Ground Up Strength Fatloss Sun, 18 Aug 2019 09:59:34 +0000 Are Cleansing and Detox Diets Just Fancy Anorexia? <div class="mobile-only"></div> <div class="mobile-no"> <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em;"></div> </div> <p><strong>By Eric Troy</strong></p> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122372" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:54:21 +0000

By Eric Troy

I've seen a quote about cleanse diets and detoxing being shared on Facebook quite a lot lately. Each time it shows up, it gets hundreds to thousands of likes and hundreds of shares. Amazing the power of a superficially logical statement that is actually based on a fallacy. This is one I would call a false analogy. I decided I'd like to write a few things about it.

First, the quote. It is by someone named Jessica Goldstein. I didn't know who she was or where the quote originated, but I tracked it down to a website called ThinkProgress, for which Jessica Goldstein is the culture editor and, obviously, a writer. Let's start with the quote, and then I'll get to the context of the quote:

I have this theory that the reason cleansing and detoxing have taken off is because it’s this socially acceptable way to have an eating disorder, basically, for a finite period of time. No one would ever say, “Oh, you should definitely just not eat for the entire month before your wedding.” But you can say, “You should do this lemon and cayenne pepper cleanse, you’ll feel amazing,” and somehow that’s okay. But it’s just fancy anorexia.

This quote is actually from an interview that ThinkProgress did with Timothy Caulfied, author of Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?: How the Famous Sell Us Elixirs of Health, Beauty & Happiness and Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, and professor at University of Alberta School of Public Health, where he is the long-time research director of the Health Law Institute.

There are many other quotes that could have been mined from this article/interview, but it is not surprising that this one quote comparing cleanse diets and detoxing to anorexia got singled out. It seems to make such a powerful point. People are engaging in unscientific and extremely unhealthful dietary practices. They are on their way to dire straits! People are killing themselves. Oh, my. Why, this cleansing stuff is one step away from a full-on eating disorder!


The quote is actually a statement posed to Caufield. Does he agree? Well, he says he does, but then his actual response says nothing of cleanse diets being a fancy and acceptable cover-up of anorexia or anorexia-like behaviors. But again, it's not odd that people chose to take the question/statement and leave the interviewee's actual response behind. His response was less succinct and provocative:

You’re right. It has this sort of veil of healthiness to it, this idea that, as you know from the book, people really encouraged me. They said, “Good for you! Keep it up! Don’t give in!” It was seen as a very noble thing, and how it’s portrayed in celebrity culture helps that. I did a Google Trends search recently, comparing the word “dieting” to “detox” and “cleanse,” and it’s incredible, confirming just what you said, the idea of detoxing and cleansing has overwhelmed the idea of dieting. Dieting is vain and superficial, but detoxes and cleanses are all about health. When in fact, even an executive of Clean Cleanse, the one that I did, he admitted that most people go on it for dieting reasons. And you do lose weight, because you’re basically extreme dieting for a short period of time.

So, does he agree that it's fancy anorexia, or does he not? His response has little to do with the actual content of the quote, accept for the idea that it is socially acceptable and encouraged behavior. He compares detoxing and cleansing to dieting, not to anorexia.

Now I'll repeat my opinion of the statement. It's ridiculous. It is quite popular right now, among health advocates, to invoke a slippery slope regarding eating disorders. All the trendy and sometimes extreme dietary practices currently being promoted by various charlatans and celebrities are seen as a road to orthorexia or anorexia.

The answer mentioned Google trends. Well, anorexia is trending even more heavily than cleanse diets or detoxing. Do you think this is a coincidence? People in all walks of life who have probably never given a thought to anorexia are now suddenly concerned with it. Many of them probably have never heard of it and know absolutely nothing about it. The same thing goes for the many, many people who absolutely agree with this statement when it is shared on social media. Most of them have probably never given it a second thought but suddenly, as such trends go, everybody is an expert on cleanse diets, detoxing, and eating disorders!

So what is anorexia? Well, anorexia, technically, is just the medical term for loss of appetite. This loss of appetite can be from any cause so the term taken alone does not necessarily refer to an eating disorder. However, anorexia is almost always used as a shorthand for anorexia nervosa. This is a very serious mental health condition.

Just because someone skips some meals, fasts, or does a cleansing detox diet, we can not pronounce them anorexic! In order for anorexia nervosa to be diagnosed, many clinical criteria must be met. I've already provided an overview of anorexia nervosa, with signs and symptoms. Take some time to go over it, and you should see that superficially comparing a cleanse diet to this disorder is more than just simplistic and silly. You can also learn more from this article which compares the effects of anorexia nervosa and bulimia.

Most of the comments by Caulfield are pointing out that cleanse diets are mostly undertaken for weight loss reasons. They are not about cleansing but are simply a very extreme and now socially acceptable diet. If so, these diets are not the only trendy diets in history that feature extreme deprivation. However, as these trends have come and gone, the health industry has never declared a full-scale anorexia epidemic.

As I pointed out on a Facebook comment, diets of any type can be socially isolating. One of the reasons for the success of diet programs like Weight Watchers is that friends often do them together. Some of the power of the cleanse and detox fad, driven by celerbrity endorsement, is that it is popular and socially acceptable, something that friends can undertake together. Now, is taking a negative and socially unacceptable behavior like anorexia and disguising it with a fancy "cleanse diet" label to make it socially acceptable the same thing as taking something that people do anyway but sometimes find isolating, and choosing a mode that is less isolating? Dieting is somewhat stymatized in our society, and many people compare yo-yo dieting to anorexia or an eating disorder. But dieting itself is nowhere near as stigmatizing as an eating disorder.

Others invoke a slippery slope, saying yoyo dieting inevitably leads to an eating disorder. Dieting behaviors can morph into eating disorders but to generally declare that anyone who engages in a particular diet trend is on their way to an eating disorder, or has one, is just as alarmist as food-fear mongers preaching about toxins in our food.

Fasting and Anorexia

Many cultures make it a regular practice to fast. For example, Ramadan is a month of fasting for Muslims, a time to remember the suffering of the poor and to appreciate what God has given you. This is but one example of cultural or religious fasting. Buddhist monks fast daily, from noon to dawn. And there is a long history of Christian fasting, which today varies from church to church. Examples are Advent and Lent in the Catholic church, which today means eating less food in general, and abstaining from meat and meat products.

When such fasting is a part of the culture, is it disordered eating behavior? Is it a behavior in which no mentally healthy person would engage? Will it morph into full-on anorexia nervosa? I'll bet you're not ready to accept that. So, why should so many accept that a cleanse diet is nothing more than fancy anorexia? A cleanse diet is really just a fast. Regardless of the pseudo-scientific reasons, as opposed to religious reasons, its still a fast. And the idea that a fast cleanses us, both physically and spiritually, is nothing new.

I actually think that what upsets opponents of cleansing and detox diets more than the actual diets is that so many people become steadfast promoters of them and encourage others to do it. The idea that you are more health-savvy and even more righteous and superior, while you are actually engaging in a ridiculous pseudoscientific fad, upsets some folks of a more scientific bent. But this is not about science itself, but a type of 'moral outrage' aimed at the proponents of such behavior. If a religious person fasts, the same folks may find it hard to understand, but since the faster isn't trying to convince the masses to join him, they don't give it much thought.

Sure, some folks are using these diets in an extreme fashion and too often. Some with the right disposition may actually develop an eating disorder and there are those who are so obsessed with healthy eating that they eat in a way that is obsessive. Others may actually be using this behavior as an acceptable way to cover-up disordered eating behaviors, just as Goldstein said at the beginning of her statement. While all of this is possible, it is not probable that it applies to everyone using cleanse diets or detoxing. The last part of her statement is the real target here, because it compares cleansing and detoxing themselves to anorexia. In other words, it equates them.

Many people think that cleanse diets are healthy and will not only cleanse them, but improve their overall physical and spiritual wellbeing. The desire to cleanse the body of toxins may be part of an obsession with healthy food which has been named ortorexia nervosa. Instead of a focus on an ideal body appearance, there is a focus on a healthy life-style, food quality, etc. to the point that their diet becomes so limited they risk malnutrition. Many different dietary practices are used, such as macrobiotic diets, raw food, vegan, and fruitarian. However, many have begun to assume that with orthorexia comes extreme physical danger. This is not necessarily the case. It is the obsessive compulsive manifestation which is the real problem. The danger is psychological and emotional.

The question is, then, whether fasting all that physically dangerous. Well, one thing to realize is that fasting does not always mean going completely without. For example, during Ramadan, the fasting only lasts through a specific period of the day, and it goes from 11 to 18 hours, depending on the season. Periodic fasting, in general, can mean a continuous absolute fast for days, or just to skipping meals regularly (which means I fast all the time).

Periodic fasting, intermittent fasting, or whatever you'd like to call it is to today one of the most popular weight loss strategies. And while many have expressed opinions about its efficacy and its danger, it seems worth nothing that fasting in general has never caused such outrage as cleanse and detox diets do now. Why? At its heart, its just a type of fast. Yet, intermittent fasting even at its height was never as popular and widespread as cleansing and detox diets. Is the outrage as much due to the popularity as the content? Is it due to people's negative opinions of its chief endorser(s)? Is it due to the shoddy pseudo-scientific underpinnings, based on a complete misunderstanding of how the body works? I think is is all of these things.

How does it affect health? How does any fasting affect health? Although fasting has actually been used clinically for various reasons, and with favorable results, such as fasting prior to chemotherapy to reduce side effect, there is not a lot of literature on its health effects. By far, the most literature exists on Ramadan fasting, because it is the most standardized type of fasting in the world. But its not standardized enough! Just like all of fasting. It is not just one practice. The practices and variables are quite wide and because of this it is hard to generalize its effects.

No one can really tell you that a periodic cleanse diet is dangerous to your health. Likely, no matter how silly it is, and no matter people's opinions of its practicioners, an occassional cleanse is most likely not going to harm you. As a weight-loss strategy, it is doomed to failure, but to say that its a poor way to lose weight is nowhere near the same as saying its a one-way ticket to an eating disoder and various ill health effects.

Before we start shouting about dietary practices causing eating disorders, or being eating disorders, we need to consider the impact on a person's life. A person could go on periodic cleanse diets and it could develop into something more. But such a person may well have developed an eating disorder regardless. Be careful with the difference between a manifestation and a cause. Obsessive use of cleanses or detox diets may be a manifestation of an underlying problem, but not the cause of it. On the other hand, a person could go on periodic cleanse diets and…that's all. No big negative effect on their life. I'd like to point out something to the more vocal folks on Facebook: Just because you find a person's attitude, moralizing, and advancing of ridiculous dietary fads to be annoying on FB doesn't mean that person's life is in a shambles and they are couple of days away from a check-in at the eating disorder clinic.

I mentioned that two fallacies are associated with this thinking: Slippery slope and false analogy. Slippery Slope may well be the fallacy you come across most often. IT is used by everyone from lay-folks to health professionals and more, with few understanding it or even recognizing it. The basic fallacy is as follows:

A person argues that a certain act or event will inevitably lead to a bad final result. What most people do not understand is by invoking this slippery slope they are actually stating that a chain of events will occur. One event will lead to the next, which will lead to the next, etc. and so on until the imagined disaster occurs at the end of the chain. You may have noticed the humorous television commercials by DirectTV, which use a slippery slope to describe the quite unlikely seeming results of using cable TV, like 'ending up in a roadside ditch.' Most slippery slope arguments, in contrast, seem superficially plausible and while some may actually list a chain of events, most simply describe the final result. What you must recognize, though, is that regardless if they are explicitly stated, the chain of events exists!

In order for this argument to succeed, a person must know the precise causal events that will lead to the described, and dramatic, outcome. Not only is it impossible to name a series of linked causal events that will take place solely as a result of a single action or event, but then each and every one of these events must occur, one after another, in a precise sequence. Any break in the chain and the result cannot occur. Once you understand just how unlikely this all is, you will start to see that these statements are not even superficially plausible.

The statement that diets, yo-yo dieting, or cleanse diets will end up in an eating disorder is just such a slippery slope argument. Many people reacting to the above quote seem to be invoking this same argument. They say, well, cleansing diets may not be the same thing as anorexia, but that's where they'll end up!

The original statement itself, however, is a false analogy. The problem with analogies in general is that people often see them as more powerful than they are. They seem to almost scream at us. Here's proof! This thing is just like this other thing! But an analogy is nothing more than a helpful explanatory tool. It is a way of illustrating a concept or thought process. It cannot prove anything. When we use comparisons to explain things, we are saying that two things are analogous. In order for our analogy to be valid, the items we compare must be alike in enough respects, and in proper context. If you've read through the articles I linked above, you already know why the statement in question is just such an invalid analogy: Cleanse dieting and anorexia nervosa are not sufficiently similar, and the comparison itself is misleading.

Unfortunately, given the culture of the internet, human tendencies in general, and the way all these subjects are trending, it is difficult to make people see that these expressions of anger about cleanse diets are not an expression of critical thought, but more of moral outrage. It is hard to make people see the errors in their thought process when they imagine themselves experts! Yet, as I said before, most of those expressing this outrage and this concern about potential eating disorders have probably never before given such problems a second thought, have no experience with such matters, and certainly would not be able to 'diagnose' such a disorder. Trust me, just as Gwyneth Paltrow got the whole cleanse craze started, someone else, or a group of people, got the current anorexia trend started as well! It may have well been the very quote in question here. How is one really different from another when they are based on the same lack of understanding, rush to understanding, or plain ignorance?

It may seem as if I am severely criticizing Jessica Goldstein and her statement. In fact, I am not. I am criticizing the spread of her quote, the subsequent misunderstanding, and the thought process this represents. When scientist say they have a theory, it means something completely different! When laypeople say "I have theory," what they usually mean is "I am blue-skying it here to make a point." Although I do understand the point she was trying to make, I do not think her theory holds water, nor do I think it should have spread like wildfire over social media. Cleanse diets are not just fancy anorexia. People do not choose to have eating disorders, and they certainly do not turn them on and off and have an eating disorder for a 'finite period of time' based on choice.

by EricTEricT


By Eric Troy

People love big promises and big protein numbers. A great way to deliver this without outright lying is to use something I've discussed before, literally true but misleading claims.

The website Eat This, Not That, which promises flat abs and more if you just eat the magical foods they profile, used misleading claims in an effective way with it's article Surprising High-Protein Foods For Weight Loss.

In the article, the protein amounts in the foods were compared to eggs. While eggs are a great source of complete protein, there are other higher-protein foods, such as lean meat, that would have served for a more fair comparison.

Be that as it may, it wouldn't have mattered what the foods were compared with, since the protein numbers were cooked by being uncooked or by using one standard serving amount, one cup. Some of the high protein counts found in the article should be a red flag to anyone, since they represent protein amounts you'd expect to find in a protein supplement, not a cup of regular food.


Kamut is a high-protein grain but it doesn't have more protein than eggs

I will compare the actual amount of protein in these foods to an egg. Keep in mind that I am comparing equivalent weights, not typical servings. Typical serving will vary but to honestly say that one food has more protein than another food, we must compare equivalent weights. While it is true that a typical serving of many foods may be larger than "one egg," we could always eat more eggs to equal the amount in grams.

Let's break it down.


Kamut, an "ancient grain" is claimed to have 27 grams of protein per cup. Man, that is a huge amount of protein for a cup of food! Too huge, in fact. Yes, kamut does have 27 grams of protein per cup when it is uncooked.

Although I do not have a great deal of knowledge on cooking Kamut, I am fairly sure that it will take on 3 to 4 time the amount of water when cooked. In other words, a cup of uncooked kamut, probably equals at least 3 cups of cooked kamut. It may be close to 4 cups since kamut is usually soaked overnight before being cooked in water. A cup of cooked kamut is 9 grams protein. Still good but not even close to what this article listed. You'd have to eat 3 cups of kamut to get 27 grams of protein.

Now, to actually compare a cup of cooked kamut to a large egg (poached). A large poached eggs has around 6 grams of protein. A cup of cooked kamut has 9 grams of protein. However, a large eggs is 50 grams, while a cup of cooked kamut is 172 grams. 50 grams of cooked kamut only has around 2.5 grams of protein. Gram for gram, eggs win.

Chickpea Flour (Garbanzo Bean Flour)

I love chickpeas but chickpea flour is an odd choice, unless you are into gluten free baking. You could use it in falafel, though. This one is a bit harder to analyze. Again, the article lists the amount of protein in one cup of raw chickpea flour, claiming 20 grams of protein. This is accurate enough. To determine the actual cooked amounts would be difficult since chickpea flour is used in different ways which may incorporate more or less water. However, if we use one cup of cooked whole chickpeas for comparison, we see that the protein is 14.5 grams. Yes, chickpeas are a good source of protein. But, remember, good is not always better. A cup of cooked chickpeas equals around 165 grams. Compared to our 50 gram egg at 6 grams protein, an equivalent amount of chickpeas gives 4.5. Egg wins.

Pumpkin Seeds

This one is just barenaked ridiculous. The article give the protein amount of one cup of pumpkin seeds. That is far and away more than most would eat at one sitting. One ounce of roasted pumpkin seeds contains 5.3 grams of protein. That is around 85 seeds. You'd have to eat about 1.76 ounces to be consuming 50 grams of pumpkin seeds. If you did, you'd take in 9 grams of protein. Yes, gram for gram, pumpkin seeds deliver more protein than an egg, if you cared to eat that many seeds (I might; I love them). The article, however, makes it seem as if there is twice the amount of protein.


Pumpkin seeds are highly nutritious and
high in protein, but most of us don't eat a
full cup of them at a go.


Listing spinach in a protein comparison article is laughable. There are NO leafy greens that can compete with typical high protein foods. The article claims that one bunch of spinach has 10 grams of protein. That is close enough for government work (it's actually closer to 9.7). But how much is a bunch of spinach? The actual amount of spinach in a grocery store bunch will vary somewhat, but typically we can consider a bunch to be 340 grams, raw.

You can eat raw spinach. Would you eat a whole bunch of raw spinach (pardon the pun)? You sure? Its 11 cups of spinach, so good luck on that. Compared gram per gram, 50 grams of raw spinach, which is about 1.7 cups, delivers a paultry 1.5 grams of protein, compared to the 6 grams of protein in an egg.

Sun-Dried Tomatoes

Eat This glided past laughable into the territory of stupid when they listed sun-dried tomatoes. Eight grams of protein a cup! Woo-hoo! Sun-dried tomatoes are used in sparing amounts, as a flavoring agent or a garnish. The texture is too off-putting and the flavor too strong to "eat right out of the bag as a snack," and, although there may be some folks who do this, I cannot believe anybody would consume a cup-full. One or two pieces, which is 2 to 4 grams, is a more likely serving. Sun-dried tomatoes cannot be expected to be a significant source of dietary protein. But let's go ahead and crunch the numbers.

One cup of sundried tomatoes has about 7.6 grams of protein. The article claims 8 grams (all foods were rounded up). One cup is 54 grams, so, yes, if you cared to eat that amount, you'd get a bit more protein than you would from an egg. A more typical serving amount, however, would deliver perhaps 0.5 grams of protein.

Gruyère Cheese

From sun dried tomatoes to cheese? Did you notice that the foods listed were quite random? The article went from high protein foods, to low protein foods, and back again to high protein, claiming that they all have more protein than an egg. Cheese is a high protein food. To anyone who with even basic nutrition knowledge, this is not surprising. But why Gruyère cheese? No real reason. They just wanted something that sounded fancy, most likely.


Finally, a food that actually has more
protein than an egg.

A 28 gram slice of Gruyère cheese has 8.3 grams of protein. Yes, it has more protein than eggs. The article managed to the get one food out of six correct. But, as I said, its not surprising. Cheese is a great source of protein.

Gruyère cheese, like most cheese, also contains more fat than a whole egg. And, there are other nutrients, both macronutrients and micronutrients, in all these foods that we have not considered. Regardless, high protein is high protein, and the Eat This article is a typical attempt to mislead you but get you to share the article by telling you what you'd like to hear. That is, that you can eat "halo foods" (foods that have a healthy reputation) while getting lots of protein and slimming your belly.

Although this article is about individual foods compared to eggs, I hope that you will generalize the lesson. As you can see, you can claim that almost any food has more protein than another food by manipulating the amounts, and/or also the form, raw or cooked. There is a reason why nutrition books and other sources have lists of high protein foods that don't contain every food humans consume! The article in Eat This is wholly manipulative and misleading.

Savvy readers may point out that article like this are a dime a dozen on the web. Why pick on this one? Its true. This tactic of comparing the nutrition in foods in dishonest ways is widespread. I've reacted to dozens of such article on social media and here on GUS. This one just happened to catch my eye because a friend shared it via the Men's Fitness Facebook page. If you didn't already know that Men's Fitness was not discerning source of information, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

As well, the Eat This website is owned by the same folks who bring you Fitness Magazine, Eat This, Not That! Parents, Better Homes and Gardens, Martha Stewart, Home and Family, AllRecipes, Rachael Ray Magazine, and much more. So, they have the resources to publish reams of such blatantly false nonsense, and this is exactly what they do.

by EricTEricT

]]> Do Dietary Supplements for Weight Loss Require FDA Approval or Clinical Trials Before Being Sold? <div class="mobile-only"></div> <div class="mobile-no"> <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em;"></div> </div> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122372" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Fri, 15 May 2015 20:58:30 +0000

It is a common misconception that the FDA requires dietary supplements for weight loss to be approved for use before they can be marketed.

Many people also think that a "clinical trial" must be ran on the product before it can be legally sold. This is not only untrue, but quite naive.

Given all the herbal weight loss supplements on the market the idea that actual clinical trials have been conducted for each and every one of them is just silly.

Equally silly is the idea that the FDA would automatically hold a clinical trial as evidence of effectiveness.

Dietary herbal supplements, including those for weight loss, are not regulated as drugs by the FDA, but instead are regulated under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

Whereas drugs are basically considered unsafe until proven safe, dietary supplements are considered safe until proven unsafe.

As long as a dietary supplement ingredient is not a brand-new ingredient, there is absolutely no requirement for clinical trials or any sort of premarket review to be conducted before they are brought to market. Nor is any approval by the FDA required.

A dietary supplement company does not need to contact the FDA at all before selling their product.


The weight loss supplement maker is, like any other dietary supplement marketer, required to to determine that the product is safe and that their label claims are safe and not misleading. It is this fact that causes confusion. See, there is a big difference between holding a company responsible for ensuring the safety of their product and the truthfulness of their claims, and requiring them to provide that evidence to the FDA beforehand.

In other words, a company can market a weight loss supplement regardless of whether it is safe or effective. That shouldn't be a problem, right, because the FDA is watching! They will quickly check up on the product and see determine whether it is safe, and whether the claims made about it are truthful and not misleading. Wrong! The FDA cannot possibly determine the safety and efficacy of every weight loss supplement brought on the market. If a product is brought to the attention of the FDA or the FTC, both agencies, separately or jointly, may take action against manufacturers if their products contain unsafe ingredients of if they make unsubstantiated claims about the products. Another cause for action is if the product contains an ingredient(s) that is classified as a pharmaceutical (which happens very often).

What this means is that in reality an unsafe and ineffective product can be marketed and sold for years. Millions of units can be sold, and millions of people can be either ripped off or endangered. When you see a product making outrageous weight loss claims, or any other ridiculous claims, do not think that "it must be true or the FDA would have pulled it from the market."

Are Clinical Trials Done of Weight Loss Supplements?

Clinical trials of any kind are hardly ever done for weight loss supplements. When they are, they are of shoddy quality and performed by the company itself, or funded by the company. Even if a high-quality trial was run, it still doesn't mean, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the product is safe and effective.

However, most of the "evidence" for the efficacy of the ingredients in weight loss supplements are based on very limited limited theoretical data or testing in animal and laboratory studies. For the most part, supplement companies wanting to put together "weight loss formulas" simply look for any ingredient that has been mentioned along with weight loss in any kind of literature they can find. Then they just throw them all together with not thought whatsoever. Even if one of the ingredients "work" assuming that mixing a bunch of ingredient together will work better is unjustified, to say the least. The ingredients may interact in unknown ways, producing no effect whatsoever or harmful effects.

The most common weight loss ingredients in dietary supplements have very little real evidence to support their use, or no good evidence at all. They have either a minimal effect on weight loss, or no effect at all.

For more information see the NIH's Office Of Dietary Supplements' factsheet on Dietary Supplements for Weight Loss.

by EricTEricT


As part of the Federal Trade Commissions continued crackdown on bogus weight loss products and false weight loss claims, people who bought L'Occitane Almond Beautiful Shape and Almond Shaping Delight "Slimming Creams" are getting refunds for their purchase of these bogus fat loss creams.

L'Occitane, Inc. claimed that its creams were clinically proven to have body-slimming capabilities. They were sold both online and in stores for $44 to $48. Advertisments claimed that:

L'OCCITANE has harnessed nature's secret, with body sculpting almond extracts cultivated in the south of France. We've teamed up with Shaping Experts to bring you a firmer, smoother body…and it's all just 4 weeks away!

Specific claims were that "3 out of 4 women saw firmer, lifted skin" with Almond Shaping Delight, and with Almond Beautiful Shape you could "trim 1.3 inches in just 4 weeks," among others. One advertisement boasted in large stylized text the claim: "Clinically Proven Slimming Effectiveness."

Because of a settlement reached in January 2014, people who were ripped off by these fake slimming creams are being sent a total of 10,620 refund checks totaling more than $416,000.

L'Occitane Almond Shaping Delight fake slimming cream

Find out more from the FTC here.

There Is No Such Thing as a Skin Cream That Makes You Lose Weight

Although it would be wonderful if science revealed that a plant based ingredient could be put in a cream, rubbed on your skin, and cause you to melt away fat, while firming and smoothing your skin, there is no such revelation likely to happen. These kinds of products should simply be thought of as what they are: Too good to be true.

by EricTEricT


You know, it would be beneficial for me to post on forums. Yes, there are still forums out there where people go to seek help for all sorts of problems, or just to communicate with similar people. But I have a reason for not posting on forums. Most of them are ruled by one or two influential people, usually a moderator or even an admin, who are self-proclamed experts. Quite often, they give paint-by-numbers rote advice, or ridiculous advice. For me to go in there and give my kind of advice, would be like swimming upstream. I'd have to deal with the clowns who run the place, and I don't have that kind of patience, at least any more.

Today, I saw a common piece of advice, for a fellow who was really needing some help, that just burned my britches. Sometimes when people who don't really know anything about helping people lose weight give fat loss advice, the "tips" they give are pretty much akin to waving a magic wand. They are just as magical and they make just as much sense. This fellow who had dieted down with some extreme measures, now wanted to put back on some muscle, and he was having one heck of a time doing it. He felt like he was cramming food down his throat, and couldn't seem to put on any muscle.

So, what does Mr. Forum Guru, tell him? He tells him that "bulking up would be beneficial for your goals," because added muscle burns 30 to 40 calories a day.

Added muscle? Not regular muscle, but only added muscle? And how much added muscle does this? Is it a pound? Is it just any amount of muscle that you "add?" This kind of thing that passes for advice on most forums, is so imprecise on one level, and so far off the mark even if it tried to be precise, it is shameful. The original poster wasn't even trying to lose fat any more but he still got this magical and vague little tidbit.

I don't really hand out a lot of fat loss advice. I let fat loss experts do that. But I sure do know crappy advice when I see it. I also know that the idea of muscle turning your body into a roaring furnace is wonderful to contemplate. If I consume mega calories, even in excess, to bulk up, I'll put on more muscle, and then, that muscle will push the fat loss button! I eat and I train with weights. And then, POW! My new muscle takes a blow torch to the calories and I get so very defined and lean.

Muscles burn 30 to 40 calories?

Putting on muscle is not the key to fat loss. Maintaining muscle, and trying to put on muscle, is one of the factors in successful and sustainable weight loss, leading to a more favorable body composition and perhaps helping to maintain metabolism (don't think it is impossible to do without resistance training). And yes, the EPOC effect from intense weight training is nice, but don't think it is any more a magic wand than the existence of muscle.

Does a Pound of Muscle Burn 30 to 40 Calories a Day?

However, if we are asking how many calories muscle burns, well, a pound of muscle does NOT burn 30 to 40 calories a day. Not even close, though this seems to be the range most often reported. I've reported this several different times in different articles, most notably in my post Is Strength Training the Key to Fat Loss? A pound of muscle, just being muscle and not doing anything special, burns maybe 6 calories a day. SIX. You add it up. It ain't anything to get all precious about. Using your muscles burns a lot more, of course.

See, what the people reporting this inflated caloric number don't realize is that any increased amount of fat burning from "adding muscle" has a lot to do with the act of training, recovery, and its effect on fat loss. In other words, once you stop actively training and building muscle, that extra muscle is not just going to sit there like a red-hot furnace, burning a significant amount of extra calories.

I'm all for fat loss tips. But these facts are easily checkable and verifiable. When advice concerns numbers, you're going to want to check that! The more precise the number the more you should want to check up on it. You should check up on my six, too. Meanwhile, whatever you do, when it comes to fitness, don't be too swayed by numbers: Be suspicious of them.

by EricTEricT


By Eric Troy

According the a 'slideshow' at Livestrong, yes, the smell of bananas can help you lose weight.1 How? By "tricking" your brain into thinking you've eaten the bananas. What is the source of this factoid? The source seems to be a study carried out in 1995, as far as I can tell, since, of course, there were no citations given. The study, called Weight Reduction Through Inhalation of Odorants was carried out by the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, Illinois.2 As far as I have been able to determine, there have been no applicable follow-up studies, although they may well exist. Does the study conclude that smelling bananas will help you lose weight?

No, not exactly. This kind of reporting is typical of articles that want to get you to share them because of the "oh, my" effect. You say, "oh, my, I can lose weight by smelling bananas?" Click! But, the study does not prove, in any way, that simply inhaling the aroma of a banana will significantly impact your weight loss efforts. You can read it for yourself.

First, the study was not trying to determine whether smelling bananas would help people lose weight. The purpose of the study was to investigate the whether inhaling certain sweet aromas would help with weight loss in overweight people. The scent of banana was one of these sweet aromas.

Look at the abstract, real quick. Here, we see that the subjects involved in the smell experiment were given inhalers loaded with odorants. What is an odorant? An odorant is a substance with a distinctive smell. Bananas have a distinctive smell, don't they? It's a great smell. There is a chemical that we might call an "aroma compound" in bananas that is responsible, primarily, for this smell. What is the compound in bananas that is responsible for their smell?

Can smelling bananas help you lose weight, or should you just eat them?

For weight loss, you're probably better off
choosing a banana as a snack, rather than
just smelling one.

Chemical in Bananas That Gives Them Their Smell

The main aroma compound in bananas is isopentyl acetate. However, there are other chemicals that also contribute to the overall smell.3

Now, look at the section of the study called Materials and Methods. Were the subjects given bananas to sniff? Perhaps they were given bananas and other fruits to sniff.

The Study Procedures

Under "procedure" the authors report that the subjects were told not to deviate from their usual diet and exercise habits and each month, for a period of six months, they were given new inhalers containing an aromatic blend of peppermint, banana, and green apples. Then they were weighed monthly.

The inhaler aromas sound like they smelled great. As you can guess, though, inhalers packed with concentrated aroma compounds, only some of which are from bananas, is a bit different from sniffing a banana. Indeed, the authors were NOT trying to determine if sniffing a bowl of fruit would immediately suppress your appetite and cause you to "think" you had eaten, let alone whether sniffing a banana would do the same. The subjects used the inhalers three times a day, with three sniffs in each nostril, up to 48 times a day. This means they used 18 to 288 sniffs a day! That's a lot of sniffing of a concentrated compound. Not a fruit. Also, the smell of peppermint is much stronger to the human nose than any fruit.

According the the study, among those who were good at smelling the compounds, there was some moderate weight loss, and average of 4.7 pounds or 2.1% of weight. However, there were, of course, other things going on which correlated with weight loss, such as eating fewer chocolate bars, more apples, and more mint candies, etc. Those who had poorer olfactory abilities did not lose weight. You should read the details of the study for yourself, but what the authors supposedly determined was that inhaling certain aromas, presumably through inhaler devices, might assist individuals with good olfaction in losing weight. How generalizable this is, and just who it may help and not help, is questionable. Keep in mind that the smell of a banana, as I explained above, is determined by not just one main compound, but by some other typical chemicals that also contribute. One banana, then, will not smell just like another, and, of course, not all bananas will have a strong scent. In other words, using bananas odor to lose weight, even if it helped a little, would be a hit hard to regulate. The study itself only lasted six months, and there is no telling whether the participants were able to keep the weight off.

Can Smelling Bananas Help You Lose Weight?

Does sniffing a banana trick your brain into thinking you've eaten? There is no evidence to support this assertion. Does sniffing bananas help you lose weight? There also is no evidence to support this conclusion. There is no study, or evidence, to my knowledge, that suggests that the smell of a banana, alone, used in any way, will assist in weight loss. The study in question has been misreported in the typical internet fashion by individuals looking for provocative "facts" to share. Even if there was a study that suggested that smelling bananas might be a weight loss aid, this would be a long way from being a fact. The idea, as reported in the article, that just smelling a banana will immediately suppress your appetite to the extent you'll feel like you've eaten, is ridiculous.

Indeed, the slideshow article reports in the heading that smelling bananas may suppress your appetite, and then reports the results of the misquoted study as if this is a fact. Something that may be true should not be reported as a fact, and in fact, it is not even close to being a fact. The article is a mixture of 'facts' which only may be true, and other facts that aren't all that surprising at all. You might be interested in reading some actual little known but surprising bananas facts here.

What About Scent-Based Weight Loss Products?

The work of Hirsch has been cited as evidence that sniffing bananas will help you lose weight in many articles, not just the Livestrong article I mentioned. And, there are several aroma-based products on the market which claim to assist in weight loss. Aroma Patch and SlimScents both point to the above study as evidence for their effectiveness. Of course, that evidence is slim to none. As for Hirsch, the primary author of the study examined here, he came out with his own product. Something tells me that he had this intention all along, what about you? The product was called Sensa, and it was powder additive you sprinkled on your food. This product was pulled from the market after Hirsch was fined by the FTC for making false claims of effectiveness. So much for banana sniffing fat loss.

1. Brooking, Katherine. "16 Surprising Facts About Bananas." LIVESTRONG.COM. LIVESTRONG.COM, 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2015. <>.
2. HIRSCH, A. R., and R. Gomez. "Weight Reduction Through Inhalation of Odorants." J Neurol Orthop Med SufI 16 (n.d.): 28-31. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.
3. Belitz, H.-D, W. Grosch, and Peter Schieberle. Food Chemistry. Berlin: Springer, 2009.

Banana image © LukaTDB

by EricTEricT

]]> The 100 by Jorge Cruise: Book Review <div class="mobile-only"></div> <div class="mobile-no"> <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em;"></div> </div> <p><strong>By Eric Troy, Ground Up Strength</strong></p> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122372" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Tue, 02 Dec 2014 01:38:43 +0000

By Eric Troy, Ground Up Strength



"Dear friend, get ready because I have some shocking news. Currently the US government suggests a Recommended Daily Allowance of 1,752 Sugar Calories or around 9 cups of sugar."

YEP, he said that! This is what we would normally call a LIE. There is no "recommended amount" of sugar and the idea that the government would recommend that you consume 9 cups of sugar a day is ludicrous. Yet, this book is a "New York Times Bestseller."

Now, foods contain carbohydrates, both complex and "simple sugar." He may be trying to lump all sugar into this claim, both added sugar or naturally occurring simple sugars in food. Even so, if the recommendations were based on a 2000 calorie diet, as has been done in the past, this would be a ridiculous suggestion. Nine cups of sugar is a huge amount of sugar! It would be downright difficult to achieve.

But we don't even need to counter the statement about the government, we can just do the math. If sugar is 4 calories per gram, then 1,752 calories would equal 438 grams of sugar. So, how many cups of sugar is 438 grams? Well, one cup of granulated sugar comes to about 200 grams in weight. Therefore, 438 grams should be about 2.2 cups of sugar. A far cry from nine! Do we often consume this many carbohydrates? Sure, and much more. But even if we ate a very sugary diet, where more than half of the carbohydrate calories came from simple sugars, it would still be difficult to eat the percentage of sugar he suggests and you really shouldn't need a best-selling diet book to tell you, in this case, that your diet is unbalanced.


Claims that it will teach you to distinguish the calories that matter from
the ones that do not, and will show you why counting 100 Sugar Calories
promotes weight loss, helping you to lose up to 18 pounds in 2 weeks and
keep it off. Link for informational purposes only.

I guess it makes sense to figure out how many calories in an actual 9 cups of sugar and, again, we must assume granulated sugar. Nine cups of sugar equals about 1,800 grams of sugar. At 4 calories per gram, that is 7,200 calories. Maybe that is what the book was supposed to say, instead. Nah..

This fellow not only starts out with a lie about 'recommended sugar' but he fails to do the basic math required to show that his statement is impossible. With such a gross and ridiculous misstatement, why continue reading? Especially when said statement has an entire page devoted to it.

We know that it is becoming harder and harder to recognize charlatans, but it isn't that hard all of the time.

Not only does he lie about the RDI of sugar, and fail in basic math, he seriously mischaracterizes RDA's, or "Recommended Daily Allowances." First, he's missed the memo: The federal government, which is this case would be the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Institute of Medicine, no longer uses RDA's but instead has turned to DRI's, which stands for "Dietary Reference Intakes." However, as far back as 2002 the IOM decided that that the RDA for total carbohydrates, that's starches and sugars, should be 130 grams a day. Of course, most people consume more than this, and even perhaps more than this in sugars. Just to be clear, 130 grams comes to around 520 calories a day, not over 1,700.

However, the "federal government" does not recognize sugar, as opposed to carbohydrates, as an essential nutrient, therefore they do not set any "RDA." Specifically, the Food and Nutrition Board said that there was "insufficient evidence to set a daily intake of sugars or added sugars that individuals should aim for." In other words, the federal government does not recommend that you consume any certain amount of sugar.

They do suggest a maximum level of intake for added sugars (remember, naturally occurring sugars were already accounted for) at 25% or less of calories "to prevent the displacement of foods that are major sources of essential micronutrients." In other words, to avoid empty calories.

This is not a recommendation, although the sugar industry probably promoted it as such, and the sugar industry is no-doubt the kind of source from which the likes of Cruise get their information. He certainly couldn't have gotten it from the government. Such a fabrication could only have come from a disreputable source. Still, perhaps he just made it up entirely.

The World Health Organization, by the way, says added sugar should be 5 percent or less, down from their previous 10% figure.

So, what is the score, here? In a bestselling diet book that claims you can lose weight by ONLY COUNTING SUGAR CALORIES, author Jorge Cruise, begins the book by devoting an entire page to a shocking revelation that turns out to be a bald-faced lie, while failing to do basic math that would have revealed his mistake to him, and misrepresenting the federal government's nutrition recommendations. This is simple stuff, folks. There is no excuse, no reason, and no justification for such a vacuous statement.

The blurb for this book makes a claim that we are all familiar with, that the experts, for years, have been wrong about "calories in, calories out" and that this book reveals stunning new science. This new science is, in fact, based on nothing but hare-brained theory from a few fringe nutrition-nuts.

What do the actual diet recommendations come to? It is based on the "100" in the title. You are allowed 25 grams of carbohydrates a day, which, in the language of idiot diet book authors, are all "sugar calories" and since each of these grams equals 4 calories, it comes to 100. Where did 100 come from? He seems to have pulled it out of his ass, probably because it sounded better than 83.5. The actual meal plans pay little attention to this recommendation, and instead allow you to eat around 33 "sugar calories" a day. Hmmm…I guess "The 33" or "the 132" wouldn't have sounded good in a title, either. Despite all the sugar talk, it is just another iteration of a low carb diet.

Of course, Dr. Oz promoted this huxter! Many people who have reviewed the book are annoyed by a typical Dr. Oz bait and switch. When the author was featured on the Dr. Oz show, the two made recipes using almond, flax, and coconut flour. None of which is found in the book, but which caused consumers to purchase thinking it was a recipe book.

The book's cover claims that it is a diet "proven by science." This, in itself, should give anyone pause before purchasing. Add the review by Dr. Andrew Weil, a regular in the quack panoply, who calls it "Cutting edge nutritional science," and we've reached dumbass saturation.

Now, I did not bother trying to calculate the actual calories that the diet ends up recommending. Why? Because that would be making the assumption that the author has any evidence whatsoever that his diet "works" because of this magical idea of only counting sugar calories, and that, indeed, a calorie is not a calorie. I do not need to "prove" that this diet is actually a restricted calorie diet. If it results in weight loss, it probably is. It is up to the author to show evidence for his extraordinary claims, and there is none. At the end of the day, it does not matter what the calories are, because we have no evidence whatsoever that this "diet" results in weight loss, let alone 18 lbs in two weeks.


United States. Food and Nutrition Board - National Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino AcidsDietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. By Various. Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2002/2005. Web. 1 Dec. 2014. <>.

by EricTEricT



By Dave Hargreaves


The theory? So called “toxic hunger.”

For those who missed the article, the suggestion is that if you choose the wrong foods, you'll get heroin-like withdrawal symptoms forcing you to overeat because you think that you're hungry when you actually aren't. Therefore, (not really, but according to these clowns) “counting calories is a fool's errand” because… well, actually it's not clear why. I guess the inference is that you'll blow your targets anyway due to the badness of these bad “addictive” foods.

For what it is worth, we are not told exactly which foods cause this problem. Rather, we are given only vague descriptions of “crappy processed foods” or “pro-inflammatory” foods. It seems reasonable to me that if an author is to claim that certain foods promote a response “similar to withdrawal symptoms of a heroin addict,” they should be able to name at least a couple of these foods so that the theory can be tested with a scientific level of scrutiny.

It goes without saying that no references to any scientific literature to support these claims are provided.

Now, I don't pretend to know everything or to necessarily always be up on the very latest developments and changes in our understanding of nutritional science. So, just because I'd never heard of it before doesn't automatically mean the guy just made it up for the sake of a subheading that would encourage people to click. Assuming the idea wasn't just fabricated for the sake of this article though, I would be interested to learn exactly which members of the nutrition community are putting forth this theory. It certainly hasn't come from any of the reputable sources that I follow, to the best of my knowledge.


What's always interesting to me when I hear about a “new theory” on nutrition, is how often it is a theory explaining why you can't be successful doing something that many, many people have already been successful doing. A new theory to the terms of “here's something that through observation we know does happen, and this could explain why” would be worth hearing and worth considering, if there is sufficient evidence to support the claim. Honestly though, this is just the latest example of certain aspects of the fitness community grasping at straws to prove that they're the only ones with an approach that can work. Because, you know… it's not enough just to be right and have an approach that works and is suitable for you… you have to prove that everyone else is wrong and doomed to fail, as well.

It is disappointing that a site such as T-nation, which does feature contributed articles from some reputable sources, would publish an article that includes such unfounded and unscientific fear-mongering. It is puzzling to me that the same author recently published quite a good article on the same website discussing orthorexia nervosa and exposing many of the baseless claims about different food choices. How does someone go from writing that article, to writing this article that is tantamount to the active promotion of orthorexia through similarly baseless fear-mongering? It does not add up.

To be fair, though, I didn't disagree with every point the article made. For example, the article suggested that if you choose only nutrient dense, calorie sparse foods you are extremely unlikely to over eat, especially as an active person participating in strength training. The article then goes on to espouse the benefits of organ meats such as liver, and suggests the most nutrient dense choices of vegetables. I am an advocate for people meeting their requirements through the choices that best suit them, so I don't have much to disagree with here other than the inference that you're in any way likely to fall short of your micronutritional requirements due to eating the more familiar, more palatable choices of fruit and vegetables rather than the “nutritional powerhouses” recommended here.

Having an abundant intake of vitamins and minerals via a variety of nutrient dense sources is undoubtedly beneficial, but the law of diminishing returns does apply here. There is a limit to how much your body has a use for, and beyond that limit you're just going to piss the rest out. The comment that “good nutrition isn't for wimps” struck me as particularly toxic and pro-orthorexic. So, if you're not enough of a hard man to force yourself to eat things you don't like, then you don't want it bad enough… Is that how they think it works?

The author does specify that “nutrient poor, not just calorie dense” foods cause this so-called toxic hunger problem,. Therefore, it appears he is suggesting that it is not just “crappy processed” convenience type foods that need to be avoided, but that many of the more familiar and palatable fruits and vegetables would also be included in the “wrong” foods list that cause these supposed withdrawal-like false hunger signals. This would be a highly pro-orthorexic claim indeed.

Backing up a little though, we're talking as strength athletes here and discussing the prospect of getting fat, or failing to get lean, due to “wrong” food choices. While it is true that choosing nutrient-dense and calorie sparse foods will make over-eating very unlikely, this in no way should be interpreted as to suggest that over-eating is inevitable and a foregone conclusion if you fail to eat according to adhere to particular recommendations based on the ideologies of a particular author.

More to the point though, as a strength athlete the prospect of over-eating is the least of your concerns. While a misguided and excessive “bulking” period, or simply mindless (or belligerent) overeating in ignorance or defiance of your actual requirements would promote fat gain, outside of those specific circumstances it is quite unlikely.

People get fat through a lack of activity and excessive total intake. As strength athletes, we do not need to be concerned with restricting and minimizing energy intake as if we were inactive people and likely to get fat by accident. Rather, in the interests of improving performance at training, in competition and in body composition and condition, our concern is with what is an optimal (or at least adequate) level of minimal total intake and macronutrient breakdown.

Contrary to what we're conditioned to believe, we cannot expect optimal performance or results from training while under-eating, and we are in no danger whatsoever of ending up fat due to failing to restrict our food choices or energy intake. On the contrary, we are at far greater risk of squandering our efforts through under-fueling. We should be asking ourselves “what is the maximum amount of protein, energy and other resources my body can utilize”, and then aiming to get as close to those amounts as often as possible.

The T-Nation article makes the claim that “hunger is one of the main impediments to fat loss." Nothing could be further from the truth. Ineffectual exercise programming and continued over-eating is the impediment of fat loss, whether simply overeating due to a lack of mindfulness, or as the inevitable result of trying to restrict intake to a less than sufficient amount.

If you are suitably active, especially if you are participating in strength training, and are working to suitable total energy and protein targets, you will not go hungry. If you are still hungry, it is likely that you need to revise and increase those targets. As a strength athlete who is eating mindfully, hunger is your body's way of letting you know that it requires more resources to put to good use in furthering your progress and building your goal body condition as an adaptation to training.

Hunger is nothing to be afraid of. This so called “toxic hunger” does not exist, other than in the imagination of people who are clutching at straws to support the idea that the way that best suits them is the only way that could or should work for anyone else. The “tough guy” assertion in particular was completely asinine, and the comparison of people who make different food choices to drug addicts is simply offensive.

Furthermore, if people do end up overeating as a result of attempting to restrict diet to an inadequate total intake, as I described above, telling them “you weren't really hungry, you're just addicted to shit food because you're too much of a weak willed wimp to eat stuff that doesn't taste good,” as per the inference in this article, could be extremely harmful. Disastrous, even. Quite aside from not even being correct, I might add. For a related example read a previous post of mine which features an actual message from one of my clients who actually was recovering from eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, and got sucked into paleo / clean eating, ending up in full-blown relapse. If you think this is unusual, it is not. It is all too common.

It is a sad indictment that the quality of much of the information related to fitness, health, weight loss, and nutrition in particular, is written with such a clear bias and is based on unfounded fear mongering that is not supported by science and has no basis in reality.

As strength athletes or for that matter as any human being who endeavors to achieve a physical result through training, we do require a certain amount of total energy, protein, and other nutritional resources to enable this to happen. Our primary concern is in ensuring that we meet a minimum adequate requirement, and preferably push closer towards what we would expect to be optimal levels. We can predict what these amounts might be with reasonable accuracy through mathematics, and fine tune as may be necessary the closer we get to our peak potential.

Provided our targets are appropriate and we do indeed meet them with reasonable consistency, the choices of foods we make to attain those resources is of little relevance.

by EricTEricT

]]> Skinny Bitch: A No-Nonsense, Tough-Love Guide for Savvy Girls Book Review: Eat, Read, Crap <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em;"></div> <p><strong>By Eric Troy</strong></p> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122372" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Mon, 12 May 2014 16:58:41 +0000

By Eric Troy

The blurb for Skinny Bitch: A No-Nonsense, Tough-Love Guide for Savvy Girls Who Want to Stop Eating Crap and Start Looking Fabulous! claims that it is not your typical boring diet book. This is true. It also claims it is a tart-tongue no-holds barred wake-up call to all women who want to be thin. If calling your reader "shithead" is tart-tongued, I'll agree with this as well. You could also describe the language, instead of tart-tongued, as adolescent.

Before actually reviewing this pile of crap (there is a section on pooping), I'd like to take a moment to just consider this blurb itself. Does the fact that an author is "not holding anything back" have anything to do with the truth-value (odd term, but it fits) of the book? Well, it signals conviction. What does conviction signal? Nothing more than steadfast belief. You can believe what you say and be absolutely full of conviction, but it does not make you right. Passion is not truth, it is just passion. Passion FOR the truth, well, that is another thing.

The authors of Skinny Bitch, Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin, waste absolutely no time in letting the misinformation spew forth. Chapter One begins with the first completely untrue statement in the book. "You need to get healthy if you want to get skinny. Healthy = skinny. Unhealthy = fat." This is such a gross simplification of the relationship between body fat and health that it is not laughable, it is disgusting. We see, right off the bat, that mistaken value judgments are taking the place of well-researched and considered arguments. Skinny does not equal healthy.


The fact that this was ever a New York Times Bestseller
is just plain old sad.

The central theme behind the book is the simplistic notion that some food is crap — which should, of course, cause the requisite self-loathing should you eat it — and some foods are well, not crap. According to the authors, sugar makes you fat, so avoid it. Sugar is the Devil, say the authors, and this is the title of Chapter 3. They advise to eat fruits instead. They make no effort to differentiate between one type of sugar and another. It is probably a good guess that they mean table sugar, or sucrose, but they ignore all other simple sugars, and the fact that fruit contains sucrose, probably due to the misguided notion that "natural equals good."

Meats are banned as well, because meat makes you fat. It is "rotting flesh" while vegetables are "living." Ignoring this moronic stance, the idea that meat makes you fat flies in the face of the weight loss experienced by those eating very high protein diets of almost all meat. Much of the book is just a opinionated attack on the meat industry and processed foods. To make it a bit more simple: The authors recommend a vegan diet, although one that may be nutritionally deficient.

There are three chapters devoted to animal slaughter and the food industry. While everybody has opinions, some opinions are more valid than others, and the opinions blasted forth in this book are based on a lot of misconceptions and misinformation, as well as an absolute lack of anything resembling critical thought.

They recommend whole grains, and avoidance of white flour products. The overinflated notions boil down the idea that every single health problem you could possibly encounter comes from "eating crap," including menstrual cramps! But do not take medications to relieve the pain of menstrual cramps, because they are supposed to hurt, and they get you ready for the pain of childbirth.

The dietary guidelines are simplistic layman notions based on, obviously, not a shred of credible research. However, who needs good research and well thought-out explanations when you have adolescent attitude? Chapter 5, "The Dairy Disaster," begins "Go suck your mother's tits." Here, we are told that because "breast milk alone" accounts for such a large weight gain in a human baby, than cow's milk should therefore do much the same thing to you.

We are then told that since humans lack the enzyme lactase (only some of us do) they cannot digest milk and this encourages the growth of bacteria which digest the lactose in the milk and this, in turns, causes an acidic environment which encourages the growth of cancer cells. They also repeat the well-debunked myth that milk causes excess mucus production. Soy milk (and other soy products) are to be used in place of milk.

Give up your gross vices, the authors advise. Cigarettes are for losers…they are totally uncool. That should solve the cigarette problem, once and for all. Who knew it would be so easy to break the vice-grip of nicotine? And cigarettes cause you to eat shit and garbage. Man, now that is a side-effect I never knew about. I've seen people dumpster-diving, but eating shit, as well? And, beer is for frat boys. Another vice gone. Need more? The authors recommend donating blood as a weight-loss aid.

The sources used by the authors to write this book are all Google searches and things like self-help books. There is not one credible scientific source used to inform the content of this work. Not one journal study. Nothing. The assertions given lack even a shred of scientific validity. As you can see from the example above, most of the book is made up of value judgements, rather than factual statements. Although we should be able to state, as a fact, that cigarette smoking causes cancer, for instance, to say that cigarette smoking is "totally uncool" is a value statement, which we can neither prove nor disprove. My statement above that the book is a "pile of crap" is similar (see also it is digusting). It is a value statement. We can stand behind those, but we can't always defend them logically.

Jamie Hale, author of Should I Eat the Yolk? Separating Facts from Myths to Get You Lean, Fit, and Healthy and In Evidence We Trust: The need for science, rationality and statistics had this to say:

Despite the books poor contents it has catapulted to an International Best Seller. Which is not surprising considering the book’s fancy rhetoric and targeted audience. The authors shock methods and in your face attitude has proven a successful marketing strategy. If you like books with sometimes catchy phrases, and high-octane attitude give it a read. If you are looking for a book about nutrition look elsewhere.

My opinion: It is a poorly disguised attempt to justify disordered eating and and unhealthy attitudes about body size under the guise of "health" and a pro-animal rights stance. The language is childish and, although some find it amusing, I find it disgusting because of the damage it can do to young women who are already struggling to cope with society's expectations. They don't advise their readers, they abuse them, trying to shame them into following the asinine recommendations of the book. "Don't be a fat pig anymore," read this book. Well, don't. Just don't. There are also many follow-up books, including "Skinny Bastard." I'd recommend ignoring these as well. If you do read these books, and think they are anything more than ill-informed ravings, well, in the language of the book, "You've got your head in your ass." It is not worth one little cent.

This page contains affiliate links to We have not been compelled in any way to place links to particular products and have received no compensation for doing so. We receive a very small commission only if you buy a product after clicking on one of these affiliate links. We do not recommend that you buy the product reviewed on this page, but have included a link to it so you can view it. Instead, consider purchasing the other books mentioned.

by EricTEricT

]]> Is Strength Training the Key to Fat Loss? <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122372" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:45:13 +0000 by EricTEricT


Acarbose is one of a group of oligosaccharides (complex carbohydrates) which inhibit enzymes of starch and disaccharide digestion. It was introduced in 1990 by Bayer AG, Germany under the trade name Glucobay. In the U.S. it is marketed under the name Precose. Other trade names are Glumida and Prandose. It is also available in generic.

Specifically, acarbose is called an alpa-glucoside inhibitor as it inhibits the action of alpha-amylase and alpha-glucoside enzymes which are both responsible for hydrolyzing complex carbohydrates in the small intestine. By delaying the absorption of glucose after meals, acarbose is therefore useful in controlling rises in blood glucose levels after meals for Diabetes mellitus type II therapy. Acarbose can be used when diet alone fails to control blood glucose levels. Insulin dependent patients can also sometimes have benefit from acarbose because of the reduction in the exaggerated rise in blood glucose level after a meal.

Acarbose was discovered by researchers at Bayer during a screening of the culture broth of Actinoplanes, a bacteria of the genera actinomycetes, which are organisms with characteristics of both bacteria and fungi, but considered bacteria.

Acarbose has been improperly marketed as a 'starch blocker' to accelerate fat loss for the general population, with little evidence of efficacy, as it does not normally induce weight loss or malabsorbtion.

General Adverse Side Effect of Acarbose

The major side effects of acarbose are flatulence, abdominal pain and discomfort, abdominal bloating (distension), and diarrhea. These can be severe enough to prevent acarbose from being used. Also possible are more severe effects such as liver impairment or toxicity with jaundice. Acarbose could be dangerous to those with an intestinal obstruction, malabsorption, inflammatory bowel disease, liver disease, colonic ulceration, and diabetic ketoacidosis. It has also been known to affect the sense of taste.

Acarbose should only be used under the supervision of a physician and for blood sugar control, in line with its documented use as an antibiabetic drug. Acarbose has no efficacy in fat loss.

1. Aronson, J. K. Meyler's Side Effects of Endocrine and Metabolic Drugs. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2009. 359-361.
2. 2010 Nurse's Drug Handbook. Boston: Jones and Bartlett, 2010. 21-22.
3. Grabley, S., and R. Thiericke. Drug Discovery from Nature. Berlin: Springer, 1999. 16.

by EricTEricT

]]> Calories from Lipids (Fats), Carbohydrate, and Protein <div class="mobile-only"></div> <div class="mobile-no"> <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em;"></div> </div> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122373" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Fri, 08 Mar 2013 15:12:43 +0000

The term we use to describe the energy derived from foods is Calorie. In other words, the terms energy and Calorie, when applied to foods, are synonymous. One calorie is defined as the quantity of heat necessary to raise one kg (1 liter) of water 1°C. What we call a calorie, therefore, is actually a kilogram calorie or kilocalorie, which is abbreviated kcal. If a food contained 100 kcal, then the energy the food contained would increase the temperature of 100 liters of water by 1°C. A capital C is used here, in the word Calorie, to indicate the kilocalorie since one calorie would actually be the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C. For more on the calorie and its problems, see Calorie Confusion.

The energy from foods is measured using direct calorimetry. The instrument used is called a bomb calorimeter. This is a metal container inside which the food sample is burned in a sealed and pressurized pure oxygen environment. The food is burned inside the reaction chamber which is ignited by an electrified fuse running through the top of the chamber. This ignites the oxygen and food inside the chamber, which, as it burns, gives off heat which is absorbed into the surrounding tank. This chamber is surrounded by a water bath which is well-insulated from any changes in temperature due to the outside environment. Therefore, the heat from the food in the reaction chamber also raises the temperature of the water to some extent, which is recorded by a highly accurate thermometer. The change in temperature of the water, once the food is combusted, is the heat of combustion or the thermal energy of the food, hence the caloric content. The average caloric content of a wide variety of foods has been determined by this method. This information can be used to derive an average caloric value for types of foods, and for macronutrients.

bomb calorimeter older setup

Bomb Calorimeter, older setup than the one below.
image by Akshat Goel via wikimedia

However, the thermal energy, or gross energy value of the food, does not represent the actual net energy that a human being can derive from the food. One reason is that digestion is not one hundred percent efficient. Since one hundred percent of all foods cannot be digested and absorbed, not all the energy can be extracted from the food nutrients through metabolism. The efficiency of digestion for different foods is called the coefficient of digestibility. This is usually given as a percentage value. For example, meats and fish, on average, have 97% digestibility.

bomb calorimeter modern setup

Bomb Calorimeter, more modern setup than the one below.
image by Harbor1 via wikimedia

In addition to energy lost through digestion, some amount of energy is also lost during the process of metabolism. This is especially true of protein, since the body cannot oxidize the nitrogen component. The nitrogen must be combined with hydrogen to form urea, which is excreted in the urine. This loss of hydrogen, to deal with the nitrogen, represents a loss of energy, which averages about 19% of a protein molecule's energy lost.

Because of this energy loss, the average caloric content as determined through direct calorimetry and the net energy a human derives will differ.

Lipid (Fat) Calories per Gram

Not all lipids (fats) contain the same amount of energy, as determined through calorimetry. One gram of beef or pork fat yields about 9.5kcal, and this is the average for one gram lipids from meat, fish, or eggs. One gram of butter fat yields about 9.27, and one gram of dairy fat gives about 9.25. Lipids from vegetables and fruits averages 9.30 kcal.


High Fat Foods

The average heat of combustion (bomb calorimeter) for lipid is generally given as 9.4 kcal per gram. The net energy (average calories) for humans is the same, at 9.4 kcal per gram of fat. This is usually rounded to 9 calories per gram.

Carbohydrate Calories

Gross energy from glucose is 3.74 kcal per gram, and 4.20 for starch. The average for carbohydrate is given as 4.2 kcal per gram gross energy, and the net energy for humans is the same. There is no way to give the exact calories per gram of carbohydrate, though. The actual amount of energy from any carbohydrate varies depending on the shape of the molecule. Therefore, the calories from carbohydrate is usually rounded to 4 calories per gram.

Protein Calories

Energy from protein can depend on the amount of nitrogen the protein contains, as well as the digestibility of the food. The higher the nitrogen content, the lower the amount of energy that can be derived through human metabolism. Proteins from meat, eggs, beans, and corn have about 16% nitrogen. Protein from nuts and sees, and most grains (cereals) have a higher nitrogen content of around 18.9%. Protein from milk has a lower nitrogen content of about 15.7%.

In a bomb calorimeter, the average number of calories in one gram of protein is 5.65 kcal per gram. The average net energy for humans is generally given as 4.2 kcal per gram, the same as for carbohydrate. This, again, is usually rounded to 4 calories per gram.

Alcohol Calories

Alcohol (ethanol) yields around 7 kcal per gram through direct calorimetry. The net energy for humans is usually the same. If, however, a large amount of alcohol is consumed, it is possible for less energy to be available to the body, which may be due to damage to the mitochondria in the liver cells.

1. Dunford, Marie, and J. Andrew Doyle. Nutrition for Sport and Exercise. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. 45-48.
2. McArdle, William D., Frank I. Katch, and Victor L. Katch. Exercise Physiology: Energy, Nutrition, and Human Performance. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996. 83-86.

by EricTEricT

]]> Negative Calorie Foods: A Magical Farce <div class="mobile-only"></div> <div class="mobile-no"> <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em;"></div> </div> <div class="mobile-only"> <p><iframe width="98%" height="290" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></p> </div> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122373" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Thu, 10 May 2012 21:17:37 +0000

Turning over a new leaf, just for this post, at least, I decided to actually write about fat loss. People who read my articles regularly know that I do not hand out weight loss advice. But a fun subject, and one a knowledgeable feller like myself can tackle, is the "negative calorie" claim that has surfaced through the years. The thing about this claim is that it can seem logical at first glance, to someone with no in-depth knowledge of nutrition, and at the heart of it, there is a kernel of truth. For those without knowledge and those who wish to cash in on that market, a kernel of truth is all that is needed.

Negative Calories and TEF

Negative Calories has to top the list of magical weight loss myths, because it would be the most amazing if it were true. This myth says that there are some foods that by virtue of their composition require more energy to chew and digest than they actually impart to the body, thus giving "negative calories" and helping to lose fat. Basically, you are burning calories by eating the food, so if you eat a lot of it, you'll lose weight!

Lisen to the Voice Version (Video Playlist)

It is actually pretty hard to believe, at present, that people swallowed this one, but they did. Oh, they really did! Celery was the king of negative calories. Other contenders are cabbage, lettuce, cucumbers, and Snicker bars.

But I did say there was a kernel of truth, didn't I? Well, the idea is based on what is called the thermic effect of food (TEF). Of course, when someone comes up with a term like that, someone else always has to one-up them so there are other names for it like diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT), specific dynamic effect (SDE) of food, and specific dynamic activity (SDA) of food. You'll understand if I stick to thermic effect or "TEF" for short.

TEF is one of the three categories that total energy expenditure (TEE) is broken down into. The other two are your resting energy expenditure(REE) and your physical activity. You may also have heard the terms "basal energy expenditure" (BEE) or "basal metabolism rate" (BMR). See the section I added below for further explanation. For now, know that resting energy expenditure typically accounts for about 50 to 70 percent of TEE. Physical activity accounts for about 20 percent. That leaves just around 10 percent for the TEF. 1,2 In clinical settings, TEF is not measured, but rather estimated based on the equation:

TEE = (REE + EEPA) x 1.10

Again, TEE is total energy expenditure, REE is resting energy expenditure and EEPA is energy expended in physical activity, which includes both voluntary activities, such as exercise and activities of daily living, and the energy expended in non-exercise activity thermogenesis, or NEAT. And the factor of 1.10 accounts for the TEF.2

The TEF is the energy required to process the food you eat. It takes some energy to chew it, digest it, transport it, absorb it, metabolize its nutrients, and to store some nutrients. You chew food. That takes a bit of energy. The muscles in your GI tract speed up their contractions, so that takes some energy. Digestive juices and enzymes are secreted, and that takes some energy as well.3 All this produces heat, thus a "thermic effect". To produce heat is to expend calories.

The thermic effect of food actually has another component. The energy required to process the food, as I've described above, is called the obligatory thermogenesis. The other component is facultative thermogenesis. This is the excess energy expended above the obligatory thermogenesis due to metabolic inefficiency. 2

This COSMED device is an indirect calorimetry device.
Indirect calorimetry is a way of estimating energy expenditure in
steady state conditions from the rate of oxygen consumption (Vo2),
and the rate of carbon dioxide production (Vco2).
Image courtesy of COSMED

This COSMED device is an indirect calorimetry device.
Indirect calorimetry is a way of estimating energy expenditure in
and the rate of carbon dioxide production (Vco2).
Image courtesy of COSMED

So how much energy are we talking about, for the thermic effect? Well it's easily overestimated. Or even underestimated. That's the problem. See, we can only estimate it in the first place and the errors involved in that estimate are likely so large that they offset any small contribution to calories burned. As you can see, it is simply assumed to be 10% and only the resting and physical energy requirements are measured actively. The composition of the diet greatly affects the TEF. The TEF is greater with carbohydrate and protein ingestion than for fat, protein being the greatest. It should be noted that this energy cost is probably more related to the cost of storage than to the cost of processing and absorption, although there are probably other components as well.

Also, other dietary factors such as spicy foods, caffeine, and nicotine can increase it. So based on our ten percent, let's say that a person who takes in 2000 calories a day burns around 200 calories to process the food….plus or minus how much?2,3

Looking at celery, you can see, as with many myths, there is an element of truth at base. Celery is 95% water and the rest mostly cellulose, which is difficult for our body to break down. One stalk contains only six to ten calories. The chewing part, well, that couldn't possibly burn enough calories as you'd have to chew for an hour to burn 5 to 10 calories, at an estimate. Which means an hour worth of celery. The math is a bit staggering to me so I'll leave that alone. The actual digestion? Sure, by the time the body deals with celery it is probably fair to say that there is no appreciable net gain in calorie energy. If you did nothing but chew on celery all may even end up with a calorie deficit. But of course, you would never do that and there is no way you could ever eat enough celery to make a difference in your caloric intake. Celery is not only hard to digest, it is a nutritional pauper. A celery diet would be a diet with an absolute lack of proper nutrition.

The whole concept of a "negative calorie" is absurd in the first place. A calorie, by which we usually mean a kilocalorie, is a distinct positive value: the quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water from 0 to 1°C. There can never be a negative calorie.

Although most of the negative calorie hoopla is limited to advertisements or articles in questionable publications like the Weekly World News, it finds its way into mainstream books, magazines, and websites all the time. Negative calorie foods are often billed as foods that help you or even cause you to lose weight. Some M.D. named Neal D. Barnard actually wrote a book called Foods that Cause You To Lose Weight: The Negative Calorie Effect. 4

There is something called a Negative Calorie Diet but I am not sure if that is one fad diet, several, or just a general term for any diet claiming to utilize this effect. I really do not think that investigating that nonsense further is worth a few more hours of my life. Also, there is the Cabbage Soup Diet, which is based on the supposed negative calorie value of cabbage and other vegetables put in a soup. Or something like that.

Clever Rules for Negative Calorie Counting

Anahad O'Connor, author of the "Really" column in the New York Times, in his book Never Shower in a Thunderstorm: Surprising Facts and Misleading Myths About Our Health and The World we Live In 5, relates some funny stories of readers who wrote into the Times with some clever rules for "negative calorie counting." Most of these are obviously jokes, but the author does not really say so. Thing is, I've heard people say things like this so at least some of them may not have been joking. Here are the highlights:

  • With foods like steamed crabs, it takes more energy to get at the crab meat than the crab actually contains. Therefore, you have to factor in the calories used in getting to the food in the first place. Marylanders rejoice!
  • The cold beer rule: Cold beer has negative calories since it takes more energy to bring the beer down to body temperature than there is calories in the beer. Given the typical calorie count of beer, you'd have to say this one with a grin on your face and your finger crossed behind your back.
  • The body can't count, so count your food, not your calories. This one says that your body cannot count very high so eat in multiples and make sure to eat so many of each thing that your body reaches its counting limit. Anything over this limit has no calories. Apparently, anything over six silver-dollar pancakes, your body cannot recognize. If the person who wrote in this one wasn't joking, they have serious mental deficiencies.
  • Anything you resist eating…you get to subtract from your calories for the day. That's right..the temptations you don't give in to are negative calories. If you turn down a big chunk of chocolate cake, that's 400 calories less at the end of the day. Just today, I refused to eat cake, M&M's, and Doritos. I also avoided two Dr. Peppers which were taunting me. That puts me at, I don't know, 1500 calories down?5

Ice Water and Negative Calories

Ice water gets a lot of credit for its negative calorie effects. You saw the cold beer thing above right? Well, beer contains calories. How much better to drink ice water, with no calories. Why, it takes so much energy to warm that cold water up to body temperature, you could cancel out a whole meal by drinking ice water! Really? Of course not. But you could cancel out some of it though, right?

Let's see. For each gram of ice water the body will have to use about 37 calories to raise the temperature to body temp. Hey, this is looking good! I think we're on to something. Now, if I eat 3000 calories, I just need to figure out how much ice water I need to drink. It shouldn't matter when I drink it; I can drink it throughout the day or all at once, whatever. So, a gram of water is equivalent to a cubic centimeter of water:

(37 cal/cc)(#cc) = (3000 x 103 cal)

Okay, so I divide 37 into 3000, and I get 81 and then, that leaves me with #cc = 81 x 103 cc. So…the answer is 81 liters, or 20 gallons. It will take 20 GALLONS of ICE water to burn those calories. Oops.

Well, I only need to burn off that extra 500 calories.

(37 cal/cc)(#cc) = (500 x 103 cal).

That is so much better. You can do that with only 13.5 liters of ice water. That is about 3.5 gallons. You try it and let me know how it works out for you. By the way, chewing the ice cubes works even better. That takes 80 calories for each gram of ice. Nice! And cold.

I know you are impressed with my math. Sucker! I can't even help my son with his fourth grade math, half the time. I got help from Back-of-The-Envelope Physics by Clifford E. Swartz, which is the only kind of physics book I can understand, except the kind of physics in most science fiction books.6.

Chewing Your Way Thin

I mentioned calories burned by chewing above. A lot has been made, in books and articles, about a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine back in 2007 7, usually given as "a doctor from the Mayo Clinic," which found that chewing gum burns 11 calories per hour. Eh, so that's a lot of chewing, and I have TMJ problems, so I had to give up gum. But, it's not like there is nothing to this. You see, there are more things to consider besides just the calories burned by the chewing. Maybe you avoid a high calorie snack. Or maybe there is an appetite suppression, or it contributes to resting energy expenditure in some way. Tom Venuto blogged about this, and brought up another study that dove further, so you can find out more in Does Chewing Gum Help You Lose Weight?

Here's the thing: I don't know about you but I find people who constantly chew gum to be a bit repulsive. Sorry to any dedicated gum chewers reading this but, it's a little off-putting to have someone chewing their cud while talking to you. So, consider that if you try the chewing gum diet, you may not be able to sit with me at the cool kid's table.

The Protein Paradox and the Thermic Effect

Remember, above, I mentioned that the thermic effect of food is affected by the composition of a meal. So, protein and carbohydrates have a greater thermic effect than fat. This could be one reason for the association of fat with weight gain. But, traditionally, it was high-carbohydrate diets that got a lot of flack for weight gain. Therefore, many people began promoting a diet high in protein and low in carbohydrates. These diets would have 30% or greater energy from protein.

Problem is, a high-protein diet tends to be a high-fat diet. Diets high in saturated fat are not considered healthy, as you well know (a subject of debate). But also, fat makes you fat, right? Yet, these high-protein diets generally seemed to work. Well, now, most diets that limit calories "work." Okay? Let's get that straight. It's tends to be adherence that is the key, not the particular fad diet.

Of course, everyone does not believe that so there has to be some explanation for the observations of success with high-protein diets, despite the increase in fat intake. One of those explanations was that protein has a greater thermic effect than either carbohydrates or fat. So maybe all that protein intake contributed to thermogenesis to a significant enough degree. It does seem to be the case that meals higher in protein result in greater energy expenditure. However, estimates of the total energy increase after consuming a high protein diet (30%) as compared to "normal" protein diets, found only about a 23 calorie increase. That hardly amounts to a hill of beans for someone trying to lose weight. It is doubtful that high-protein diets exert their effect by increasing TEF.

Negative Calories and the Dieter's Paradox

The belief in negative calories is part of the kind of thinking involved in what Alexander Chernev calls The Dieter's Paradox. The kinds of foods promoted to be negative calorie foods fall into the category of healthy foods, for the most part. People are being encouraged to eat more healthy foods. In fact, it is outright shouted by every health organization in the world. Eat more healthy foods! Eat more fruits and vegetables; everybody needs to! This has been going on for a while. Yet, there seems to have been no impact on the obesity epidemic. According to Chernov, "An important factor contributing to this obesity trend is the misguided belief about the relationship between a meal's healthiness and its impact on weight gain, whereby people erroneously believe that eating healthy foods in addition to unhealthy ones can decrease a meal's calorie count."

Chernov asserts that although lack of willpower to control consumptive behaviors is often given as the chief cause of the still rising proportion of overweight people, this is not the only factor. He argues that over-consumption "might also stem from people's misguided belief about the relationship between a meal's healthiness and its impact on weight gain."

And there may be something to that. He gives the example of adding a side salad to an unhealthy meal and believing that the healthy option added to the unhealthy meal decreases the calorie count of the meal. This "halo effect" of healthy foods is believed to extend not only to the nutrient quality of the meal but also to its effect on weight gain. A side salad 'cancels out' other calories because of the negative calorie bias.8

Have you seen this behavior? Have you exhibited it? I've seen it. Two big macs and a side salad, anyone? This belief in protective effects is just one part of the dieter's paradox. The paradox, in general, is that the most weight-conscious people, especially dieters, are more prone to making irrational decisions about food, and therefore more prone to weight gain!

In chapter 4 of the book, Leveraging Consumer Psychology for Effective Health Communications, Chernov and co-author Pierre Chandon name this negative calorie bias is one of several biases that cause people to make errors in their estimation of caloric intake. The negative calorie bias falls under a larger bias, called the halo bias. Another main category of underestimation bias is the averaging bias.

Chernov says the halo bias "refers to the tendency of a particular feature of the food, such as nutrition labels or marketing claims that it is healthy, to influence the overall estimation of the calorie content of the food item or of an entire meal." And "the averaging bias refers to people’s tendency to average the calorie content of combinations of healthy and unhealthy items."

The problem with the idea of the halo bias is that the higher the actual calorie count of a food is, the more people tend to underestimate it. In a quick evaluation of a clients problem with his middle-age paunch, for instance, I asked him to list out his meals for a few days. He, of course, didn't think he was eating much and had no idea where all the calories were coming from. Typically, you will find that your clients have been severely underestimating (informally) the calories actually contained in the highest calorie items they tend to eat. For this client, the big problem was the habit of getting take-out lunches from convenience stores and consuming some "large-ticket" items without a clue as to the huge amount of calories he was taking in. Accordingly, he was eating a "healthy" turkey sandwich, for instance, but was chasing it with a large (jumbo) sweetened bottled iced tea that topped 500 calories, a large snack pack of potato chips or other chips that easily did the same. He simply severely underestimated just how many calories were coming from the most calorie laden things in his lunches. Comparably, his typical breakfast and dinner was healthy and moderate. It was easy for him to drop up to 1000 calories a day by just changing a few lunch habits! Hardly a life-changing feat. But this was not the "halo-bias" it was just a basic problem: the more calories a food actually contains, the more our estimates will fall short.

So, Wansink and Chandon controlled for this in a study where they asked consumers to estimate the number of calories in two ten-ounce cups. One contained M&M's and the other contained granola. Guess what? You may not have guessed this but both of these have pretty much the same number of calories. The M&M's contain 1,380 calories and the granola contained 1,330 calories. What do you think happened? Of course, the participants underestimated the calories in the granola, by 28% while overestimating the calories in the M&M's by 9 percent. This is consistent with the perception that granola is a "healthy snack" and that M&M's are not.

The halo bias is also caused by food label claims and other marketing descriptions. So claims of "low fat" or "healthy" will cause people to underestimate the true calorie count. These general effects are not isolated to the over-weight and calorie conscious but are also present in normal-weight people. So there is a lot more to it, of course, than one bias.

Even though a persons chief goal is to control caloric intake, the way they categorize different types of food as "healthy" or "unhealthy" will cause them to underestimate the calories in a meal, based on this perception. In reality, the number of calories in a meal is nothing more than the calories contained in each food item added together. But people often do not rely on reality to help them choose a meal, instead they rely on impressions. Consider the example given by Chernov and Chandon. You are limiting calorie intake and you have a choice between a hamburger or a hamburger and a side salad. You choose the hamburger and side salad. This is inconsistent with your goals, logically, because the two-item meal contains more calories. But you chose the higher calorie option.

What is going on here? For one, you may have perceived the salad as imparting some "benefits" to your health, such as vitamins, fiber, etc. The addition of a beneficial and healthful food, then, caused you to categorize the meal with the hamburger AND salad as more healthful than just the hamburger. The idea that something is more helpful can cause you to underestimate its calories..even with the 'math' in plain site. Biases, remember, are largely unconscious. You "averaged out" the low calorie and healthy salad with the high calorie hamburger causing you to derive a lower calorie estimate: This is the averaging bias. These biases are interrelated, as you can see.

Now, you might be thinking, the salad thing is just the negative calorie bias! That would make sense, at first glance. A person might believe that the greens in the salad consumed more energy to process than they gave, so that they actually ended up subtracting a bunch of calories from the meal. Well, some people might believe this but the negative calorie thing is more a fad belief than a consistent bias. In fact, when asked to consider such foods alone, consumers will not tend to assume they have zero calories or negative calories, but will give an actual calorie estimate.

To test this, Chernev and Gal asked participants to estimate the calorie content of a cheeseburger alone, a broccoli salad alone, or a meal containing both. The average calories given for the cheeseburger was 761 calories. The average calories given for the broccoli salad was 67 calories. Okay, so you can see that the participants did not perceive the broccoli salad as having negative calories, when viewed alone, despite broccoli frequently being viewed as negative calorie food. They gave a positive estimate. when we look at the combined meal group, the one who evaluated the cheeseburger and broccoli salad together, we should expect to get a number that is a combination of both the cheeseburger and broccoli salad number, approximately 830 calories, right? Wrong. This is not what happened. Instead, the combined meal group estimated that the cheeseburger-broccoli combo had 583 calories. That's 178 calorie LESS than the cheeseburger alone group. What seems to have happened is the averaging bias and the halo bias. The broccoli's perceived health benefits contrived to produce a lower estimate for the combined meal.

Just to be sure, they asked another group to compare a cheeseburger and a cookie in the same way. The cookie had the effect we would expect, causing the combined meal to be perceived as the highest calorie option.9 To read more about these studies and biases, see the references below.

Basal Energy Expenditure, BMR, and Resting Energy Expenditure: What's the Difference?

As I explained above, one of the three main components, and really the main component, of your daily energy expenditure is your resting energy expenditure. Yet, you may not have come across this term before, and instead have been exposed to the terms basal energy expenditure and/or basal metabolic rate. Many times these terms are used interchangeably. Most fat loss experts on the internet tend to prefer the term basal metabolic rate, or BMR, for short.

You may have seen formulas, such as the Harris-Benedict Formula (Equation) that are used to determine your BMR. Well, unless you fast a lot and never get out of bed, this is a bit incorrect, in more ways than one. The terms "resting" and "basal" do not quite mean the same thing, when used in these terms.

Both resting and basal energy expenditure are estimates of the energy needed in a 24 hour period.
Basal refers to the minimal level of metabolism needed to keep you alive. Resting refers to basal energy expenditure and is usually measured in a clinical setting, while lying at rest after a good sleep, after at least a 12 hour fast. Also, the environment is thermo-neutral so that the subject does not produce heat by shivering. The basal metabolic rate is measured and this is extrapolated to a 24 hour period. RMR is a a bit different and researchers usually measure this about 3 or 4 hours after a person eats or does significant physical activity. The RMR is measured and this is extrapolated to a 24 hour period. So, the RMR, and thus the REE, is slightly higher than the BMR and BEE. But, it's really not that significant.

As you probably guessed, the whole basal thing is a bit impractical, having to meet ideal conditions and all of that. It is okay to use these terms interchangeably but what we really want, technically speaking, are estimates of our resting energy expenditure, combined with our TEF and the energy used in physical activity.

1. Dunford, Marie, and J. Andrew Doyle. Nutrition for Sport and Exercise. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008
2. Coulston, Ann M., Cheryl Rock, and Elaine R. Monsen. Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease. San Diego, CA: Academic, 2001
3. Whitney, Eleanor Noss., and Sharon Rady. Rolfes. Understanding Nutrition. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Pub., 1993.
4. Barnard, Neal. Foods That Cause You to Lose Weight: The Negative Calorie Effect. McKinney, TX: Magni Group, 1992.
5. O'Connor, Anahad. Never Shower in a Thunderstorm: Surprising Facts and Misleading Myths about Our Health and the World We Live in. New York: Times /H. Holt and, 2007.
6. Swartz, Clifford E. Back-of-the-envelope Physics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2003.
7. Levine, James, Paulette Baukol, and Ioannis Pavlidis. "The Energy Expended in Chewing Gum." New England Journal of Medicine 341.27 (1999): 2100.
8. Chernev, Alexander. "The Dieter's Paradox." Journal of Consumer Psychology (2010). Society for Consumer Psychology. Web. 10 May 2012. <>
9. Keller, Punam, Victor Streche, N. Y. Armonk, and M. E. Sharpe, eds. "Chp. 4: Calorie Estimation Biases in Consumer Psychology." Leveraging Consumer Psychology for Effective Health Communications. Ed. Raheej Batra. 104-12.
Available on web as pdf download via <>

by EricTEricT


The term anorexia nervosa comes from the Greek word for "lack of appetite" and a Latin word implying a nervous origin. It is a major emotional eating disorder and is characterized by three main criteria:

  • Significant self-induced starvation, or near-starvation
  • An extreme desire for thinness or being extremely afraid of becoming fat
  • The presence of medical signs and symptoms resulting from starvation

The short-hand anorexia is often used for this condition but this term only denotes loss of appetite as a symptom, and can occur as a result of many medical conditions. It is important, then, to recognize that anorexia nervosa describes an emotional disturbance resulting in anorexia, and not just any extreme lack of appetite. The term anorexia may also be misleading in the early stages of the disorder, since lack of appetite rarely occurs early on.

Those with anorexia nervosa sometimes eat only minimal amounts of food, causing body weight to drop dangerously. They may perceive themselves to be fat, or be extremely afraid of becoming fat, even though they may look perfectly normal to everyone else or even be very thin or emaciated. This perception and fear is accompanied by depression. Signs of anorexia include obsessive exercise and calorie or fat-gram counting. Like bulimia nervosa, self-induced vomiting may occur. In fact, only half of those with the disorder will lose weight by drastically reducing calories alone. The other half will use extreme dieting along with binge eating and purging behaviors. Some will purge even after eating only small amounts of food. It is also possible for bulimia nervosa to occur as a separate, but concurrent, disorder. Signs of depression, anxiety, and irritability usually occur.

Many sufferers may use alcohol and other drugs to help cope with the psychological distress, anxiety, guilt, depression and shame. Also, appetite suppressant drugs such as diet pills, methamphetamines, cocaine, nicotine may be used. Diuretics may be abused to control "water weight" and laxative abuse is common as well.

Usually beginning in adolescence, anorexia nervosa is much more prevalent in females than males, by 10 to 20 times. It has been reported to occur in up to 4 percent of adolescent and young adult students and has been reported more frequently in recent years, with prepubertal onset becoming more common, although the most common age of onset is midteens (14 to 18 years) with about 5 percent occurring in the early 20's. It is estimated to occur in 0.5 to 1% of adolescent girls.

Other Signs and Symptoms

  • Rapid weight loss occurring over several weeks or months
  • Continual dieting even though the person is very thin or when weight is very low
  • Intense fear of or preoccupation with gaining weight
  • Often eating in secret or having other strange eating habits or rituals
  • A seeming obsession with food, calories, or nutrition
  • Very interested in cooking and the desire to cook large gourmet meals for other which they rarely consume themselves
  • May often express that they "feel fat", regardless of actual weight
  • Unable to objectively assess their own weight
  • Overly self-critical, self-loathing, or perfectionist attitude
  • self esteem tied into body shape or weight
  • Frequent illness due to malnourishment
  • Loose baggy clothing to hide the weight loss
  • Social withdrawal
  • In females, infrequent or irregular menstrual periods (it is important to note that endurance training in female athletes can also cause this "amenorrhea " and therefore this symptom alone should not be taken as a sign of anorexia nervosa)
  • Sleep disturbances including insomnia, early morning waking, or oversleeping

Physical signs other than low body weight

  • Raynaud's syndrome: tips of fingers and toes cold and red, or white and blue in color, due to poor circulation
  • Irregular heartbeat
  • Low blood pressure
  • Low body temperature
  • Lanuga hair: a fine layer of hair covering the body, grown to help create body heat in the absence of body fat and muscle
  • Dry skin
  • Brittle nails
  • Thinning hair on scalp
  • Caluses forming on hands
  • Constipation or diarrhea
  • Yellowing skin

Associated Disorders

  • Bulimia nervosa
  • Body dysmorphic syndrome
  • Depression
  • Social phobia
  • Obsessive compulsive disorder


Anorexia nervosa has the highest death rate of any eating disorder. Among those followed for a sufficient length of time, up to 20% die as a result of the disorder, with around 5-10% dying within 10 years of onset. Up to 30% of these deaths are suicides, and anorexics are 50 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.


Many people with anorexia nervosa will actively refuse treatment. As an ethical dilemna is inherit in treating a disorder that is an irrational drive to lose weight or remain thin when that person does not wish to be treated, initial assessment and treatment are often delayed for months or years. when treatment is undertaken, it is often due to the demands of loved-ones and the patients often drop out of treatment. When treatment is accepted, any components that involve increasing food intake, gaining weight or reducing physical activity may be resisted, even though psychotherapy and family therapy may be accepted. It is also not uncommon for treatment to be accepted, even in a inpatient setting, but the treatment protocols to be subverted in secret. Patients might throw out food, secretly use laxatives, or refuse certain treatments. When treatment is forced, an anorexic might use legal means to protect themselves from being treated.

Although the full legal and ethical considerations of treatment are beyond the scope of this explanation. One of the main ethical issues in the refusal of treatment is the issue of competence and the concept of autonomy. Even though family and friends find it difficult to watch their loved one engaged in behavior seen as foolish, destructive, and even deadly, it is generally agreed that patients who possess the competence to make treatment choices should be allowed to do so. So the question is whether someone suffering from anorexia nervosa has the capcitiy to understand and make rational treatment decisions. Determination of the right to refuse treatment is associated with foru main elements:

  • the potential risk of the condition
  • the likely benefit of treatment
  • likely harm of treatment
  • competence of the individual to make a reasonable medical decision

Although many anorexics might accept treatment during an emergency crisis precipitated by their condition, there is a difference between recognizing an emergency and identifying an impending emergency. Therefore, the potential risk component of competence is not as clear-cut and "obvious" as one might think. In fact, some deaths from anorexia nervosa occur after very little clinical warning, such as a sudden cardiac event. The following signs and symptoms could be used to determine the need for immediate medical attention:

  • Rapid weight loss of greater than 15lbs in four weeks
  • Seizures
  • Fainting episodes
  • Organic brain syndrome
  • Slow heart rate of less than 40 beats per minute (bradycardia)
  • Frequent chest pain from exercise
  • Heart dysrhythmia
  • Kidney dysfunction or low urine output of less than 400cc per day
  • Excess loss of body fluid and a rise in blood sodium levels (i.e. volume depletion)
  • muscle spasms caused by low blood calcium (tetany)
  • rapid diminishing of exercise tolerance


Many anorexia nervosa patients recover, and sometimes recovery occurs spontaneously. Those who receive treatment in specialized anorexia nervosa programs seem more likely to recover than those treated in generalized programs. The results of treatment, however, cannot be reliable predicted at this time. It is clear that the results of short-term intervention such as refeeding and psychiatric treatment does improve quality of life for the short-term, but long-term prognosis is generally considered to be guarded. The earlier treatment is undertaken, the better the chances for recovery.

Athletes and Anorexia Nervosa

Female athletes, especially, can suffer from anorexia nervosa, especially in those sport which emphasize and require low-body weight, thinness, or a certain body image, such as ballet, gymnastics, figure skating, long distance running, and other endurance sports. However, disordered eating often occurs in serious athletes which is not necessarily anorexia nervosa or another eating disorder, but a unique but associated manifestation of ahtletics. This has been given its own term: anorexia athletica. For more information see Female Ahthletes - Eating Disorders.

Further Resources

National Alliance on Mental Illness. http:///
National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders.
National Eating Disorders Association. Anorexia Nervosa.

1. Sadock, Benjamin J., Harold I. Kaplan, and Virginia A. Sadock. Kaplan & Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry: Behavioral Sciences/clinical Psychiatry. Philadelphia: Wolter Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007. 727-733.
2. Barlow, David H., Vincent Mark. Durand, and Sherry H. Stewart. Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach. Toronto: Nelson Education, 2009.
3. Warner, Heather. Real Life Issues: Eating Disorders. Richmond: Trotman, 2004.
4. Tan, Jacinta OA, Helen A. Doll, Raymond Fitzpatrick, Anne Stewart, and Tony Hope. "Psychiatrists' Attitudes towards Autonomy, Best Interests and Compulsory Treatment in Anorexia Nervosa: A Questionnaire Survey." Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 2.1 (2008): 40.

by EricTEricT

]]> Inventing the Couch Potato: An Exercise Myth That Needs to Go Away <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122373" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Wed, 11 May 2011 16:32:06 +0000 by EricTEricT


By Eric Troy

I was just reading a review of Mark Young's new "How to Read Fitness Research" product. A few questions occurred to me. One, what in the heck is fitness research? There are so many different types of studies and different types of subjects, all of which could fall under the "fitness" umbrella. Many of these have their own specific pitfalls and unique challenges. A person would need to have a more thorough background in the sub-disciplines before simply "learning how to read a study".

Just what the fitness industry needs is another crowd of Pubmed dreamers constructing the latest and greatest "training program" based on their new understanding of "studies". Let's take some short linear periodization, paste in some magical fruit from a study or two, and make a million! Nah, I disagree that most trainees or gym trainers need to be scouring Pubmed because they think they understand how to read studies based on some online product they purchased. Likely they will just "think" they know what they are doing. Most would do better to build a good library of resources written by professionals who actually do know what they are doing and did not get their expertise from an online product, but from a lifetime of professional endeavor.

The reason I say all this is not to attempt to criticize Mark's product as I am sure it is a fine one. After all, one of the major differences between those who can read studies and those who can't, usually, is that those who can read studies have letters after their does Mark. I am criticizing those who are recommending it willy-nilly to everyone. A product that would be great for coaches and others who already have a large amount of foundational knowledge could actually be damaging to a casual or beginning strength trainee.

However, having an idea how to read and understand research is a must. Fortunately there are some free resources available. Yep, usually you can get everything for free. You just have to look. For these I simply looked at Jamie Hale's blog "Knowledge Summit" where he has provided permanent links to some pertinent resources: How to Read a Paper by S. Keshav and How to Read a Scientific Paper by John W. Little and Roy Parker, the latter being the most useful for non-scientists. I'd start with those and then if you still think you want to push forward (it will not be fun), go for Mr. Young's product.

Critical Thinking Versus Research

There is a lot more to it than a PowerPoint presentation of how to read studies, though. Critical thinking is, in large part, developing a very good BS meter. Research is not necessarily an indication that one is applying critical thought. How to conduct research and how to think critically are not necessarily one in the same.

It is critical thinking, however, that the average person needs to develop in order to see through the BS in the fitness industry more than it is learning how to read research papers. Part of doing that goes way beyond scouring Pubmed for studies and actually reading these things I like to refer to as "books." What ever happened to books, folks? I think Samuel Johnson said something disdainful about someone who has written more than he has read. Well, I have a bit of disdain for someone who has read more studies than they have books. Because studies rarely contain foundational information!

Books are still pretty darn useful. The idea is to develop a good sense not of what we do know but what we DO NOT know. Do this long enough and thoroughly enough and after a while you will not even need to search Pubmed for studies. You can make what we call an EWAG (An Educated Wild-Ass Guess).

Somebody Told Me…Wide Gut Equals Big Strength

For instance, not long ago somebody told me that those with the widest abdominal areas were consistently the strongest individuals. Notwithstanding that we need to be clear on what activity we are talking about my BS meter went off. This statement makes it seem as if there is some statistical data that can be readily called on to show a direct correlation between abdominal girth (I had to translate "width" into girth) and physical strength by some consistent measure. There absolutely is not any such data and I did not need to go searching to confidently point out that there was no such data. I was able to make this EWAG not because I had specific data to point to but because I have enough knowledge of the subject matter in general to make my guesses very good ones.

Waist Circumference and Abdominal Fat

Now, this individual was undoubtedly thinking of very well developed obliques and the massive and blocky look. In fact, the same look that many modern bodybuilders sport. Although many bodybuilders are very strong and a few individuals are notably strong most of them would be out-lifted by a less blocky and relatively skinny powerlifter. Likely, what this individual did not know is that intra-abdominal fat deposition is highly correlated with abdominal girth (not in women). Intra-abdominal fat is fat that is visceral, meaning it is stored between the organs of the abdominal cavity rather than under the skin, i.e. subcutaneous. For men, a waist size greater than 40 inches (about 102cm) means that it is highly likely that this individual has a great amount of intra-abdominal fat. However, it is absolutely not appropriate to rely on abdominal circumference alone as an indication of risk. It is possible that subcutaneous fat could lead to an increased abdominal circumference measurement in an individual who had otherwise normal risk factors and it is important to realize that a waist circumference measurement measures both visceral and subcutaneous fat. When compared with CT (CAT scans) high waist circumferences can show a very large variation in fat distribution between visceral and subcutaneous.

However, waist circumference is still a good estimate and has been suggested to be a better predictor of intra-abdominal adipose tissue than BMI alone. A BMI between 30 and 39 is referred to as obese and above 40 as morbidly obese.1 But those with large muscle masses may easily have a BMI of 30 or above that has no association with adiposity. Also those who are very tall and/or thin, have a different range of BMI's associated with excessive fat. 1, 2

I'm Bloated!

This intra-abdominal fat is also likely to be the origin of abdominally "gifted" powerlifters claiming they are "bloated" all the time. These same individuals may actually have somewhat visible abs. However, if they were truly "bloated" they would look smooth and puffy. Please trust that I have no problem with fat powerlifters. I only have problems with those who make excuses about it. As a matter of fact, I simply do not care at all whether a lifter is overweight unless I myself am engaged in training them and I must optimize training and performance.

Subcutaneous belly fat will tend to look soft and will hang in folds over the belt. A big puffy belly that sticks out and feels firm is the result of a large amount of visceral fat. Obviously there will tend to be a mixture of both visceral and subcutaneous fat but the largest bellies have the highest amount of visceral fat and this tends to counter-act the folds of subcutaneous fat. To illustrate this to yourself notice how many overweight men have large fat folds in the pectoral region as compared to in the belly region. These individuals may not even have love handles. This clearly shows the different ways adipose tissue is deposited in different areas of the body.

Anthropometric Measures and Body Composition

There is a very good reason why the way fat is stored in different body areas is considered important and it is based on observations about abdominal fat. Individuals who have a predominance of abdominal visceral fat have been seen to exhibit many metabolic differences compared with those who have fat distributed subcutaneously over the lower extremities, such as the hip and thigh area. This led to examining disease risk by looking at these fat mass distributions. The waist-to-hip circumference ratio was the most commonly used measure.

According to the American Heart Association a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.96 in men and greater than 0.88 in women is considered to be an indicator of central obesity (also termed "android obesity"). The waist is measured at the narrowest point while standing in a relaxed position and avoiding sucking in the gut. The hip girth is measured at the widest point over the buttocks. This ratio correlates much better to abdominal fatness in men than in women because of men's increased tendency to store fat in the abdominal region. However, these measurements are very difficult to perform accurately and even a slight change in the area measured can produce significantly different results.5, 3

There are many problems with this approach, not the least of which is a lack of standardization of measurement technique and persons with different levels of training performing the measurements. It is not clear at all whether there is any real biological reason to suspect that the ratio of hip to waist should be a general indicator of risk factors. Abdominal measurement alone may be a better indicator of risk with advancing age due to the BMI's decreasing usefulness in this population.3 Intra-abdominal fat accumulation has been shown to be greater at any given BMI (or %BF) in older individuals.6

According to Willet, it could also be that hip and waist measurements should be considered as two independent factors in a multi-variate model that considered the impact of greater muscularity. In this way hip measurement could be seen as an indicator of muscularity and thus physical activity whereas abdominal measurement would be a more confident predictor of "fatness". For example, while abdominal fat could increase the risk of insulin sensitivity, gluteal mass could indicate a relatively large level of lean mass and this would decrease such risk. These factors and correlations differ across sexes and age brackets and the relationships are highly complex.3 For further discussion of the value of anthropometric measures for assessing body composition as well as a dietary assessment see Nutritional Epidemiology. For the lay person, however, it is prudent to expect a correlation between waist circumference alone, visceral fat, and health risk.

subcutaneous abdominal or belly fat

Subcutaneous belly fat is clearly distinguishable in appearance

subcutaneous abdominal or belly fat

Subcutaneous belly fat is clearly distinguishable in appearance

Yes, It Applies to Strength Trainees

These correlations are not magically and mysteriously erased in a strength training population and there is not a special "squat and milk" program that can erase them. The appearance of a wide belly is much more likely to be an indicator of central obesity and a corresponding excess of caloric intake. The external appearance, over the muscles and under the skin is an indication of where that individual tends to store these calories.

The general rule of thumb is that if you cannot grab a hold of it with your hand or's visceral fat rather than subcutaneous fat. In the buttock and thigh areas fat will tend to be subcutaneous but the origin of the beer belly, the "middle aged spread", or muffin top, is caused by this intra-abdominal visceral fat and this is termed "central obesity". This fat pushes the abdominal muscles outward into a tight position. Rather than the subcutaneous fat stored elsewhere on the body, central obesity is what puts one at risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc. This type of fat deposition should be considered high risk, resulting in complications such as insulin resistance, impaired lipid and glucose metabolism, hypertension, cardiac dysfunction, and sleep apnea disorder. 4 Many people mistakenly expect this type of abdominal fat to appear similar to fat in other parts of the body, such as having a cellulite appearance or showing pockets of fat cell storage. The skin of the abdomen is thicker than on other areas of the body so even subcutaneous fat will not appear as it does in the hips or thighs, and elsewhere.

It is quite common to observe a male with a large "beer belly" but with a clearly visible linea alba2 and some will even display the slight appearance of a six pack. It is common to mistake visible abdominals with the absence of belly fat in general. These bellies may feel somewhat firm, but not as hard as well developed and well-visible abs. Remember that an excessive beer belly will not tend to be as "squishy" due to the stretching affect of the intra-abdominal fat.

The Infamous GH Gut and Circular Thinking

None of this should be confused with the infamous plague of modern bodybuilding: the so-called "GH Gut" or "roid gut."3 Some modern bodybuilders are displaying grossly distended abdomens but with highly developed and visible six packs over them. This is said to have nothing to do with belly fat but instead be caused by the use of Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and in particular IGF-I which is supposed to cause the lower intestine to grow in size, thus pushing it against the abdominal wall and causing this highly unnatural distended appearance. To my knowledge there has been no clinical investigation into this and it is unclear what is causing these swollen bellies in bodybuilders.

The reason I bring this up is because some (quite idiotically) have tried to blame "powerlifting movements" for these guts on professional bodybuilders. Basically, they are saying big lifts like squatting and deadlifting give you a distended gut. The reason they come to this conclusion is because they look at many of today's upper weight class powerlifters and see that they have…big guts. These powerlifters have big guts because they have a higher body fat proportion. But that hasn't stopped some individuals from making the ridiculous leap to "big lifts equal big gut". As most things in strength training and bodybuilding are circular, others borrow on this spurious logic to justify their belief that a portly appearance is correlated with a "stronger individual". So, not only do the big lifts give you a big belly, having a big belly is a powerlifting "credential". Conclusion: powerlifters should over-eat, eat big and lift big. Now, this, clearly, is not the 'critical thinking' I referred to at the beginning of this post. It is simply bro-science in a big circle-je…umm..goat rope.

I've mentioned this before in my post on breathing, ribcage expansion, and abdominal hollowing when I said:

"The stretched rib cage and hollowed abdomen is not so much a part of modern bodybuilding. Bodybuilding has gone to the extreme opposite and much has been made of the distended abdomens that many professionals display. And many think that these huge protruding abdomens are caused by a lack of abdominal vacuum exercises and thus a weak transverse abdominis. It is true that a weak TA can be a contributor to a "poofy" gut, but in the absence of fat I doubt very much it's the sole cause of these unnatural looking midsections." - Troy8

Weak and Stretched Abdominal Walls? Sheesh…

I should also mention that many like to blame powerlifters' big guts on high intra-abdominal pressure from frequent heavy lifting. They say this results in stretching of the abdominal wall. This stretching is also thought to weaken the abdominal wall, thus, conveniently, resulting in hernias which cause further distension. Although I'm sure Paul Chek would love this idea it is simply an indication of how far some people will go to continue gorging themselves on food. Why should I say I am fat when I can say I am bloated, or my belly is stretched due to all the hardcore lifting I do? If it quacks like a duck…you get the picture. It's belly fat. As for hernias, they stem from a congenital weakness in one area of the abdominal wall where an opening exists or where an opening was supposed to close and failed to do so, such as the umbilical. While heavy lifting may exacerbate certain hernias, it doesn't cause them.

Stubborn Fat and Belly Fat

It just so happens that this visceral abdominal fat is highly receptive to diet and physical activity. Especially exercise. I am not suggesting that one should control body fat through diet alone and some data suggests that this is one reason why. Visceral fat, more prominent in men, seems more correlated to physical activity than subcutaneous fat. But diet should still be considered the key to maintaining healthy weight. While there is some decidedly preliminary "data" suggesting that those who control body fat through diet alone may be prone to having visceral fat, those who are obese will tend to have more.

I have mentioned before, however, when I explained how strength training was not the key to fat loss that exercise may be of particular importance for controlling visceral fat accumulation. This certainly seems to be a key. And strength training, given all it's parameters, fits this bill.

However, the relative ease (for so-called hardgainers) with which fat can be accumulated and then controlled, at first, leads many strength trainees to adopt the "bulk and cut" methods of geared bodybuilders. Some few individuals find some immediate success as they are able to quickly progress in strength and body weight while storing a good proportion of the fat in the belly. They are then able to lose this fat fairly easily with some dietary control and changes in activity level and are left with not too much subcutaneous fat on their hands. This will not work forever though and even these lucky few will find that the body responds to this constant yo-yo in undesirable ways, including a slow but sure deposition of subcutaneous fat that will not be so amendable to a simple decrease in caloric intake. It is this subcutaneous belly fat that is the "stubborn fat".

So Eating Too Much Makes Me Fat and Strong?

Even so, most trainees will utterly fail with this approach and will simply find themselves getting fat in general. The large caloric surplus, depending on macro-nutrient proportions and their own sensitivities will likely make them feel like crap and have the gastrointestinal discomfort (and swelling!) to show for it. This should be somewhat intuitive. If you suddenly start purposely gorging yourself you're going to feel sick and, yes, bloated. But this is just what many strength trainees are being told to do! Recommendations of 5000 to 6000 calories a day, across the board, are not uncommon. Despite the misconception about huge "powerlifters" only a few large framed individuals will ever need these amounts. These amounts are much more appropriate to endurance athletes.

I have shown some of the reasons and silly justifications used for these recommendations but many will see through these ridiculous claims. So, further claims are made as to the validity of "eating big to lift big". Remember, eating big means eating great excess. Clearly rigorous strength training requires rigorous attention to adequate diet and caloric intake. The emphasis here is on the excessive nature of the recommendations. The excess, then, is said to simply make it "easier" to gain strength. Similar to the claims of excess protein, excess food calories in general, together with fat storage, is said to result in greater strength and muscle gains in a shorter period. While adequate nutritional intake, based on ones individual needs will certainly make it easier "excess" calories will simply make you fat. More fat makes it harder to gain muscle, not easier.

Fat Has Mechanical Properties? Check Your BS Meter

Then we have another little strength myth. Now, there is absolutely NO correlation between fat storage and physical strength. How could there be? Fat is not functional in human movement. Yet, that has not stopped some, in the past, from claiming it to be! I touched on this in the "Strength Training Versus Bodybuilding" eBook when I discussed the idea that being "fat and swole" in the off-season allows bodybuilders to lift more weight and thus be bigger after trimming down. The weight gain is postulated to, quite magically, improve leverage around the joints, these ideas were then extended from bodybuilding to powerlifting:

"Improved leverage around the joints by bigger muscles is probably related to an idea called “tissue leverage” which is a bodybuilding idea that attempts to explain why “getting fat and swole” during the off-season will allow a bodybuilder to lift more weight thus being bigger when he trims down again. Apparently it doesn’t matter whether the “bigness” is due to fat deposition, water retention, or actual functional tissue." (Troy 7)

If you were to read about "tissue leverage" alone you should darn well find your BS meter peaking! Now, should you really need to look for justification in "fitness studies" to say this is bullshit? NO! If you cannot already recognize this as bullshit then you are far from the need for Pubmed. You need some foundation in biomechanics, kinesiology, and physiology. So, instead of spending your hard earned money on a "how to read fitness studies" package, spend it on some basic foundational texts.

1. Coulston, Ann M., and Carol Boushey. "Chp. 31: Obesity and the Risk for Diabetes." Nutrition in the Prevention and Treatment of Disease. Amsterdam: Academic, 2008. 578-80. Print.
2. Fletcher, Gerald F., Scott M. Grundy, and Laura Lucia. Hayman. "Chp. 1: The Epidemiology of Obesity in Adults in Relationship to Cardiovascular Disease." Obesity: Impact on Cardiovascular Disease. Armonk, NY: Futura Pub., 1999. 19-21. Print.
3. Willett, Walter. "Chp. 10: Anthropometric Measures and Body Composition." Nutritional Epidemiology. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.
4. Kopelman, Peter G., Ian D. Caterson, and William H. Dietz. "Chp. 15: Obesity as an Endocrine Disorder." Clinical Obesity in Adults and Children. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. 201. Print.
5. Jenkins, Simon P. R. Sports Science Handbook. Brentwood, Essex: Multi-Science Publ., 2005. Print.
6. Bray, George A., and Claude Bouchard. "Chp. 7: Obesity in the Elderly: Prevalence, Consequences, and Treatment." Handbook of Obesity Etiology and Pathophysiology. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2004. 137. Print.
7. Troy, Eric. "Chp 2: Why All This Muscle Talk, Then? Bigger Muscles Work Better." Strength Training and Bodybuilding: How Different Are They? Baltimore. Ground Up Strength. 12. Epub. 2009
8. Troy, Eric. "On Breathing…and Strongman." Ground Up Strength. Web. 14 May 2011. <>.

by EricTEricT


This is an old post of my reaction to the infamous 2009 Time Magazine Article, "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin". Even though this has been blogged on by so many others and it is old news I wanted to re-post with a little rewrite because 1) my reaction was quite different than the reaction of the "fitness industry" at large, 2) I think the general reaction says more about the fitness industry than it does about fat loss and 3) it is a good example of the type of disordered priorities that is prevalent in the fat loss world.

So, again, I said "Get over the Time Magazine Article" Why? Because it's beside the point. The fitness industry will not lose a buck because of an article…even in Time. So really, all you fitness professionals can stop being so very precious. Isn't this about helping people and not your own self-concept?

Originally I was content to link a post by Michelle May that aligns with my attitude about the article "Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin". She called her post Why I don't care about the Time article... Same with me, you see. I didn't care then and I don't care now.

It's All in the Details?

How about I rename the article? Why Details Won't Make You Thin. Because that is all anybody is arguing. Details. Physiological details quoted from research studies won't make you thin. Hello.

Everybody says that in order to succeed you must make "fitness" a part of your lifestyle. Yet nobody seems to know what the term lifestyle means any more than there can be any clear definition of fitness. Just words. It is just vague psycho-babble. And since there is nowhere else to go they dwell on details.

Which is the problem. Too many people are starting with the details because they are being led to believe this is where perfection lies. Starting with the specific is just so very wrong, folks. You will never see the big picture. Always start with the general before proceeding to the specifics.

Because if you think you can succeed in such a goal as fat loss with compulsively detail-oriented thinking just think about where COMPULSIVE behaviors have gotten you.

Let me be clear here. I am NOT saying that the answer is to start with the big picture and slowly move toward obsessing about tiny details. Obsession is obsession and no matter how long it takes you to arrive there it is still an unhealthy grasping.

I actually just read a post in a "health" blog about dwelling on details the message of which seemed to be "most of you better not be obsessing over details. There are only a few of us purists who can handle it!

Hey, exercise won't make you thin. A hammer won't make you thin. I typed it in and nothing exploded. Tools don't make you thin. It's the work you do with them that produces results. And it is possible to do good work with the latest computer driven woodworking tools OR the most primitive chisel as long as you know how to use the tool…and you have a steady vision of that which you wish to accomplish.

Getting upset because someone insults the brand of tool you use is silly. Can they question the results you get? That is the real question. And despite the all-fired vehemence of the "industry" over this article, there are thousands of plodders trying to work off a few hundred calories here or there that really should be honing in their diet and they really WOULD get better results - and more healthful ones - if they did so.

Exercise can be one key to long-term body weight maintenance. Exercise can be the key to long-term failure to maintain healthy body weight.

But if anyone thinks that a Time magazine article is going to empty out the mile-long row of treadmills at the local YMCA then I ask, where have you been? And while it is true that exercise, in and of itself, can improve health outcomes without weight loss, obesity is still a force to be reckoned with.

Instead of getting defensive perhaps the fitness industry should be asking why there is a mile long row of treadmills at the local YMCA and why there are people obsessively pounding away on them in the face of NO results. Perhaps the fitness industry should worry about its clients and not about itself.

I have developed a rule that I use every day. I simply ask myself a question and answer it as honestly as I can. With no judgment. I just look at it and give the first natural answer that comes.

"Did the things I accomplished today have more value to others than they did to me?"

That is what I want to make happen. I don't ask myself that because I think it is a moral obligation or because it "sets me above". I ask myself that because that will mean that I do MORE rather than less. Self-profit means that we seek to do that which is most expedient. It's a cost-benefit analysis. That one simple rule guarantees that I do not seek the expedient route and thus what I do has more value in general, including to myself. But I am not as interested in building a career as I am in growing a human being. As long as I do that, why should I care about a Time magazine article?

When the fitness industry gets all upset about an article in a magazine that they feel differs or contradicts them, from my perspective, it seems as if they are operating under the delusion that people care, ultimately about their knowledge of science or obscure physiological facts. Their self-perception about their "knowledge" is a big part of their self-concept. Threaten someone's self-concept and you will get piss and vinegar every time.

Many people will listen to you based on their perception of your knowledge base. For a while at least until that knowledge fails them.

Knowledge in that way is a double-edged sword because in today's fitness world many individuals use knowledge before experience. And many more use data dumps as a smokescreen to cover a lack of many of the essential components that separate a person with knowledge from a person with the capacity to genuinely make a difference in another person's life.

On the other hand, others dwell on experience and undermine the importance of knowledge.

There would not be a question of the relative value of each if the fitness industry instead focused on THE most important part of the equation. How much you care.

In the end, what keeps people coming back to you is showing them that you give a shit. That it is not about YOU. It just so happens that giving a shit is what helps us thrust ego aside and become better at what we do. More knowledgeable, more reasonable, more experienced, and more successful. And when I say successful, I mean making a difference in people lives, not selling the most product. If you can do both those things successfully, then more power to you. But if your number one priority isn't to help others, then you are in the wrong field.

by EricTEricT


In my previous post I presented the talk by Dr. Barry Schwartz regarding “The Paradox of Choice”. Also, I've lately been speaking about having specific goals in our training and making specific choices about the direction our training should take.

If you read my piece on the concept of fitness you’ll see that I don’t think much of the word. Yes, I use it on occasion for brevity or convenience but depending on your perspective it’s either to vague or too all-encompassing.

The military often uses obstacle courses as a way of testing general fitness. Fitness, in this case, means endurance, agility and relative strength, among other components. Obstacle courses, however, are meant to "simulate" real-world field conditions. That is, they really are as specific as the Ninja Warrior courses although the latter is far tougher! And when it comes down to it the best way to get good at any particular obstacle course is to practice that course.

In my blog post On Attitudes About Health and Fitness, I discuss how people’s choices are often not based on their attitudes about general things, such as fitness, but on specific things that may be thought of as falling under that umbrella.

Let’s assume that the word fitness, in regards to exercise is too all-encompassing because every single possible choice you could make for your training falls under this vague “umbrella”. No wonder coaches cringe when they hear the word. I cringe every time I see a site with the word fitness in its name. I cringe every time someone tells me “I want to be fit.”

US Army obstacle course female recruit on monkey bars

Image courtesy of US Army

US Army obstacle course female recruit on monkey bars

Image courtesy of US Army

If you pick a few specific goals you narrow down your choices, increase your chances of success, reduce your stress levels, and increase your satisfaction with the choices you make.

But often, even when we do pick specific goals, the “fitness industry” hands us umbrella choices making it seems as if there a million different “right” directions we could choose. I want to lose weight is greeted with vague aphorisms such as “eat less and move more”.

Let's say you're instructed to move more. So you make one of your goals to move more. Still so many options! Moving means a lot of things, doesn’t it? Often however people narrow down their choices without even knowing it…the problem is they don’t know how to prioritize.

On the subject of fat loss, first of all, let me once again remind you that eating is the number one consideration. You want to lose weight you have to get your relationship with food under control.

However, when it comes to moving more I cannot tell you how many ailments and excuses I have heard. I can’t squat because it hurts my knees. I can’t swim because it hurts my shoulders. I can’t do this I can’t do that…

After a while you get the idea that this person's problem is he can’t move worth a damn. Chants of move more, move more, move more is going to paralyze this person. He will dwell on what he can’t do and all the wonderful choices out there (so he thinks) that he can’t make. When in reality there is but one specific choice he should be making right now. He should be choosing to improve his ability to move. From the ground up. You want to move more then the better you can move the more you can move. Without injury, pain, discomfort, misery…

Most of the things that this person does in his quest to improve his mobility will have him moving more than he ever did in the first place. So the general and the specific goal is being addressed. The only difference is it’s not an “all or nothing” proposition.

But most people don’t receive this message. The message that they consistently receive is that it IS an all or nothing proposition. They are handed cookie-cutter prescriptions and they are told go out there and just get it done.

Well, just getting it done is NOT good enough. It will NOT work in the long run. It is the wrong thing to do. So there are many choices but there are only a few RIGHT choices and you CAN narrow down these choices so that you are able to pick the right one and be happier with the choice you make. That, in turn, will help you stick with it.

by EricTEricT

]]> Self-Control: Not all its Cracked Up To Be <div class="mobile-only"></div> <div class="mobile-no"> <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em"></div> </div> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122374" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:44:26 +0000

More and more, everyone is learning that "diets" don't work. Sure, people drop weight on diets but they fail to make a lasting change. I don't need to go into this, you know all about yo-yo dieting. Despite this there are still plenty of judgmental folks (who probably wouldn't know a problem if it bit them in the tuchus) who will say stuff like, "jeez, whatever happened to old-fashioned self-control?"

I was reading a blog the other day that mentioned diets and how they don't work and somebody had to come on and make this comment about self-control. I was taken aback not only by the judgmental attitude but also by the fact that the commenter completely failed to see the point of the post.

Diets are ALL ABOUT SELF-CONTROL. And they don't work. Self-control doesn't work. Do the math. Are you getting this? It ain't about self-control.

Self-Control is basically the same thing as impulse control. And it is also pretty much the same thing as self-denial. These are short-term solutions to a long-term problem.

Say you are waiting in line and some obnoxious person butts in front of you and then glares at you as if daring you to do something about it. You quash your impulse to smack him one. That is self-control. Good for you. You have mastered your anger. This time.

Now, let's say that by some quirk of fate this kind of thing happens on Monday and then again Tuesday, Wednesday, and every other day of the week.

Here is the thing. Even though you practiced self-control on Monday it is no guarantee that you will be better equipped to handle this situation when Friday rolls around and it happens for the fifth time. In fact, by that time you will likely be fed up and when buddinsky number five comes along you may just go off like Mentos and Diet Coke.

two liter bottle diet coke erupting from mentos

The Diet Coke/Mentos Theory of Fat Loss
image by Mike Murphy via wikimedia

two liter bottle diet coke erupting from mentos

The Diet Coke/Mentos Theory of Fat Loss
image by Mike Murphy via wikimedia

The reason self-control works for what it is good for, controlling aggressive impulses and other unsociable or inappropriate behavior, is because we are not constantly faced with situations like this. That is, in situations where we have to learn not to give in to our more primitive and greedy impulses.

And of course, we want to foster self-control! Everyday life is just as much about self-control as it is self-regulation. Think of it as your "rule following" self. You don't need to agree with the rules to abide by them.

But when we treat all our eating habits and exercise habits in terms of self-control we tend to become less able to regulate our behavior well over time. If your entire life becomes nothing more than controlling every "impulse" and those impulses make you feel guilty even when you don't give in to them you become MORE likely to turn to those very activities you are trying to avoid.

Self-control tends to involve a set of rules and regulations that we adhere to. Matter of fact, most experiments involving self-control (in children) have started with a "rule", in a way. Such as leaving a treat in a room and saying you can have ONE treat now but if you wait until I come back you can have TWO.

You are ALLOWED to take the treat. The only reason you must practice self-control is that the rule says if you control yourself and wait for gratification you get MORE. Sounds like the way many people end up dieting! It's a confusing message. If you adhere to the rules you get to have a reward. If you reward yourself you are "cheating" (having a cheat meal).

Now it used to be that guys like Freud said that what starts off as "self-control" gradually evolves into "self-regulation". The idea is that parents and other adults control your every move and thought (stop controlling me, Mom!) and then little by little you turn all that external control into your own inner control. You "become" your parents! Now, I know some of us who have kids have many moments when it seems just that has happened but the Freudian school of thought does not stand up to evidence (which is fairly normal for Freud). Yes, self-regulation (and self-discipline) happens it just doesn't seem to happen the way we used to think. More and more, it seems like self-control as provided by "following the rules" doesn't do much to foster self-regulation.

The key to success, however, is not self-control but self-regulation. This is a subtle but very important distinction. More and more people, of late, are expressing concern over the fat loss focus of diets. Instead, some say, we should focus on healthy practices, which have a built-in reward system and should result, in the long run, in fat loss. Meanwhile, a healthier lifestyle that is focused on health rather than loss of fat will have immediate health benefits.1

Now, I don't know if this dichotomous view of fat loss is the way to go. It may be a bit naive to assume that the simple desire to live healthier will result in an obese person becoming a thin one. However, it should be a distinct improvement for some if the focus on fat is shifted towards health. A more balanced perspective, if you will. Hyper-focused modalities tend to result in these punishment-reward systems that we see in "dieting" and this is the dieter engaging in "self-control". A more balanced approach which has as it's end goal a healthy body and mind should go much further toward self-regulatory behavior. The difference between self-regulation and self-control is that self-regulation means that you are IN CHARGE of yourself. Whereas, self-control is actually placing the locus of control externally rather than within yourself.

According to Peter A. Facione, in Critical Thinking: What it is and Why it Counts, self-regulation is defined to mean the ability to "self-consciously monitor one’s cognitive activities, the elements used in those activities, and the results educed, particularly by applying skills in analysis, and evaluation to one’s own inferential judgments with a view toward questioning, confirming, validating, or correcting either one’s reasoning or one’s results.” Self-examination and self-correction are not really part of most people's training or fat loss plans.

On the other hand, self-control, according to Michael Kellerman in Enhancing Recovery is a "mode of volition in which an individual works according to an internal model of an action requested or desired by another person without necessarily integrating this model into his own system of belief."

Requested by another person and NOT integrated in his own system of belief. That is the take-home point. The "other person" is the person who wrote the diet plan you happen to be using. Or, we could just replace 'person' with plan. The point is we don't get anywhere in the long run because the behaviors we use during periods of "self-control" do not become a part of our own governing system. Kellerman says that in the long run, this results in "alienation" where a person becomes unable to behave according to his or her own needs.

Self-control of this kind tends to work for a short term and then fail, followed by a reversion to previous negative behaviors or by leading directly to negative results. Each negative consequence leads to the person going further and further into a downward spiral.

Fat loss is not the only area that suffers from the misunderstanding of self-control. Most strength training ideas are built on ideas about self-control, after all. Even worse the "fitness" gimmicks such as "Fitness Boot Camps" and other such nonsense that makes it seem like fitness is about having some guy in BDU's yell at you.

There is an older thread in the GUS forum that calls attention to the idea that good strength training involves "not being a pussy" or "a slacker" and that people need someone to call attention to those times when they are slacking and give them a "kick in the pants." Basically, you are supposed to 'force yourself' to train and go in and just get the job done. Be assured that you will NEVER succeed in your training if you regularly must force yourself to train and no amount of yelling will change that!

As I said in the thread many people think that self-control and self-denial is the key to success in training, fat-loss, everything. They think that these factors are synonymous with "discipline." The "just get it done" attitude of many trainers is inherent in the so popular cookie-cutter strength training programs that I am always complaining about. The ultimate result of relying too much on self-control is a loss of autonomy and this results in the chronic inability to self-regulate. In other words, the longer you engage in this sort of behavior, the more difficult it will be to come out of it and develop behaviors centered on self-direction and self-regulation. The end result is failure in every sense of the word. Autonomy means being IN CHARGE rather than 'in control'.

You may never have thought of it before but the idea of being in control means that you are otherwise bound to be out of control. So instead of focusing one's energy on reigning in out of control behaviors, one should focus on continual regulation of behavior in the first place. I'll see if I can describe this with an analogy:

Have you ever walked by a patch of fresh wet cement on the sidewalk and been tempted to put your handprint or footprint in it? Or sign your name? Or, in some instances, even been tempted to walk right across the thing? I have. It's a bit like the urge to jump off a high object…perverse but there nonetheless. Yet, as inviting as a nice smooth patch of wet concrete is most sidewalk surfaces are free of hand-prints and signatures. Sure it happens but not nearly as often as one would think. That is, not nearly as often as one would think if people were out of control. But people largely self-regulate themselves and the urge to deface a patch of cement is fleeting and weak. In fact, they don't place orange cones and yellow tape around fresh sidewalks patches to "control" people but mostly to warn them so they don't accidentally blunder in. So, I'm saying that maybe smooth sidewalks exist because people are able to self-regulate and they don't need barriers to keep them defacing wet cement.

Self Control, Self-Discipline, and Otherness

An interesting aspect of self-control and self-discipline is that they can both give rise to a sense of "otherness" but the former type of otherness is negative while the latter is positive. These two senses of otherness are associated with either "less" and a restrictive lifestyle or "more" and a lifestyle of accomplishment. Self-control as defined by diets and rigid lifestyles limit social participation and enjoyment, thus setting us apart and making us feel abnormal. Self-discipline, on the other hand, fosters a more optimistic sense of otherness that comes with accomplishment. "I can do more and live better. I can accomplish much. I am confident." All these are aspects of self-discipline, and thus self-regulation, as opposed to "self-control".

The same type of self-regulatory behavior that keeps your hand out of cement or that keeps you from testing your theory that you could land a 30-foot drop is the type of behavior that will lead to success in fat loss, or fitness, or strength training. When you self-regulate it means that you are OKAY with your lifestyle. You are happy and satisfied with it. Little urges stay little urges and when you give in to them you give in to them in reasonable ways. For instance, maybe you just poke the tip of your index finger into that cement. Fun stuff. Or, instead of trying the 30-foot drop you go for 15. That keeps your life balanced and controlled without a sense of denial and restriction and you don't "go off" like Mentos and Diet Coke!

by EricTEricT

]]> Hunger is a Physical Feeling <div class="mobile-only"></div> <div class="mobile-no"> <div style="float:left;padding: 1.2em;"></div> </div> <p><em>This is a post that appeared in Gustrength's Blog in May 2009. I think it is a good post and that more people will read it here so I am moving it, along with many other past posts from that blog.</em></p> <p>by <span class="printuser avatarhover"><a href="" ><img class="small" src=";amp;size=small&amp;amp;timestamp=1566122374" alt="EricT" style="background-image:url(" /></a><a href="" >EricT</a></span></p> Thu, 15 Jul 2010 17:53:40 +0000


In my post, Instinctual Eating, Thin People, and Appetite, I discussed eating from the perspective of one life-long thin person.

My problem is not, therefore, keeping off fat but eating enough to maintain my strength and of course to continually get stronger. For a person like me that is not so easy to do and involves what seems like a lot of eating. Back when I was still suffering from the bodybuilding affliction it was even worse.

It should be clear that I am not a fat loss expert. You know, there are probably two groups who tend to be the worse at doling out fat loss advice. Overweight people who have never reached their fat loss goal and THIN people. I say they tend to be worse because what really counts is your ability to help other people.

I have this feeling that thin people should try to keep their fat loss advise to themselves unless they have a whole lot of direct experience dealing with the problem and helping others. This is certainly not my area.

I figure it won’t hurt for me to pay attention to how I think about food and how I react to it, though. I know how to eat healthy and obviously, I know how to be thin. And I look damned good for a guy over 40…or 20 for that matter. I may not stay thin through conscious effort but I do have the ability to take objective looks at myself. It’s one of the things that have made me successful in my own training. I’m not emotionally attached to my training, eating, or anything to do with it…I’m only attached to the results.

Physical versus Emotional Hunger

Today I was at the pool with friends and somebody was munching on some Doritos and they offered me some.

I recalled Michelle May’s very important statement: “Hunger is a physical feeling.” Now I love Doritos. I mean I REALLY love Doritos. So when offered Doritos I wanted some. Yet I turned them down. Why?

I only wanted the Doritos because I like the taste of them. I was NOT PHYSICALLY HUNGRY. What I wanted had nothing to do with what I needed.

Don’t get me wrong. A couple of Doritos would not have been a big deal. Even a handful would have been just fine. That is not the point. On this occasion, I simply chose not to eat them because I was not hungry. Knowing full well that at some point in the near future if I want some Doritos I will damn well eat some.

The question is, do we all recognize the difference between hunger and the emotional desire to eat? Possibly, what we want gets mixed up with what we need.

If you are managing your weight or trying to lose weight ask yourself these questions. Am I eating because I am physically hungry? Or for some other reason? Can I even tell the difference between physical and emotional hunger?

Here is the thing about emotional hunger. It just means something is missing. That something is probably not food or you wouldn’t be overweight. So what do you really need?

by EricTEricT