If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
This is a guest post from greenman2001.
The Nutrition Action Healthletter is published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit group that accepts no government or industry funding and is devoted to providing consumers with information about nutrition. Its primary focus is on examining packaged food sold in supermarkets and restaurant food of various kinds, and providing information on its nutrition content and the veracity of claims made on food packaging.
Often, particularly with restaurant food, the Healthletter discusses what isn’t mentioned on packaging or in the menu, such as the number of calories or grams of saturated fat in a Starbucks Caramel Mocha Latte. It also debunk claims made about nutritional supplements by discussing the studies that are used to support those claims, and they publicize the results of well-designed studies about nutrition.
Every issue of the Healthletter is gripping reading. Not only does it motivate through fear (as in its recent analysis of the trans-fat content of Krispy Kreme donuts), but its theme articles (“Juice: Wading through the Claims”) very clearly sort out hype from fact and help you to realize just how poorly supported most food marketing claims are.
Likewise, its frequent articles about nutrition supplements drive home repeatedly the fact that there is almost no reliable science to support claims of benefits, and that the few well-designed studies conducted on many supplements usually contradict generally-held beliefs. Meanwhile, every issue the editors provide clear, simple advice about how to obtain the nutrition we all need from whole foods and natural sources.
The January/February 2008 has a one-page article “Successful Secrets of Losers,” which is one of the most useful resources for people trying to lose weight ever published. It is one of the only large-scale studies of successful weight-losers — not of people who are trying to lose weight, but of people who have lost weight and successfully kept it off for an average of six years. The study, started in 1994, is the National Weight Control Registry, run by a professor of psychiatry at Brown University named Rena Wing.
The study follows 6,000 successful weight losers, whose progress is measured every year. Most of these people are women, and they come from all walks of life. Many tried unsuccessfully several times before getting it right, but have lost on average 70 pounds and kept it off for six years.
How have they accomplished this? The study has identified seven elements that characterize the diet and exercise of these “losers”:
- They eat a low-calorie diet.
- They eat a consistent diet from day-to-day.
- They eat breakfast.
- They’re very physically active.
- They weigh themselves frequently.
- They watch only a limited amount of television.
- They don’t let a small weight gain become any bigger.
Their diet is low in fat and high in carbohydrates. They eat four to five times a day on average. They do about 60 minutes a day of exercise. Walking is the most frequent form of exercise: about 11,000-12,000 steps a day. They weigh themselves once a day or once a week. They limit TV to ten hours a week. They deliberately respond to small weight gains by reducing their food intake or increasing their exercise.
The researches have found that the longer participants keep weight off, the less likely it is they will regain it. The factors that most frequently lead to weight gain are reducing physical activity, increased fat consumption, and watching more television.
Diet books and discussions of weight loss rarely stop to talk about what a healthy lifestyle after the diet is complete looks like. The Registry provides a clear portrait of how to live after you’ve lost the weight you need to. It isn’t complicated, but it represents a radical departure from how most people live, and certainly from the lifestyle of people who gain weight.
Mac
19 responses so far ↓
1 Mark // Mar 6, 2008 at 7:21 am
Basically it all comes down to calories in vs. calories out combined with some activity. There are no “secrets” to losing weight and this study proves it once again.
I think it is human nature, especially here in America, to hope for a shortcut that will make losing weight easier but there isn’t, at least in the long term.
Successful weight loss comes as the result of a lifestyle change. That can be hard to do but once the change is made progress can be made. I think the key component in all of this is adding regular activity to the daily routine. Our society does everything it can to keep us from being active so it takes real effort to change.
2 brad // Mar 6, 2008 at 7:31 am
It’s funny that they look at television consumption, as if television in and of itself contributes to obesity. I assume they’re using television as a proxy for lethargy, of couch-potato behavior, but I think time spent on the Internet could be an even better indicator of that in today’s world.
3 Red // Mar 6, 2008 at 9:36 am
I’d like to see a post on the “calories in calories out” train of thought that Mark just mentioned.
As the “physics diet” people would point out, we’re unlikely to violate the first law of thermodynamics.
But assuming any calories we don’t “burn” turn into fat seems to only make sense if our bodies were 100% uniformly efficient at converting all forms of calories into fat.
For example, grass makes cows fat, but not us, because we are unable to digest grass properly. Calories in still equals calories out of course, but through a much more literal means than most people intend.
This dogma also assumes that the body is uniformly likely to turn calories into fat at any given moment, which from what my biology friends tell me is not the case.
4 elisabeth // Mar 6, 2008 at 11:08 am
I’m a long-time subscriber to the NAH and do recommend it — it’s not expensive and it has a lot of good information, especially when it reviews a whole category of stuff. My husband likes to have a “breakfast bar” for his lunch (along with a banana and some fruit juice — he’s not a big eater) and he learned a lot from one of their articles about which were actually nutritious, for example.
BUT the discussion of food choices often seems a bit draconian; the NAH seems to believe that no one is capable of eating in moderation, so it often seems to be saying “don’t ever eat any amount of X again!”
Anyway, on the actual content here — I was thinking about 6000 people in the registry, and how many millions overweight …
I suspect that science doesn’t really know how difficult it is to lose weight; even the 6000 in the registry haven’t been actually tested to see what their individual metabolic rates are, and I’ve often wondered what proportion of their waking hours is devoted to diet/weight management — does it really become a second (or first) job to keep the weight off/from coming back?
5 TosaJen // Mar 6, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Good article. I believe the same info is the basis of Anne Fletcher’s book “Thin for Life”, which I mentioned several weeks back. It bears repeating in all kinds of forms.
re: elisabeth’s comment about weight maintenance — it might not become a second job, but we have to give it the same energy as for an ongoing hobby or interest, or the old habits creep back (or jump us when we’re particularly stressed out or depressed).
My thought is that the habits that made us fat were easy and felt natural to us. The new habits will eventually feel easy and normal, but it will be easier to revert to old behaviors when our new habits are thwarted and need to be fixed or replaced. For the rest of our lives, we will need to use enough mental energy to keep the new habits going, or the weight will come back.
6 Aaron // Mar 6, 2008 at 1:18 pm
RE: is permanent weight loss like a second job?
I think staying fit is much more difficult these days because it is so easy to be sedentary and to consume a large amount of calories.
So in a world where you can easily consume 2000 calories at a sitting, and then sit on a couch and spend 4 hours watching TV without even noticing, staying fit requires a certain level of vigilance, especially for people that do not have a habit of minding their food intake and activity levels.
7 AndreaR.D. // Mar 6, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Making healthy choices when dining out can seem like an overwhelming venture! Thankfully, HEALTHY DINING’S new online resource makes it easy! Just log on to the free site HealthyDiningFinder.com to find HEALTHY DINING choices — and corresponding nutrition information — at over 50,000 restaurant locations, ranging from fast food to upscale dining. You can “search” for participating restaurants by specifying zip code or location information and desired price range. The site also offers free e-newsletters, recipes, nutrition tips and more.
HEALTHY DINING’s expert staff of registered dietitians and master’s level health/nutrition professionals consult with each participating restaurant to find and/ modify menu items that meet the following nutrition criteria: Entrées (or full meals) must include at least one of the following: lean protein (skinless white meat poultry, fish/seafood (including salmon), tofu, etc.), fruits and/or vegetables and/or 100% whole grains. Entrees must also be 750 calories or less, have 25 grams of fat or less, and contain no more than 8 grams of saturated fat. Bon appétit!
Healthy Regards,
Andrea Ogden, R.D.
8 Mark // Mar 6, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Red,
I agree that every body processess calories a little differently and for some people one type of food is “burned” more efficiently than another. What I meant was that if we generally consume more calories than we burn we will typically gain weight.
Most people have no idea how many calories they are consuming each day. Once they are able to quantify what they are eating and then subtract what it takes to keep them alive they are able to make realistic diet and exercise choices.
9 Josh // Mar 6, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Great article.
Someone mentioned an article about “calories in calories out” approach to weight loss etc. This article:
http://www.baye.com/articles/getting_lean.php
is one of the best I’ve read in that vein. He doesn’t really plug any diet in particular and is just really straight forward. It’s one of the best pieces I’ve ready on weight loss in general.
10 Anne Keckler, Personal Trainer // Mar 7, 2008 at 5:55 am
I mulled this over before commenting.
Ten hours a week of TV still seems like a huge amount to me, but if we substitute computer time I easily exceed that. Many people have sedentary jobs and sit in front of a screen each week. But I don’t think that was the point of measuring television consumption. Perhaps people who watch a lot of TV (and if ten hours isn’t a lot, then what is??) are subjected to more junk food ads, and are more likely to nibble while watching.
I certainly don’t think a high-carb, low-fat diet is the optimum way to lose weight, and it’s been shown that lower carbs are important for other aspects of our health, but perhaps the hour per day of exercise offsets some of those carbs.
This gave me some things to think about. Thanks!
11 Anne Keckler, Personal Trainer // Mar 7, 2008 at 5:58 am
By the way, there are a few people who think the Center for Science in the Public Interest is one-sided and not using good scientific method. Here’s one example:
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CSPInoSciencePubInterest.html
12 brad // Mar 7, 2008 at 10:49 am
Anne, I was thinking in terms of non-work-related computer time, which would be equivalent to time sitting in front of the television. I suppose television ads might be related to an increase in food consumption, but a lot of people snack in front of their computers too, even without advertising.
I thought the high-carb, low-fat diet was still seen as the healthiest approach, certainly much healthier long-term than low-carb, high fat or high-protein diets such as Atkins that are not sustainable and ultimately dangerous. But I haven’t been keeping up with the latest research…maybe you could post more details here?
13 Brigid // Mar 7, 2008 at 11:33 am
From my observations, individual physiology plays a major factor in determining your best “food mix” - low carb/high fat/high protein, etc. etc.
Several people I know had an easy time with an Atkins-esque diet. I couldn’t do it. It wasn’t even like I crave bread or pasta and find it impossible to give up. It just made me feel rotten. A high carb/low fat mix leaves me hungry all the time.
My best mix is about a half and half protein/carb mix. I lean a little heavier to carbs the day before a long run. I also do better with more protein in the morning. This is me and I wouldn’t expect everyone to have the same reactions results.
Trying to find the ultimate universal, one size fits all healthy lifestyle is an exercise in futility. Do what works for you and smile politely when someone says you are on the wrong track.
Cheers!
Brigid
14 brad // Mar 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm
But I think the quest in a “Get Fit Slowly” approach to weight loss and health is to find a diet you can live on for the rest of your life, rather than one that will lose you a lot of pounds in the next six months. With all the well-publicized cases of ketosis and other complications, it’s pretty clear that the Atkins diet is not sustainable in the long term.
I think eating a balanced diet, just less of it, is probably the key to long-term sustainable weight loss and health. For example, the Mediterranean diet is 45-65% carbohydrate, 10-35% protein, and 20-35% fat, which according to one of the recent Harvard Health newsletters translates roughly to a daily 5+ servings of veggies, 4+ servings of fruit, 6oz of grain, 5.5 oz of protein, and 3 cups of nonfat or low fat dairy products. That seems well balanced to me, and something that, when combined with exercise and attention to calories, is a diet you could use to help you lose weight initially and then continue to maintain as your standard approach to eating for the rest of your life.
15 TosaJen // Mar 7, 2008 at 1:52 pm
My interpretation of the statistic of watching less than 10 hours of TV per week is that if you are spending 10 hours a week of your limited leisure time watching TV, how active is your lifestyle in general. Most jobs (not all, but most) are pretty darn sedentary, so if you aren’t moving during your leisure time, you’re probably not moving at all.
I agree with pps, that we can probably extrapolate the same idea to the amount of leisure time we spend sitting in front of any screen.
16 elisabeth // Mar 7, 2008 at 3:32 pm
There’s some research that points out that some people are natural fidgeters, who will use up more calories than others even when sitting, because they unconsciously more around, tap a foot or whatever. When my husband and I are watching TV (not 10 hours a week, though I do tend to watch a lot on the day of a primary/caucus…) he is a sitter, I’m usually knitting or flipping through a catalog or doing something — our late (and much lamented) cat always favored his lap over mine, even though I’d known her from the day she was born, and D. didn’t meet her till some years later…
But, in general, I’d imagine that even the most sedate web surfer is moving more than a TV watcher.
17 greenman2001 // Mar 7, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Brad: long-term studies (if they can be called that) that test Atkins low-carb/high-fat versus Ornish high-carb/low-fat have been very clear: people lose more weight and keep it off for longer on Atkins, and their cholesterol numbers improve unequivocally on Atkins. This runs very much counter to traditional medical thinking, which teaches that high dietary fat translates to higher LDL, higher triglycerides, and lower HDL. The opposite effect was seen with the Atkins diets, making it both safer and more sustainable than high-carb/low-fat diets. Here’s a couple of references from a quick Google search:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070307075749.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-11-18-adkins_x.htm
Anne: I haven’t followed the link you sent, but I can tell you that CSPI doesn’t conduct scientific studies at all: they report study results, reprint food labels, and ask food manufacturers: what scientific studies are you basing your advertising claims on? They love to conduct lie detector tests on claims made on food packaging. For example, in the latest issue they put cracker packaging under the microscope, and find that many crackers with “whole wheat” in their names – like Ritz Whole Wheat crackers – in fact have more refined white flour than whole grain wheat flour in them. A serving of Wheat Thins has 20 grams of refined white flour and 5 grams of whole grain – satisfying the claim of “5 Grams Whole Grain!” on the box, but violating, shall we say, the fundamental truth of its contents. In this same issue, they point out that FDA rules allow companies to claim their product contains “0% trans fat” if their product contains up to ½ gram of trans fat per serving. I don’t eat processed foods, so my interest in this part of the newsletter is limited, but I’m generally horrified by what I read and of the overall tolerance of misleading information.
Remember that a diet replete with fruit and vegetables is, by definition, a high-carb diet.
Generally, I’m of the opinion that the best way to begin making significant changes of any kind in your life is to throw your television out the window. Whether it’s the way it teaches the ethics of a consumer culture, instills the values of instant gratification, reinforces the desire for happy endings, the expectation of reward without work, undermines your body image, robs you of time, or prevents you from moving your body, it’s a losing proposition. I’m not sure why or if 10 hours is a magic number, but I can tell you that zero hours is definitely a magic number: try it for a month and see for yourself.
18 brad // Mar 8, 2008 at 4:05 am
Greenman, from the same Science Daily source you linked to comes this later report from December 2007 about the dangers of Atkins and other low-carb diets:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217150506.htm
That’s what I meant by unsustainable. I think it’s clear that you can have sustainable weight loss with Atkins and other low-carb diets, but at potentially great cost to your overall health over time.
19 greenman2001 // Mar 8, 2008 at 9:46 am
I’m not a fan of any diet plan except counting calories: I think that shifting nutrient consumption to one or the other end of the spectrum — high protein/low carb, low protein/high carb, whatever — will ultimately short-change your body of the nutrients it needs. My rule is to eat only as many calories as you burn from whole foods of all kinds, not processed foods.
Having said that, the cholesterol info in this study is contradicted by that of several other studies, including the one in the USA Today link I included in my previous post. In that study, the Zone diet described here fared worse than Atkins. The study described here, as you know, was conducted by the inventor of the Zone diet.
I don’t think it’s clear — from a peer-reviewed, double-blind standpoint — that one’s overall health suffers on the Atkins diet. There’s evidence to support both positions. It’s probably early to do a meta-analysis that looks at groups of surveys.
But, Brad, if your point is “why chance it?” I agree wholeheartedly.
Leave a Comment