.  Experts say that our size is 60% genetic and there may be some 40 genes involved  (Dr Rudy Leibel, obesity expert for example).  Bottom line - who we are should not be determined by our size!

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Diet Pills?

pillz, pillz, pillz don't work for losing weight!

A blog reader (who probably didn't bother reading either my blog or the blog she was advertising) left a message in the comments here, advertising a new weight loss pill.  When I looked at the ingredients of this medication, it was old home week - a couple of nutrients (which don't promote weight loss) and other chemicals I had encountered previously, many times, Ad nauseam...which have been well proven as ineffective for long term weight loss and some of which pose a risk to the heart etc.

Listed first was a form of Phentermine.  Perhaps older readers may remember this drug,  as a part of a weight loss combination, "PhenFen" which was taken off the market because it was not only, ineffective on the long term but more importantly, risked the health of those who took the medication. Phentermine speeds up the heart because years ago, it was thought that would cause weight loss but actually, it more endangers the heart than what it's supposed to do.  And as the wife of a spouse experiencing heart problems (he recently got heart bypass surgery), I would definitely state you don't want to mess up your heart for anything and especially, an ineffective weight loss drug.

Calcium and L-Carnitine are nutrients, Caffeine is totally ineffective as a weight loss drug (or else all the coffee drinkers would be slim!) and again, it's hard on the heart, and finally Chromium Picolinate, a substance that was thought to be effective for weight loss in the 1990's (I had a friend who desperately did not want to do Weight Watchers so she tried every new diet pill) but I have never seen it work as a good weight loss drug and several studies greatly questioned its effectiveness.

The blog this individual linked, supposedly an informational about this drug, was full of misinformation and included a photo of one of the Biggest Loser TV show winners (who, of course, did NOT use weight loss pills to lose her weight).  Although there was a passing mention that pregnant ladies and anyone on medication should consult a medical provider before taking this medication, the blog claimed the drug is "totally safe" etc etc. And by the way, this medication is not inexpensive - for a bottle of 30 pills, they want $69 bucks.

Bottom line - if you see an ad for a weight loss drug, run the other way.  It's likely healthier to remain "of size" than take drugs to lose weight - drugs don't work on the long run and as you can see above, many ingredients are likely to be, risky to your health.

Like the singer stated "There is no easy road to a place worth going."  And the time folks spend on ineffective (and risky) practices for weight loss, would be much better used on programs like Weight Watchers (i.e. sensible programs), or just getting healthy by making healthy food choices and starting a regular cardio exercise program.

Saturday, November 07, 2015

Weight loss balloon - a good or very bad idea?



The news today, announced a "new" device, for losing weight. Basically, the patient swallows a pill which is attached to a long tiny tube catheter device.  When it gets down to the stomach, the medical provider pumps distilled buffered water into the pill through the catheter, which causes it to swell, not leaving much room in the stomach for food.  This is supposed to make the patient feel full and want to eat less.  The water in the device supposedly, leaks out in about 4 months ("if all goes well") and then the deflated pill passes hopefully, through the digestive tract and out through the bowel. As the article stated:

"If all goes as planned, the resulting grapefruit-sized (19-ounce) ball of water fills the stomach and significantly curbs the amount of food someone can eat before feeling satiated."
     This was tested on 30 some patients, who lost an average of 22 lbs.  And has not been approved by the FDA as yet.
     They are advertising it as "non invasive" and non surgical.
     But (and there always is a "but" right?), from where I sit, I can see lots of problems with it - like for example, a non food item like that could cause an gastric obstruction or other problems,  and... what if it doesn't deflate, what if it doesn't "pass out" through bowel, like it's supposed to etc etc.
     And the idea that a full stomach makes us feel like eating less is thought to be somewhat erroneous as we now are pretty certain, the appetite originates in the brain and NOT the stomach.  And that means, even if you have this device in your stomach, you still can be very hungry (and very frustrated if you cannot eat much or the food you ate isn't going down right... another 'elephant in the room' not discussed in the promo).
     One of the patients on my discussion group, had a type of balloon device and he suffered so much with it that he considered the invasive gastric bypass as far more comfortable.
     This device costs anywhere from $6000 to $10,000 bucks and insurance will not cover it.
     As the old saying goes "buyer beware" (and DH added "If it doesn't work, you can't just bring it back to the store!")

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Magic Quick Weight loss? Really?



(Written with tongue firmly held in cheek!

Every so often when I write a blog about weight loss surgery or other types of weight loss, I get comments from folks advertising quick weight loss.  The latest comments I've received came from a couple of people who claim that some individual helped them quickly lose weight! (I looked him up on the web and he, calling himself a doctor (?) goes by a couple of different names apparently), - are you ready for he helped them?  He cast a spell on the individuals and caused a weight loss.  The individuals don't claim large losses, 15 lbs or so but still.

Spells?  Like waving a magic wand or ?  In the 21st century?  Really?  I'm not kidding - these people gave me links to this guy's email (he doesn't have a website) and seemed totally serious.

One individual commented on one of my blogs, the following: 

"All thanks to Dr ---- who helped me loose weight when all effots proved abortive. Am on this blog to help those in need of weight loss get the help you need. Worry no more just contact this great man via (email address on yahoo!) and he will help you with a spell, in less than 1 week after i contacted him i lost 15 pounds and ever since i have been having normal meals no more diets and my shape is perfect. What more can i say than a big thank you "

I left the misspellings in there (emphasis on "spell" is mine). Perhaps English is not this person's first language but I think they could have paid more attention to the built-in spell checker (that's the red line under a word). :)

I frankly didn't believe folks in the 21st century believed in "spells" anymore but I guess I stand corrected.  Someone should tell these folks that the reason they lost weight was all their work and not some web foot muttering some words over them.  Take the credit for your weight loss - it's yours to take.

PS: I'm sure these individuals did not say their "magic" words without a fee.  Makes me think I'm in the wrong business! :)

Thursday, March 03, 2011

And another revolutionary new surgery for obesity... or is it?


ABC News broke the story with the headline, "Stomach Pacemaker could help obese lose weight!".

A new device, they continued, recommended for clinically obese people (BMI 35-55) fools you into thinking you are full ... yada yada, yada.

Their poster kid, a young man who lost 20 lbs with the device had "just tried everything" to lose weight and nothing worked until this doctor came along (was the doctor riding a white horse?) with the stomach pacer. The young man lost 22 lbs with it. (OK, all together now... "W-O-W") He's a mail carrier in Germany and 20 years old (one wonders if he had to lose weight at all except to perhaps get a set of washboard abs and "P90X" might have done that more effectively and without surgery).

The British Health Service has approved this device and it's being sold across the European Union although the news articles admitted that none had been placed commercially yet.

The problem here, is the idea of a gastric pacer is neither new nor effective for the population for whom they are suggesting it and the fact that an already physically fit 20 year old lost 22 lbs after it was implanted, might be less than impressive to both patients and/or the American surgeons who were excited about the Transneuronix version in the early 2000's and who personally saw the abysmal failure of the device to be either effective OR safe in the American trials.

There is a new wrinkle to this pacer and that is that it's invasive, much more so than the lap band. How? Because it has two leads, one of which lies on the stomach like the older pacer and another of which is inserted though a hole made in the soft stomach tissue into the stomach (it's supposed to detect when food comes into the stomach and then, it sends a message to the other lead which starts the vibration). This brings in the possibility of leaks and sepsis later on. One does not have to leak much stomach contents into the abdominal cavity to cause serious problems! In contrast, the lap band does not require a hole into the interior of the stomach.

Obviously, some well meaning surgeons are unaware of the hefty lawsuit suffered by Transneuronix after one individual had a nightmarish experience with the older (less invasive) pacer. The surgeons who did not hear about the people involved in the American trials, for whom the pacer was uncomfortable (it vibrated throughout their arms) and ineffective (they lost 5-20 lbs with it), some of whom experienced complications like the pacer traveling to other places in the body and all of whom were revised to gastric bypass or lap band. When the pacer failed totally, it was not headline news as were the announcements of it or the adverts for folks for the trials. In fact, the trials failing didn't hit the news at all. The only reason I know about it, is I was following several of the trials and in touch with some of the participants and I know the person who ended up suing.

If you were unimpressed by the poster kid featured in the news, there is another poster kid on the Abiliti website, another young man - a fire fighter. He lost an "impressive" 15 lbs with the device and from his photo where he looks very slim, he also, may not have been fat to begin with and yet, they are recommending this for clinically obese folks?

Sadly, there have been 65 patients who have had these implanted in 2 trials in the United States, however interestingly enough, in searching the web today, I could find no articles or announcement of the trials nor mention of the surgeons involved. As an MSNBC article stated:

So far, about 65 patients in two studies have received the device from U.S. pacemaker manufacturer Intrapace. Only about half of those have had the pacemaker for at least a year, and most lost about 20 percent of their weight and kept it off.


I really hate to see a repeat of history or worse. For it is said that "who does not study history is doomed to repeat it" but then when our news services do not totally report the story, it makes it hard to study history.

"Conspiracy? No conspiracy - only businessmen doing what businessmen do best, selling product" (Bernie Goldberg,a former network anchor in his book "BIAS") Only this isn't a car or a piece of clothing - this has the potential to hurt humans.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Biggest Loser "Where are they now" show was blew some smoke screens



Lately the reality show, "The Biggest Loser" in which they sequester several clinically obese people, put them through grueling workouts of 5 hours or more a day and greatly curtail their food intake to effect quick weight loss, has come under no small amount of criticism.

It has caused a hue and cry among personal trainers and especially exercise physiologists who feel that the training given on the show is not only somewhat sadistic but sheds a negative light on personal trainers in general who try to teach people a healthy lifestyle.

Possibly what is most upsetting to the producers of the show (which apparently has versions in several other countries besides the USA) is the fact that the ratings of the show now in its 10th season, have fallen drastically, which can be a death knell for any TV show.

So tonight, NBC aired a show which promised to catch us up with what former contestants on the "Biggest Loser" are doing now and did they regain the weight, but actually seemed more of a "damage control" effort to try and convince the viewing public that what is done on the "Biggest Loser" is really a good thing and has changed lives.

Injury on the show has apparently (and rightly so) upset the public so the show dealt with that issue. The 9th season featured as the first challenge, a 1 mile run for clinically obese folks who had not exercised in quite a while and ended up with one of them, Tracy Yukich collapsing and being air lifted to the hospital where she remained for a week or more.

Dr H went to her home to visit and they relived the incident where she collapsed. Tracey's eyes filled up with tears when she watched the video and she commented that she thinks about this every day. She also said, "here I was 37 years old and almost - well gone."

Tracy is slim now and writes cheerfully on her facebook fan page that:

The Biggest Loser has changed my life. I never dreamed I would be at my college weight again. I am so grateful for all that have touched my life and helped me through this journey.


Tracy's website claims that she collapsed from heat stroke but that she was in the hospital for two weeks after, seems there might have been more wrong. Tracy uses her Biggest Loser fame and that she's kept the weight off, to do motivational speaking now.

On the catch-up show we watched on Wednesday night, they didn't say what happened to Tracey. The only explanation given by Dr H was that she was so fat, she had fat everywhere. Tracy weighed 250 lbs at 5'2" which while clinically obese, wasn't exactly the largest contestant either.

In researching this, I found out that likely what she had was "Rhabdomyolysis", a condition of muscle injury where the muscles break down releasing a chemical which injures the kidneys and can cause kidney failure.

The outcome of this illness (which also can happen with statin drugs by the way) is unclear according to the NIH:

The outcome varies depending on the extent of kidney damage. Acute kidney failure occurs in many patients. Treatment soon after rhabdomyolysis begins will reduce the risk of chronic kidney damage.
People with milder cases may return to normal activity within a few weeks to a month or more. However, some continue to have problems with fatigue and muscle pain.


According to another article, Tracey was restricted while on the ranch for any workouts, even in the pool so while she may be training for a marathon now, she may still have residual damage to her kidneys.

Quite a bit more than the "heatstroke" claimed.

Another contestant in that same season, Abby, got an early injury to her tibia and was also restricted from the grueling workouts and challenges.

Injury in the contestants was not really discussed in Wednesday's show though, which was filled with praise and emotionally filled statements of how the "Biggest Loser" was changing lives. Dr H. actually claimed that this reality show had found "the answer" to obesity and should get the Nobel Peace Prize. (Yes he said this with a straight face!).

Another problem which has cropped up is Ryan Benson. He was the season one winner who told all on his Myspace - about how he dehydrated himself for the final weigh-in using techniques he'd learned in wrestling and how he re-gained 30 lbs (just water weight) in the week after the finale.

The show ended with featuring the 9 winners of the "Biggest Loser" in a healthy Thanksgiving dinner (which although everyone oohed and aahed about how great the food was, it didn't look real appealing to me). Ryan Benson was at the dinner and said how he re-gained all the weight because he'd gone back to his old habits and how he was so inspired at seeing the other winners, some of whom looked a lot heavier than when they won the show. Erik Chopin claimed to have lost the 122 lbs he regained and although he looked a bit slimmer than he did when he appeared on the Season 9 finale, he didn't look anything close to how he looked when he won the show.

The show was supposed to convince us that those who had been contestants on the "Biggest Loser" had had their lives changed, had gone on to make careers of motivational speaking etc and how they were living the dream. But it was unconvincing. Some of the contestants in telling about their lives and their experience on the "Biggest Loser", wept while they were talking, suggesting they may still be emotionally damaged from the experience.

Out of some 200 people who had been contestants for the show, only 35 were "caught up with" and most of them were from seasons 8 and 9. But 35 had not kept off all the weight. As we know, Ryan Benson was back to his original weight and Erik Chopin was somewhat up in weight. A couple more had obvious regains. So that leaves only a few like Tracey, Alli, Tara, Mike who had kept it all off. About 7 percent or less of those who had been contestants on the show.... Hardly as Dr H claimed, a "cure" for obesity.

Will it work to save the show's dropping ratings? Only time will tell. That several have spoken out against the training and other issues (like Kai who was not mentioned at all) is hard to blow a smoke screen over. Emotionally and physically injuring obese people is not really acceptable in any circles, not even the most fat phobic ones.

Thursday, July 15, 2010

New diet pills - easy weight loss or just a health risk




There are three new diet pills which are being boasted about in the news as safe and effective.

In a nutshell, no they are neither safe nor particularly effective but the media is sure are doing the hard sell on them. Will people remember the phen-fen fiasco which has caused a relatively rare deadly disorder, pulmonary hypertension to be something we hear about all too often? Will they remember that even a medication like Xenical (Alli') can cause malabsorption of fat soluble vitamins and fecal incontinence? (without much weight loss).

Or will they line up to get these new medications which are really more older ones, just recycled?

Take a look: Pillz Pillz Pillz - Easy weight loss or just another health risk

Friday, January 15, 2010

I'm over the "Biggest Loser" Show


Jillian described this last week's episode as her very favorite (2nd week in Season 9) and asked people to give her feedback on her Facebook page. All the feedback I read was positive.

My reaction was totally different. The show went over the top in my book.

First part of it, was psychologically abusing the contestants one by one. Dr Huizenga was in charge of that. Although none of them have any real co-morbidities, that didn't stop him from giving them dire predictions of where they will be in the next few years, i.e. diabetic, aging prematurely or dead. He mixed this message with strong suggestions that they were hurting their loved ones by being overweight.

And Dr Huizenga managed to get all the falsehoods about obesity in this part. "That was so enlightening" said some folks who gave Jillian the feedback on her Facebook fanpage.

Each participant, male and female alike was ripped apart psychologically and ended up crying. It was not pretty. I finally fast forwarded through the rest of it after being thoroughly nauseated. Abuse of any one and especially psychological abuse leaves lasting scars. And why was it necessary? These people have all shown good faith by coming to the ranch in the first place.

Next was the challenge - usually that's kind of fun but for this one, their first challenge in their second week (so they are not fit yet and still probably the heaviest group they're ever had on the BL) was a bit ugly. They were asked to walk on a 3 inch balance beam across the swimming pool to deposit beachballs in a basket on the other side. The winners got immunity from the weigh-in. The losers got a 2 lb penalty at the weigh-in.

Keep in mind that the balance beam the 89 lb gymnasts walk on is four inches wide.

To their credit, most of them struggled through this challenge but one older lady who is petrified of the water tried and tried and just couldn't do it. She finally fell on her face on the concrete around the pool and got an ambulance ride. She was ok but had a bruised face and a black eye.

Jillian took this lady later and helped her to learn to float. I suppose that's supposed to make it OK that she was forced to do the challenge which petrified her and ended up getting her hurt. Surely she won't be the first injury. Injury is common among the contestants on the Biggest Loser who immediately start running and other things they should NOT be doing at their size.

Finally was the "last chance workout" (the last workout before the weigh-in). Jillian and Bob delighted in "beating up" the contestants, screaming at them to go faster, harder. Two of them told them TV cameras that they hurt all over from last week and now they had to workout harder and it was sheer pain. The pain showed on the faces of most of the contestants. Some were crying and screaming back at Jillian and Bob. It was here that I had enough of their pain and fast forwarded to the weigh-in (which always takes long because there are several commercials - someone told me that there is only about 45 minutes of viewing time in a 2 hour show like the Biggest Loser).

Of the team which fell "below the yellow line" (didn't lose "enough weight"), was a mother and her daughter. The mother asked to go home.

I notice something interesting in those eliminated. They shed a few tears at the moment of elimination when the blond lady host announces "Sorry to say you are NOT the Biggest Loser and must leave campus immediately" But 24 hours later when they are arriving home, there is invariably a look of enjoyment - and yes, relief on their faces.

It's kind of like hitting your head against the wall. Feels so good when it stops.

I did not yet set up the Biggest Loser for recording next week. I think I've had my fill. After watching several seasons, each successive one which has featured heavier, less fit, older contestants, and watching those folks on the ranch slowly get battered, physically, emotionally and psychologically, I've had enough of that show.

And a sad thought comes to mind. If these were not fat people, what is done on the ranch would be illegal. For example, in the 1960's when similar things though not near as abusive, were done in the "EST" seminars on a weekend to managers, the "EST" group got in serious trouble.

No one seems to care about the fat people on the Biggest Loser though. And that is the real tragedy.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Review- Stress Eater Diet book


I have been asked to take part in a "blog tour" reviewing the book, the Stress Eater Diet by Robert Posner, MD and Linda Hlivka, MBA, C.N. Since I tend to be a stress puppy myself, I was intrigued when approached to review this book.

Robert Posner, co author of the book, is an internist who has apparently run a Weight Loss Clinic in the Washington D.C. area for the last 20 years. Having a theory that weight gain in some people could be caused by an imbalance of serotonin in the brain, he and Linda Hlivka, a nutritionist-chemist, developed a Supplement called Serotonin-Plus. This supplement's ingredients read like a multivitamin but it does have "green tea extract" in it which has been touted in some circles to raise metabolism, and also contains 50 mg of caffeine in each pill (and that has been proven to 'raise metabolism' but is not necessarily a healthy way of doing it). Dr Posner wrote a book published in 2002, advocating this supplement but since then, some groups have de-bunked the green tea theory including consumer group, Center for Science in the public Interest (CSPI). A government document detailing a suit questioning weight loss claims about a drink called Enviga containing green tea extract and caffeine, includes the following:

CSPI's scientists have concluded that "Enviga is just a highly caffeinated and overpriced diet soda, and is exactly the kind of faddy, phony diet aid it claims not to be." [Watchdog group sues Coke, Nestlé for bogus "Enviga claims." CSPI news release, Feb 2007] http://www.cspinet.org/new/200702011.html Meanwhile, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has asked the marketers for copies of all scientific studies, clinical trials, tests, and/or papers that support the calorie-burning claims-and information about any group that may have sponsored the studies. [Attorney General demands that Coca-Cola, Nestle prove claims of 'calorie-burning' beverage. Connecticut Attorney General press release, Feb 5, 2007]


To Dr Posner's credit, he does not include a plug for this supplement in "THE STRESS EATER DIET". In fact, it's not mentioned at all except in the bio of Linda Hlivka which names her as the chemist involved in developing "Serotonin-Plus".

One of my personal frustrations with the book which, by the way, IS a good read with plenty of worthwhile information in it which can help us all to be less stressed, was that for some reason, Dr Posner and Ms Hlivka chose to not include their cites and sources as footnotes in the traditional manner, so although many studies were mentioned, one has no way of knowing when, where or how these studies were done. In the section called "References" at the end of the book, it mentions that cites and references can be found at http://www.stresseaterdiet.com/references.html however that page returns a "not found" error. The few studies listed in the references section are ones we all know about and not the studies supporting the book's theories about Serotonin and weight control.

So I had my work cut out for me. The book is a collection of tips about weight loss i.e. log your food, exercise, reduce stress using yoga and deep breathing etc, eat slowly and more - things which will cause weight loss on any program, but I wanted to check out some of the claims new to me which were as follows:

1. That eating foods high in tryptophan would cause the brain to produce more serotonin and that this is a good thing and one which would aid in weight control

2. That tryptophan is the precursor to serotonin

3. That although carbs are high in tryptophan, they only produce a momentary relief and thus are not as effective as foods like turkey etc i.e. low carb foods.

With reference to number 1, I did find a few articles (not any studies though) that suggest that eating tryptophan rich foods would cause the brain to produce more serotonin and some opinions that this does aid in weight control. Of most interest in that area was an article sent down a listserve for medical providers by a P.A. The article was not from a medical journal but still is interesting because it opined by mixing substances rich in tryptophan and taking anti depressant drugs which are serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI's) could cause a syndrome called "serotonin syndrome" which according to the article could result in:

  • Cognitive-behavioral symptoms like confusion, disorientation, agitation, irritability, unresponsiveness and anxiety.

  • Neuromuscular symptoms like muscle spasms, exaggerated reflexes, muscular rigidity, tremors, loss of coordination and shivering.

  • Autonomic nervous system symptoms like fever, profuse sweating, rapid heart rate, raised blood pressure and dilated pupils.


Source:February 27, 2007 - PERSONAL HEALTH - A Mix of Medicines That Can Be Lethal
By JANE E. BRODY


While this is obviously extreme and not necessarily a risk with eating a lot of turkey, the article did contain the statement that:

"Although serotonin poisoning can be caused by an antidepressant overdose, it more often results from a combination of an S.S.R.I. or MAOI with another serotonin-raising substance."


And this causes one to wonder whether it's a good idea to fool around with Mother Nature when it comes to brain chemicals at all... even with food sources, a question asked in the book, "PROZAC BACKLASH" by Joseph Glenmullen, MD. Glenmullen opined from his research and working with many patients over a long time span that messing with the serotonin balance in the brain could cause problems such as Parkinsonism.

As for my question of whether Tryptophan IS really the precursor of serotonin, my research suggested that it is generally theorized that, yes, it is at least ONE of the precursors. Again I didn't find any studies but many educated opinions on this.

And finally with reference to question 3, eschewing carbs in favor of low carb meats, I found that the jury is still out on this with at least one very respected researcher at MIT disagreeing with the authors' low carb suggestions.

Dr Judith Wurtman has apparently done a lot of research on carbs and serotonin and in an article carried on the MIT site, Wurtman stated that carbs were essential for good health and that a low carb diet could result in some serious cravings (due to the body's need for carbs). Wurtman feels that stopping carbohydrates could not only affect the brain's serotonin levels but also affect your mood: (Note apparently Wurtman's remarks are based on her years of studies which are available in peer reviewed journals.)

"Wurtman, director of the Program in Women's Health at the MIT Clinical Research Center, and colleagues have found that when you stop eating carbohydrates, your brain stops regulating serotonin, a chemical that elevates mood and suppresses appetite. And only carbohydrate consumption naturally stimulates production of serotonin.


In "The Stress Eater Diet" Dr Posner and Ms Hlivka are not clear as to whether one should go low carb for life because they say you slowly add carbs back after the first week of "induction" (of a 4 week program). However, comments like the following suggest to the reader that carbs in general are not well thought of by the authors:

"pasta has little nutritional value" (page 122)


However, this conflicts with what I have often read and that is that Pasta is rich in B complex vitamins for one, a vitamin which Dr Posner stated he feels is a direct stress reducer, a statement accepted by mainstream medicine.

(And it's well known that one gets much more of the vitamin out of food than out of supplements).

Dr Posner and Ms Hlivka are also very much opposed to eating sugar which is OK but as substitute, they recommend, by brand name, sweeteners like aspartame and splenda which is somewhat controversial now that many studies have shed suspicion on the safety of these chemicals. Even the CSPI, once on the "no sugar" bandwagon i.e. do aspartame instead of sugar, has recanted on this position after the well respected Ramazzini Institute studies which found a link between leukemia and aspartame consumption.

The program in "THE STRESS EATER DIET" recommends cardio exercise which, as folks know, I greatly agree with, and the chapter on exercise is excellent, as is the chapter on stress. Perhaps we have heard some of the suggestions given before but somehow having it all in one place, reminds us that we need to do some of these things to reduce stress in our lives.

I hope that in a future edition of the book, the authors _do_ consider including the cites in a footnoted manner because I think today, most of us being bombarded on a daily basis with all kinds of claims, do question uncited material.

For example, one of the statements I would like to see cited is the authors' claim that 90 percent of those diagnosed with type II diabetes are overweight. The percentages I have read have been that 33 percent of type II diabetics have never been overweight and this has been my own observation also.

All in all, I liked the book - it is readable, well written and interesting, and provides a lot of useful suggestions and some things I did not know even with my having read so many diet books.

And most of all, it is one of the only books which gives us real world practical suggestions on reducing stress which I, in agreeing with the authors, feel is a major factor in many of the ailments we suffer.

As a weight loss program, well, if you do the things they suggest such as, log your food daily, count your calories, measure your portions, substitute low cal food for fast food etc and exercise at least 20 minutes - 30 minutes a day, yes you will lose weight whether you eat foods high in trypophan or not. Unfortunately, studies have suggested only about 5 percent of the public are able to be this vigilant on a long term basis. But even if you don't use "The Stress Eater Diet" as a diet book, I feel reading it can be helpful in getting more healthy and reducing stress.

Would this book make a good addition to your library? I would say, probably so. I know I found it rather enlightening.

Where you get it: The Stress Eater Diet Website

Other blogs participating in the "blog tour" can be found here!

Friday, January 16, 2009

Biggest Loser - revisited


As you'all know here, if I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. And people have written comments to show me the error of my ways and if I see merit in what they say, I am more than glad to admit I was in error.

I guess my humble blog has gotten the attention of one of the winners on "the Biggest Loser" show, second season, Pete Thomas. Thomas lost a lot of weight in a 9 months - 185 lbs and apparently if his blog is to be believed, he's kept it all off (but of course, Eric Chopin didn't tell his cyberfriends how much he had regained so that's why I say this with a grain of salt.... IF his blog is true).

Be that as it may, he is ANGRY at me. Very angry and has written a long comment which raises some issues that I think I should address in my main blog. So here goes:

Pete writes:

"You are doing such a poor job in your analysis. The media does want to see failure."
Ignoring the insult, (and to use Pete's phraseology, "it doesn't take a big leap in intelligence" to realize that ad hominem is a faulty argument tool), I feel Pete is very wrong. The media did NOT to this day, cover much about Eric Chopin's massive weight gain nor the weight gain of other "big losers". And there is a good reason for this. The media is driven and financed by the diet industry, a billion dollar industry of which "the Biggest Loser Show" is of course, a part (it sells products when folks watch the show unless they fast forward through the commercials like I do and not a lot of folks DO that). And the diet industry is pushing the myth that "all of us" can "get the body we always wanted" just by buying this or that diet when in fact studies have found (all of them have FOUND THIS, PETE) that 95 percent of people who diet to lose weight, regain the weight within 5 years! And the results of weight loss surgery are not much better - even with a permanent change to the body, 93 percent of patients cannot keep all the weight off! And most patients still end up in the severely to clinically obese zone and then WITH a new set of comorbidities. (the Swedish Obesity study and others). I've given these cites in some of my other blogs so won't labor through them here.

Pete gives as his reason for his belief that the media is highlighting failure as this:

"It does not take a giant leap of intelligence to see this. Look at the local news or national news – How much positive vs negative news do you see? The media thrive on success and more so on FAILURE!"
True, negativity and fear dominate the media EXCEPT when it comes to selling product and that means the DIET INDUSTRY so most of what we see on the media is SUCCESS to perpetuate the myth that "most people can successfully keep off the weight". As I mentioned before, I saw no mention of Eric Chopin in the news and a search of Google news I did right now, came up with the following message:

Your search - "eric chopin" - did not match any documents.
So I am wondering, Pete, if your theory is true and the media is highlighting failure in weight loss, why didn't Eric's appearing on the Oprah show even warrant a SMALL mention in the news?

And according to Pete's biography on his website, he's appeared rather often in this media which he says "highlights failure"

"He has appeared on ABC's The View, The 700 Club, and eXtra as well as being featured in People Magazine, Runners World, TV Guide, The Detroit Free Press, inTouch Weekly and Real Health."


Next Pete you are getting a bit confused here when you wrote:

"One successful author I know says ANY publicity is good publicity. He FRAMED BAD reviews of his book! Be assured – your blog qualifies as good publicity."
Doubtless you were referring to the saying sometimes attributed to Will Rogers but apparently said by many that "there is no such thing as bad publicity, only publicity".

First of all, I think you are overrating the nuisance value of my humble blog so if that's your worry, please don't worry... I'm sure no one on the show or in charge of the show would be convinced by this blog. First of all, the show is a cash cow and you will find that people _really don't care_ whether it's healthy or "right" if it's bringing in the bucks. First American TV principle... that you have not encountered this, leads me to wonder what planet have you been living on? :)

Secondly, actually there IS such a thing as bad publicity... Joyce Brothers said that and we can see that bad publicity helped greatly in defeating Sarah Palin in the recent election. Her name was on every lip so she got plenty of publicity, all bad.

And third, if you feel that my blog is good publicity then it should help your business of "motivational speaking" and thus, why are you so angry at me? I must say, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit (well more than a bit).

So bottom line, my blog may be bad publicity for the show but as long as the ratings soar (whether people who watch it LIKE the show or not), the networks will run the show (and sell the sponsor's products). And people wanting to believe the myth that "all of us can have the body we always wanted" will continue to call you for "motivational speaking" right?

You then accused me of being ignorant so you wrote patronizingly:

"So let me educate you a little – Oprah called Eric – Remember! He turned her down initially. It is a known fact that contestants regularly turn down the media ‘When they start gaining their weight back’. You just don’t know that because your not knowledgeable enough on these things. So let me help you."
First of all, Pete, seems you didn't read my blog very well because I SAID that Oprah had called Eric previously and that he'd turned down the appearance (what he said on the "Oprah" show). Perhaps you might be the one needing help in reading things a bit more carefully. And by the way, Pete, in the statement of yours "Your not knowledgeable" I think you meant to say "YOU'RE not knowledgeable", right?

You further wrote:

"Oprah called a lot of us a few months back and those of us familiar with the process KNEW exactly where the show was going."
Have you counted the number of POSITIVE "amazing weight loss" shows Oprah has done? It way exceeds the couple of "weight loss problem" shows she's done.

"Misery loves company. My opinion - Oprah wanted company in her own struggles (or rather her producers choose to portray it as such)."
Aren't YOU assuming something about Oprah i.e. her being "miserable"? She's never been extremely large and she's sold a bunch of magazines and shows with her latest "confessions". And I do not see Oprah appearing on shows like "The Biggest Loser" which regularly humiliate people of size. Bottom line, there is no evidence that she's feeling miserable at all. Only that she's a very clever TV show host who knows how to get the audience's attention.

After that, you wrote:

"I will leave you to your ignorance on that one and I will just continue to laugh from a distance."
And I ask why you have to laugh at me at all and if life being so slim is so wonderful, why are you so angry? Happy people don't write angry, ad hominem letters like you wrote me. A psychologist might have a field day with your letter, Pete. :)

Then you ask:

"WHY is the type of weight loss on the show unhealthy?"

That you don't know, suggests you may be the one who lacks knowledge especially that you mentioned no one has shown you any evidence of this... incredible since evidence exists all over the internet and in many books that quick weight loss is unhealthy.

Your body cannibalizes organs and muscles with a quick weight loss and lowers your metabolism so that you will gain more quickly. Since you are apparently was unaware of the tons of stuff available written about this, you may be more amenable to watching a video than reading an article or book, so I will provide a video explaining the process:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC0gnUwmBg0

I would also recommend Dr Linda Bacon's book, "HEALTH AT EVERY SIZE" which well covers obesity research.

Additionally, working out so hard and so long every day (and in most cases, high impact) is foolish and ASKING for injury... just ask the personal trainer at your local gym about this. Again much has been written about this on the medical and fitness sites... if you haven't yet seen it, you obviously do NOT want to see it. Because it's easy to find.

The show not only sacrifices health for audience appeal (no one wants to see someone lose slowly on a healthy program - that's boring) but also, it humiliates people of size. Again, if you do not see this, perhaps you don't WANT to see it and nothing I write will convince you...

One more thing you brought up ... you wrote:

"You believe that size does not matter and it is ok to be morbidly obese."
This statement is way too general. But I don't think I said this in any of my blogs. Fact remains however, that for every study which suggests a danger in being clinically obese, there is another study which suggests NO LINK between clinical obesity _alone_ and morbidity but rather other lifestyle factors instead... food choices, whether the person yo yo's the weight or stays steady and a host of things, even things like stress and anxiety.

Dr Rudy Leibel, probably one of the most respected obesity researchers, stated in a speech to the NIH that "there probably is some advantage to being of normal BMI but it is UNCLEAR whether someone forcing their weight to a lower range than their bodies want, enjoys that advantage".

Now, Pete, I have provided some sources and clarified what I have written and of course, I invite comment but if you DO comment, I hope you will do so more respectfully than your last comment as I feel insulting comments do little to enlighten folks who are reading this. Provide me with facts and cites and I will listen. Your anecdotal "I know all about the show" attitude is not really what I call unbiased observation especially since you apparently walked away with a tidy sum of money. I can understand that you do not like it when the show is criticized for being unhealthy or for exploiting fat people (although some of the Biggest Loser candidates have talked about that themselves), and while I understand your point of view, your anecdotal information does not qualify for scientific data. I hope you understand that.

Overall, I think we can discuss something, even disagreeing upon various aspects and still remain adult and civil, yes?