3 Fat Loss Facts You Must Know

by Molly Galbraith

1. You May Be Carb Intolerant!

Only about 25% of the world’s population is carbohydrate tolerant, and for Caucasians, that number is even lower! Why, you ask? Most Caucasian-Americans are descendants of European settlers whose ancestors have only been living off agriculture for the last couple hundred years.

Without agriculture, your diet would consist primarily of things that you can either hunt, or gather. Think red meat, fish, fowl, fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts.

If your ancestors have only recently begun eating carbohydrates in the form of grains, there’s a good chance that your body has not adapted to these types of foods, and that they will result in problems for you such as fat gain and inflammation.

Now, if you’re of Asian descent, your ancestors have had agriculture for a bazillion years (yes, that is a scientific term), which means you’ll be able to eat a diet high in carbohydrates from grains (such as rice) without any problems.

Can't lose fat? You may be carb intolerant!

How do you know if you are carbohydrate intolerant? Go eat a big stack of pancakes with syrup, staying away any other protein or fat with this meal. Then see if you feel like (A) taking a nap, or (B) cleaning your entire house, going for a run, doing a set of squats, or something else that requires a lot of energy.

If you went with choice A, you’re probably carbohydrate intolerant and should get most of your carbs from fruits and veggies, and that the majority of your carbohydrate intake should be centered around your weight training.

If you chose B, you’re probably carbohydrate tolerant, and you will fare better eating a diet higher in carbohydrates from sources like brown rice, oats, quinoa, sweet potatoes, and beans.

2. Know When to Stop Dieting

Do not stay in a caloric deficit for longer than 16 weeks without a structured re-feed. Even if you have a lot of weight to lose, it’s still vital that you take some time off and bump your calories back up to maintenance or a little above maintenance for 2-4 weeks.

Chronically staying a caloric deficit will depress your metabolism and screw up your hormone levels, not to mention the fact that it’s not very fun to stay in a deficit that long. Re-feeding will give you a much needed mental break, boost your metabolism, and hopefully get your hormones back up to optimal levels.

Now this is not a free for all; that will just cause you to gain back the fat you’ve lost (and maybe more!). This is a time to increase overall calories (and carbs, if you tolerate them well) slowly, by adding back a couple hundred a week for a few weeks until you reach maintenance levels or slightly above.

This is NOT the idea here!

Another way to know when it’s time for a re-feed, is to use this little trick I picked up from my friend Wesley. Here is his recommendation:

“Take your morning body temperate first thing in the morning for four days in a row before starting a fat loss diet. This means before eating, and before ANY activity. Morning temperature should be 97.5-98.1. If yours is a bit lower, that’s fine.

If it’s consistently 96.5 or below, you should postpone the diet until you get it back up by eating a bit more, and if at all possible, have your thyroid checked. Trying to start a diet with a severely slowed metabolism will make the diet a very difficult task. At 96.1, your metabolism is already slowed 15-25% for most people, and to get at a number well below maintenance with your metabolism THAT dampened already will require a very low caloric and nutritional profile for your body.

Trying to diet with an already crippled metabolism rarely works and the calories and nutrients end up having to be so low, that muscle is usually sacrificed.

Continue to monitor temperature while dieting. If your body temperature plummets, you can bet your metabolic rate has also plummeted. Careful measurement can tell an experienced person when to either drop calories, or discontinue the diet for a short time to get metabolism back up and running correctly.

Please take into mind that some people do have a naturally lower basal body temperature, so what will appear as low for a normal person will be the norm for a person with the low body temperature type metabolism. These people are not the rule, but the exception.”

3. You are What You Absorb

That’s right, it’s not about what you eat, but rather what you digest and absorb. With every passing year, we lose a small percentage of the stomach acid that helps us digest our food. This is one of the reasons that our parents and grandparents get heartburn and indigestion so easily. So, think you don’t have to worry about it until you’re their age? Think again!

Stomach acid levels are also adversely affected by stress levels and even carbonated drinks. With the high stress levels of today’s average American, it’s not uncommon to find some thirty year-olds with no stomach acid!

And if you have low or no stomach acid, then how can you expect to digest the food you’re eating sufficiently enough to get any benefits out of it? You can’t! You’re letting it go down the toilet (literally)!

A couple of good options are digestive enzymes taken with each meal (I like the NOW brand), and/or taking Betaine Hcl. You can find Betaine Hcl at most health food stores and many places online.

The cool thing about the Betaine Hcl is that it actually restores your natural stomach acid! Make sure it is taken with high protein meals (this should not be a problem since you eat protein with every meal, right?) Some coaches recommend around 1000-1500mg with each protein meal, but if you take this amount and feel a mild burn in your stomach, don’t be alarmed — just back off by about 250 mg each meal until you don’t feel a burn, and stick with that dose.

Hopefully, you’ll eventually feel a burn with any amount you take, and since this means that you’ve restored your stomach acid back up to appropriate levels, you can stop taking it for a while.

Follow these tips, and you'll be well on your way to permanent and healthy fat loss!

And that sums it up for now. More “must-knows” to come soon, so stay tuned!

About Molly

Molly Galbraith is co-owner of Red Point Fitness ^[1], an online nutrition and training company. She is also a natural figure and powerlifting competitor. She also trains clients online and in-person. You can contact her at molly@redpointfitness.com.

Motivation

Biggest Loser - Where are the now?

Fat Chance

By Julie Rawe

Forget Survivor and The Amazing Race and all the other reality shows that feature generally good-looking, generally physically fit people running around doing generally silly things. In the U.S.'s nation of overstuffed couch potatoes, The Biggest Loser hits closer to real reality by combining the TV genre's outlandishness and greed with the more mundane goal of shedding unwanted kilograms. With its $250,000 grand prize and dramatic stories of weight loss, the show is a natural for the nation's chubby, if not huddled, masses yearning to breathe free without having to unbutton their pants after a meal. More than 100,000 people applied to be on the show's fourth season, now in production, and more than 5 million have had their diets assessed on the show's biggestloserclub.com.

But while the message of the show is inspiring, it is also unrealistic. The Biggest Loser achieves rapid transformations—contestants often drop more than 9 kg in a week—through calorie restriction, endless exercise and no small amount of dehydration that occurs behind the scenes. Ryan Benson, 38, an actor who works for a DVD distributor in Los Angeles, lost 55 kg to win the first season in January 2005 but says he regained 14.5 kg within five days simply by drinking water. Matt Hoover, 31, a motivational speaker based in Seattle, had a 7-kg rebound within a day of winning Season 2. Last season's runner-up, Kai Hibbard, 28, an aerobics instructor in Alaska who says she spent the night before her final weigh-in hopping in and out of a sauna for six hours, consumed only sugar-free Jell-O for several days and wolfed down asparagus, which is a natural diuretic. "It's amazing the things you learn in a weight-loss competition," she says.

The show tries to prevent unhealthy behavior by making contestants keep food journals (to make sure they're not starving themselves) and threatening penalties if tests show they are too dehydrated (although an executive producer says no violations have been uncovered yet). But like the $55 billion U.S. diet industry, The Biggest Loser places the bulk of its emphasis on shedding kilograms rather than maintaining the loss. After all, a show called The Biggest Maintainer wouldn't have nearly the same zing. Contestants learn how to make healthy choices, but total-immersion exercise accounts for most of the weight loss. And it's not as hard to work out for four or more hours a day when urged on by professional trainers. It's also easier to resist high-calorie temptations when the cameras are rolling. Two and a half years after Benson's final weigh-in at 94 kg, the new dad has slipped out of the spotlight and into old habits. "No one sees me get an apple pie in the drive-through," says Benson, whose weight now hovers at around 136 kg.

Still, by keeping 14 kg off for more than a year, he's something of a rarity. The U.S. National Weight Control Registry, which tracks the habits of some 5,000 successful maintainers, cites a study showing only a fifth of dieters with a history of obesity sustain a loss of 10% of their body weight for a year or more. "The best predictor of the ones who are not going to regain are the ones who are doing the most physical activity," says Dr. Holly Wyatt, an obesity expert at the University of Colorado. She says most registrants exercise, on average, at least an hour a day.

Who has time for that? Kelly Minner, for one. The first-season runner-up dropped from 110 kg to 74 kg by the finale and now weighs 63 kg. A school administrator in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Minner, 31, says she works out from one to four hours a day, six days a week. She exercises while watching TV—and did so throughout our phone interview. For motivation, she keeps a souvenir from the show in her office: a life-size photo of her old fat self. Other winners share this strategy. Hoover, who has gained 24 kg since November 2005, sees his cardboard cutout every day in his garage. Last season's winner, Erik Chopin, 37, who owns a deli in North Babylon, New York, and since December has put on 10 of the 97 kg he lost, keeps a photo on his fridge taken when he weighed 185 kg.

The series added a more realistic component last season when 36 of its 50 contestants competed from home sans trainer. "They really got none of the bells and whistles," says the show's physician, Dr. Robert Huizenga. Well, almost none: they were still eligible to be tapped for the main show, and the at-home winner got $50,000. If the producers proceed with plans for a reunion episode later this year, it will be interesting to see how the contestants have fared since they went off camera and stopped racing for a cash reward.

Marketing Lies: There Is No Such Thing As “Healthy Sugar”

Fitness Spotlight - http://www.fitnessspotlight.com

Posted By skustes On April 23, 2009

One of my favorite whipping posts is back in the media. I came across this article in the NY Times a few weeks ago and thought it was interesting: Sugar Is Back on Food Labels, This Time as a Selling Point ^[1]. (You’ll need a login to access the article.)

Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient.

Am I the only one that’s disturbed by this? We’ve managed to demonize high-fructose corn syrup so much that sugar looks downright wholesome…but we know that high-fructose corn syrup is only marginally worse than sugar ^[2].

‘Sugar was the old devil, and high-fructose corn syrup is the new devil,’ said Marcia Mogelonsky, a senior analyst at Mintel International, a market-research company.

It reminds me of how the Center for Science in the Public Interest demonized healthy saturated fats. In response, manufacturers created trans fats, which we all know are far worse than saturated fat. Later, we realized how bad these man-made fats are. Oops…

Why Do We Believe It?

Simple; we want to believe it. We want to believe that we can “have our cake and eat it too”. That is, we want to think that we can get that sweet sensation without destroying our bodies. Unfortunately, it’s not true. Along with trans fats, sugar is the worst thing you can put in your body.

While honey and agave nectar may seem like better choices (and they are), the reality is that it’s all still sugar. Even these “natural” sweeteners ^[3] aren’t good for you in abundance.

We have a hard-wired drive for sweetness. Imagine you live in an environment where every calorie must first be found and then dug up or killed. Concentrated sources of sugar are a rarity, signified by that wonderful sweet taste. But these sources are rare, so when your tongue senses sugar, the brain urges you to eat more of this calorically-dense food. We are not so well-served by this trait in a world where sugar is cheap and abundant.

At least the cupcakes are warning you about their dark side. Photo credit: Rockamandy ^[4]

How Else Does Sugar Kill You?

For starters, it makes you age faster ^[5] and well, there’s nothing more obviously associated with death than aging.

“Thanks to this study, the link between the rise in age-related diseases and the over-consumption of sugar in today’s diet is clearer. Our research opens a door to new therapeutic strategies for fighting age-related diseases,” says Professor Rokeach.

Sugar is highly addictive ^[6], just in case you were unaware of that. Recall that sugar could be more addictive than cocaine ^[7].

Hungry rats that binge on sugar provoke a surge of dopamine in their brains. After a month, the structure of the brains of these rats adapts to increased dopamine levels, showing fewer of a certain type of dopamine receptor than they used to have and more opioid receptors. These dopamine and opioid systems are involved in motivation and reward, systems that control wanting and liking something. Similar changes also are seen in the brains of rats on cocaine and heroin.

Anyone that’s tried to kick the sugar habit knows that it is hard to do. The brain knows what it wants…it wants the rush from that hit of the white stuff. Rest assured that food manufacturers are doing everything they can to work this addictive ingredient into seemingly healthy foods:

From the tomato sauce on a Pizza Hut pie called ‘The Natural,’ to the just-released soda Pepsi Natural, some of the biggest players in the American food business have started, in the last few months, replacing high-fructose corn syrup with old-fashioned sugar.

ConAgra uses only sugar or honey in its new Healthy Choice All Natural frozen entrees. Kraft Foods recently removed the corn sweetener from its salad dressings, and is working on its Lunchables line of portable meals and snacks.

You Are Being Sold!

We need to realize that it’s all marketing! There’s nothing healthier about tomato sauce made with sugar versus tomato sauce made with high-fructose corn syrup, unless the overall amount of sugar decreases. But given that HFCS is actually sweeter than sugar, it’s more likely that foods replacing high-fructose corn syrup with sugar will have more to achieve the same taste. That means more sugar in your diet, more calories in your diet, more insulin in your bloodstream, and ultimately, more fat around your waist.

Just as they’ve done with butter, bacon, and eggs ^[8], marketers are constantly choosing one particular ingredient or substance to demonize. Then they present you with the perfect solution.

How Do We Get Through To People?

So we have an addictive substance that makes us age faster, that we clamor for more of, and that food manufacturers are more than happy to provide us. I’m not sure what it’s going to take to get people to take charge of their own health and dump these “healthy” processed foods from their diet.

We have a grassroots movement of sorts with all of us bloggers talking about health and fitness, but it’s just a drop in the bucket compared to the millions in marketing dollars convincing us that we can eat sweets, just as long as there’s no high-fructose corn syrup. Or telling us that Trix are healthy because they’re made with whole grains and fortified with the missing vitamins.

The Real Truth About Those “Healthy Whole Grains"

- Fitness Spotlight - http://www.fitnessspotlight.com -

Posted By skustes On May 21, 2009 @ 1:00 am

If you’ve been around here for any length of time, you already know that I’m no fan of grains, whether processed or whole. Unfortunately, those of us that think such blasphemous things against those “wholesome” grains are an anomaly. So for those that still think whole grains are an important, healthy, wholesome, and necessary part of the diet, let’s look at just a few of the issues.

Do Grains Cause Leptin Resistance?

Stephan at Whole Health Source grabbed an old article of mine about lectins in grains and took it to a a new level with an awesome three part series on Lectins and Leptin Resistance ^[1] (Part II ^[2]Part III ^[3]). and

Here is some of the pertinent information from all three parts to help pull together the picture Stephan is painting:

Furthermore, elevated leptin predicts the onset of obesity and metabolic syndrome. It also predicts insulin resistance. Yes, you read that right, leptin resistance comes before insulin resistance.
….
Many plants use lectins as a defense against hungry animals. Thus, an animal that is not adapted to the lectins in the plant it’s eating may suffer damage or death. … Grains and legumes (beans, soy, peas, peanuts) are rich in some particularly nasty lectins. Especially wheat. Some can degrade the intestinal lining. Some have the ability to pass through the intestinal lining and show up in the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream, they may bind all sorts of carbohydrate-containing proteins in the body, including the insulin receptor. They could theoretically bind the leptin receptor, which also contains carbohydrate (= it’s glycosylated), potentially desensitizing it. This remains to be tested, and to my knowledge is pure speculation at this point. What is not so speculative is that once you’re leptin-resistant, you become obese and insulin resistant, and at that point you are intolerant to any type of carbohydrate.
….
One of the molecules they use to probe the function of the leptin receptor is our good friend wheat germ agglutinin (WGA), a lectin found in wheat, barley and rye. They used WGA to specifically block leptin binding at the receptor.

This fits in very nicely with the hypothesis that grain lectins cause leptin resistance. If WGA gets into the bloodstream, which it appears to, it has the ability to bind leptin receptors and block leptin binding. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this could cause leptin resistance.

Lectins And Phytates And Gluten, Oh My!

^[4]

Along with lectins, there are two other components of grains that are detrimental: phytates and gluten. As the Weston A. Price Foundation points out in the article Be Kind To Your Grains ^[5]:

Phytic acid, for example, is an organic acid in which phosphorus is bound. It is mostly found in the bran or outer hull of seeds. Untreated phytic acid can combine with calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc in the intestinal tract and block their absorption. This is why a diet high in improperly prepared whole grains may lead to serious mineral deficiencies and bone loss.

WAPF also points out several other antinutrients:

Other antinutrients in whole grains include enzyme inhibitors which can inhibit digestion and put stress on the pancreas; irritating tannins; complex sugars which the body cannot break down; and gluten and related hard-to-digest proteins which may cause allergies, digestive disorders and even mental illness.

Gluten is the protein component of wheat grasses (wheat and its derivatives rye, barley, durum, etc). It is made up of the proteins gliadin and glutenin and is quite the gut irritant. Even for people who don’t exhibit overt celiac symptoms, gluten is known to be a gut irritant and a component of developing a leaky gut ^[6].

If You Decide To Eat Grains, Eat Them Properly

There are cultures, however, that have figured out ways to neutralize, or at least minimize, the dangerous components of grains to optimize the available nutrition. From the same WAPF link, we learn that:

Our ancestors, and virtually all pre-industrialized peoples, soaked or fermented their grains before making them into porridge, breads, cakes and casseroles. A quick review of grain recipes from around the world will prove our point: In India, rice and lentils are fermented for at least two days before they are prepared as idli and dosas; in Africa the natives soak coarsely ground corn overnight before adding it to soups and stews and they ferment corn or millet for several days to produce a sour porridge called ogi; a similar dish made from oats was traditional among the Welsh; in some Oriental and Latin American countries rice receives a long fermentation before it is prepared; Ethiopians make their distinctive injera bread by fermenting a grain called teff for several days; Mexican corn cakes, called pozol, are fermented for several days and for as long as two weeks in banana leaves; before the introduction of commercial brewers yeast, Europeans made slow-rise breads from fermented starters; in America the pioneers were famous for their sourdough breads, pancakes and biscuits; and throughout Europe grains were soaked overnight, and for as long as several days, in water or soured milk before they were cooked and served as porridge or gruel.

So if you absolutely have to include grains as part of your diet, you must soak or ferment them. Today’s quick-rise breads and extruded cereals and all of those other “healthy” whole grain products do not neutralize the antinutrients. But a real soaked or sprouted bread does cut down on these components. Grains should also be consumed with fat-containing foods such as cream, butter, or raw cheese to help your body absorb the vitamins and minerals that are available.

Of course, there is still the gluten component to deal with. And I still advise removing grains from your diet, especially gluten containing grains, as difficult as that may be.

The FDA Lays The Smack Down on General Mills

Not so cheery anymore

Finally, in a pseudo-win for those of us that aren’t convinced grains are a panacea of health, the FDA sent a somewhat humorous (possibly unintentionally funny) warning letter to General Mills for misbranding Cheerios as a food instead of as a drug ^[7]. Of course, most of the damage is done. People have seen the ads and the cereal boxes and now know to equate “Cheerios = whole grains = heart healthy”.

Here are a couple excerpts:

Based on claims made on your product’s label, we have determined that your Cheerios® Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease. Specifically, your Cheerios® product bears the following claims ort its label:
“you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks” ”
“Did you know that in just 6 weeks Cheerios can reduce bad cholesterol by an average of 4 percent? Cheerios is … clinically proven to lower cholesterol. A clinical study showed that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings daily of Cheerios cereal reduced bad cholesterol when eaten as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol.”
….
If you cannot complete all corrections before you respond, state the reason for the delay and the date by which you will complete the corrections.

It’s a fairly short letter and worth a quick read. The last line there is important though. They have 15 days to respond and surely the FDA isn’t going to force them to pull all boxes from the shelf. Anything in circulation is likely to remain in circulation as the offending boxes are phased out. I doubt that General Mills was unaware that they were pushing the envelope. Likely, they hoped the FDA just wouldn’t get the time to deal with it.

Cooking Without Grains Is Easy

Getting rid of grains seems to be the major sticking point for most people moving to a diet of real, unprocessed foods. While soaking, sprouting, and fermenting are pretty good compromises for including grains in your diet, I still think you’re better off to eventually remove them completely. Now, I’m realistic…those of us that don’t have full-blown celiac are probably going to eat some grains now and then. I do. Last Saturday I was at a restaurant that has amazing bread and butter, the kind of bread with a crusty outside and soft inside (and real butter, of course). So I had a goodly bit. But tearing into something like that is a rarity for me and my body thanks me.

Free Recipe!

Antonio Valladares is well known for the awesome job he did of putting together gluten-free recipes in his cookbook The Healthy Urban Kitchen ^[9]. I tracked down Antonio and got him to give away one of his delicious (and healthy) recipes. Here is a free recipe for you to download (just click on the link to save or view): Slammin’ Citrus Salmon ^[10]. Check it out and let me know what you think…I think fennel, citrus, and fish is an awesome sumery combination.

Real Sugar Vs. Artificial Sweeteners: Which Is Better?

- Fitness Spotlight - http://www.fitnessspotlight.com -

Do you want to hear an amusing quote? This one comes via the coworker who was telling us how bad Plastic #7 is ^[1]. After he told me how bad my plastic mug full of green tea was (because of the plastic, not the green tea), I picked up his Cherry Coke bottle and replied, “Says the guy drinking 70g of sugar in that one bottle.” Here we go (might not be verbatim, but captures the essence):

Sugar is okay. It’s the artificial stuff that’s bad.

Yes, you read that right…”sugar is okay”. I politely informed him that there was nothing “okay” about sugar, which he argued adamantly against.* Luckily, he gave me an idea for another post…this one!

So which is worse: sweeteners or artificial sweeteners? And is either “okay”?

Taking Yet Another Look At Sugar

In months past, I’ve taken a look at the various sweeteners available and which is best ^[2]. I also considered the arguments for and against the notion that high-fructose corn syrup is worse than sugar ^[3]. Well now let’s look at sugar in comparison to artificial sweeteners. Note that these pros and cons are relative to artificial sweeteners.

Just for a definition, by sugar, I mean any type of caloric sweetener, such as cane sugar, evaporated cane juice, high-fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, honey, etc.

Why Sugar Is Better
Over millions of years of evolution, one thing the human body has figured out is how to handle incoming nutrients. Through the actions of insulin, it either uses or stores incoming glucose for future use, either as muscle or liver glycogen or as fat. What I’m getting at is that the body knows what to do with the sugar you’re feeding it.

Of course, it can’t handle the high quantities of sugar that most people are shoveling in, but at least it has a mechanism for dealing with what is going in when handling sugar. It doesn’t matter if that incoming sugar is in the form of sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, or agave nectar…the body knows that it is sugar and breaks it down accordingly.

Why Sugar Is Worse
Sugar is an empty calorie. Sure, with foods like honey and molasses, you get a few vitamins, but calorie-for-calorie, sugar, in all of its forms, is just empty calories compared to meat, vegetables, fruit, nuts, and tubers. It has few, if any, vitamins and minerals. It actually robs the body of the nutrients required for the body to process it.

Sugar sends your blood sugar sky high where it does damage to your arteries (for which cholesterol gets the blame). Your insulin then shoots up, clearing out the sugar, sending you into a hypoglycemic funk, and ruining your insulin sensitivity.

Sugar is also exceedingly easy to overconsume. A single tablespoon of sugar is nearly 50 calories. That pan of brownies you’re staring down? There’s probably 20-30 tablespoons of sugar in there, so you can figure out how much is in that 3″ square that goes down so easily. My blood sugar is skyrocketing just thinking about it.

Artificial Sweeteners

As for artificial sweeteners, I’m referring to any of the man-made non-caloric sweeteners that are found in numerous products in the store: Splenda, aspartame, acesulfame K, saccharin, etc.

Why Fake Sugar Is Better
The main reason that people find artificial sweeteners to be a better choice is that they have no calories. The body is unable to process them and as such, cannot derive any nutritional value from them. Just switching from a five Coca-Cola per day habit to five Diet Cokes per day will save nearly 200g of sugar and 800 calories. That’s obviously an improvement if you’re trying to lose weight and requires no real change of your routine.

Why Fake Sugar Is Worse
Anyone that’s been around here for any length of time has figured out that I am a big fan of real, whole, unprocessed foods. And as bad as sugar is in terms of processing, artificial sweeteners are even worse. These sweeteners are made in a lab from who knows what chemicals. Further, we have no idea what these chemicals will do to the body with sustained long-term use.

I’m also not a fan of trying to fool the body. Just as with trying to outdo Mother Nature by creating “better” butter (i.e., margarine) and removing the “unhealthy” yolk from eggs, giving your body something that it can’t process just to keep from changing your habits is probably a recipe for failure.

Finally, I think normal use of artificial sweeteners is a false sense of security. There is scant evidence that these sugar substitutes actually help people lose weight. In fact, there is evidence that they may contribute to weight gain ^[4]. These substances still stimulate the sweet receptors of the tongue and may even cause an insulin response since the tongue is the first step in the digestive process.

And as a final kicker, Splenda may be bad for your intestinal flora ^[5]. As Mike pointed out in this article ^[6], your gut is the first line of defense in the immune system.

^[7]

So Which Is Best?

Well, that’s easy to answer…the best option is c) none of the above. Your best bet is always going to be to ditch the sweet stuff, whether real or artificial and stick to Real Food ^[8]. Turning the sweet tooth off is a good idea; fooling it with fake sugar is not a viable long-term solution. We are primed to gorge on sugar at every opportunity. And here’s why I think that is:

• Humans evolved in an environment with relatively little sugar.
• Because we evolved in environments with few sources of concentrated sweetness, we learned to consume as much as we could when we found it, such as with a honey beehive. The brain is designed to reward us heavily when we feed it sugar ^[9], reinforcing the desire to go back for more.
• Whether we eat caloric or non-caloric sweeteners, we are still activating the pleasure centers of the brain associated with sweet tastes.
• These pleasure centers signal that there are concentrated sources of calories nearby and drive further consumption.

So by activating sweet receptors and telling the brain “sugar is available,” even if it’s not, we increase our appetites. One study (and there are probably more of these) showed that artificial sweeteners disrupt the body’s built-in calorie measuring ability ^[10].

But let’s face reality…we all live in the same world, a world where there are family parties and work events and desserts are going to happen. If given a choice, what should you reach for? I’d go for the real stuff. With the caveat that sugar intake should be VERY minimal, I’d rather go ahead and give my body the substance that it can process rather than some unknown chemical.

Sure, I’m going to get hit with a tired, sluggish feeling thirty minutes later, but on rare occasions, I’m not doing any lasting damage. And on rare occasions, artificial sweeteners probably won’t do any long-term damage either. But I feel better with the sugar that has some basis in evolution.

Again, better is a relative term. It’s better to smoke one pack of cigarettes than to smoke two packs. Cocaine is probably less harmful than crack. That doesn’t make it healthy. It’s even better to do neither.

Dealing With Sugar Cravings

Once people commit to cleaning up their diet, sugar cravings are often the hardest part. It’s the biggest derailleur of dietary plans. We’ve all been there; completely stuffed until the dessert cart rolls by or someone drops off the Girl Scout Cookies in the breakroom. I dealt with it and know that it’s not easy. Here are some tips I’ve found that work:
- Eat plenty of fat, protein, and nutrient-dense foods on a regular basis - These will help shunt your appetite. When the cake comes out, grab some almonds.
- Eat some fruit - The sweetness will help curb your sweet cravings.
- Find a good dark chocolate (or smart indulgence of your choice) - It has just enough sweetness for me to be satisfying without being unhealthy.
- Go for a walk - Just getting away from the temptation is usually helpful.
- Plan a few indulgences - I’m not a big fan of “cheat” meals, but early on, it can help keep things on track to know that in just another day or two, you can dig into some ice cream or a few pieces of candy. But you don’t need to eat the entire pint of Haagen-Dazs to indulge yourself.
- And finally, if you just can’t resist, have one bite. It won’t kill you and as long as you can control yourself beyond that point, can be helpful. I actually knew a guy that would take a bite, chew, then spit it out and that was enough to manage his cravings when they hit. It worked for him. Your mileage may vary. I’m better off avoiding than trying to indulge “just a little”.

Sugar cravings take a long time to go away. Long after you’ve figured out what to eat for breakfast instead of a bagel and cereal… Long after you’ve ditched the Rice-A-Roni in favor of asparagus… The cravings will resurface, often without warning. It’ll probably take a good six months or more to fully tame your sweet tooth. Just keep fighting the urges and find ways to kill them off without gnoshing the entire bag of Oreos.

Dangers of Soda

Huge California study concludes soda consumption undeniably linked to obesity

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Much like Big Tobacco once did with nicotine, the soda industry and high-fructose corn syrup producers of America have maintained a ridiculous state of flat-out denial about the links between soda consumption and obesity. "Sodas don't make you fat," they insist. Meanwhile, as Americans guzzle down insanely large quantities of soda and liquid sugar with each passing year, rates of obesity and diabetes continue to steadily climb. Surely diet must have something to do with it, right?

Thanks to a new California study, soda companies can no longer hide behind the defense of uncertainty when it comes to links between soda consumption and obesity. This massive study questioned the soda consumption habits of 43,000 adults and 4,000 adolescents and concluded this: Drinking one or more sodas a day increases your chances of obesity by 27 percent. A whopping 62% of adults who drink at least one soda each day are overweight or obese.

The study also found that Californians are gulping down sodas at an unprecedented rate: At least one soda is consumed daily by 41 percent of children, 62 percent of adolescents and 24 percent of adults. Through the study, another shocking statistic was revealed: The average California teen consumes 39 pounds of liquid sugar a year solely from soda consumption.

Sadly, the study didn't look at rates of diabetes and bone loss -- the phosphoric acid in sodas causes osteoporosis, even in males -- but there's little doubt that a similar correlation exists between soda consumption and those diseases, too. The whole issue of aspartame and diet sodas also wasn't looked at in this study, but that's yet another important area of investigation that will probably be delayed for many years until the number of people drinking diet soda who get diagnosed with brain cancer can no longer be denied.

We've been warning about this for years

The interesting thing about all this is that the champions of natural health have been warning society about this for years. Whether you're talking about myself and NaturalNews, or Dr. Julian Whitaker, or even going back to Weston Price, we've all been shouting about the dangers of widespread cola consumption long before it appeared on the radar of mainstream consciousness.

Now, in the thick of a disastrous epidemic of obesity and diabetes, more mainstream health authorities are finally starting to put the pieces together and realize just how bad sodas are for public health. There's now no question about it: When soda consumption goes up, so do rates of obesity. And with higher obesity rates, you automatically get greatly increased rates of diabetes, cancer, heart disease, depression and other diseases that are very expensive to treat.

Ultimately, that means that soda consumption greatly increases the health care costs of any nation, because higher soda consumption leads to higher rates of diseases that are expensive to treat. I'm guessing that for every dollar a consumer spends on soda, another dollar's worth of long-term health care cost is created at the same time. Except those costs are paid directly by the consumer; they're paid by the taxpayers and health insurance customers.

That's why reforming health care necessarily requires doing something drastic to reduce soda consumption across first-world nations. You can't have both affordable health care and a nation full of soda guzzlers.

How to reduce soda consumption

Greatly reducing the consumption of sodas is easier than you think. It just takes some political backbone... and a willingness for politicians to stop pussyfooting around with the issue in an effort to please the rich, powerful soft drink corporations.

It's time to start treating soft drink companies as what they truly are: The enemies of public health and financial parasites that drain public coffers through increased health care costs caused by their products. Their ads promise happiness, but their products deliver disease.

The first step to reducing soft drink consumption is to ban all soda advertising. In fact, that might be the only step that's necessary. Simply reveal that sodas are a clear and scientifically-proven hazard to public health, and declare that in order to protect our nation's youth, products that pose a clear and imminent hazard to public health will no longer be allowed to be advertised in any form: Not on television, magazines, sporting events or even through internet advertising. They are still free to have their own websites, of course, where they can describe their products. They just can't advertise on someone else's website.

But what about free speech? Doesn't the U.S. Constitution guarantee free speech for all individuals? Indeed, it does, but in my opinion -- and I know that far better-informed Constitutional lawyers would probably disagree with me on this -- there's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech to corporations. That "right" has been invented through a loose interpretation of what the Constitution really says.

I don't believe that corporations should have the same rights as individuals, because the free speech of one person is all too often completely drowned out by the "free speech" of a multi-billion dollar corporation that can buy virtually unlimited air time on television.

Can't we just tax sodas instead?

Another popular suggestion is to tax the heck out of sodas, thereby making them more expensive in order to discourage consumers from buying them. If you believe in levying new taxes on the poor, this is a great idea, because poor people buy and consume far more soda than wealthy people, making a "soda tax" largely a tax on the poor.

I strongly disagree with the idea of using new taxes to shape consumer behavior. Why? Because the current tangle of government taxes and subsidies is so complex and confusing that it has long since lost any attachment to common sense. For example, there are currently subsidies on sugar and corn. Yet one of the sweeteners used in soft drinks is high-fructose corn syrup, which is derived from corn. If a new soda tax passes, it means our government would simultaneously be in the business of providing subsidies to corn while taxing another product that uses an ingredient derived from corn. The overhead of tracking and collecting all these taxes is an enormous waste of government resources.

It's far better to just deny these soda companies the ability to use the media to influence teens and adults into buying and consuming their products. With no advertising, soda consumption would plummet, and the obesity epidemic would begin to turn around. Health care costs would ease and we'd be on our way to a healthier generation of future adults in America.

The mainstream media: Running on disease

The mainstream media, of course, would have a tissy fit with this idea. A significant portion of their advertising revenues come directly from companies that sell sodas and sugary drinks, putting them in the business of promoting products that directly harm children and teens.

But that's business, and the media doesn't feel any special responsibility to protect people from dangerous products that just happen to be paying their salaries. That's why they'll openly advertise dangerous, deadly pharmaceuticals designed to treat the very diseases caused by other products they advertise, like junk foods and soda.

There's a lot of money to be made from selling harmful products the people, and just like everybody else, the mainstream media wants its piece of the action. If you ban the advertising of harmful foods and beverages, many newspapers, magazines and television shows would collapse in weeks. It is precisely the advertising expenditures of high-margin junk product companies that keep the media afloat. Never forget that... especially when you're reading an article about sodas in the mainstream media.

Choose one: Children or corporations

At some point, America has to make a decision: Do we, as a nation, continue to sacrifice the health of our children in order to keep our powerful corporations flush with cash? Or do we sacrifice the profits of powerful corporations in order to save the health of our children?

That's really the only choice we have on this issue. We cannot protect both children's health and the profits of the corporations selling products that harm them.

Right now, the status quo has chosen to sacrifice the children in order to protect the corporations. That has been the stance of the FDA, Senators, Congressmen (and women) and even the mainstream media. To heck with the children, they say. We've got to keep this economy running, even if it means selling poison to our kids!

That's a stupid, short-sighted stance. But it's business as usual in America today: Sacrifice the future in order to create the illusion of wealth in the present. But even if all these soda-pumping corporations continue to rake in more profits, is the nation really economically better off?

I think not. The long-term health care costs of treating diseases caused by soda consumption equal or outweigh any short-term benefits derived from the economic activity of selling sodas. While it may seem like a net gain in this fiscal year, in the long haul it's a net loss to the nation.

When our political leaders begin to demonstrate an understanding of those concepts -- and they begin to act in accordance with the long-term interests of the nation -- we might have a future that can be salvaged out of the health care mess that exists now. We can, of course, turn this nation around and eliminate virtually all obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic degenerate diseases, but doing that will require making courageous decisions that directly violate the profiteering interests of some of the most powerful corporations in the world.

This will likely never happen. Poisoning children generates far too much profit to see it stopped. The media makes money, the politicians get campaign contributions that keep them in office, and the corporations selling their harmful products get to pocket obscene profits from doing so.

And so we end up with a nation of fat children and fat-cat adults who rake in the profits from soda companies even while wondering why their own kids have diabetes and can't concentrate in school. If it weren't so sad, the whole thing would be truly laughable. We are doing this to ourselves. We are poisoning our own children and calling it "profitable." And We the People of the United States of America continue to let this happen, day after day, year after year, even as we go bankrupt from the whole sickening charade.

I have a message for every newspaper, television station, sporting event and website that accepts advertising from soda companies: You are part of the problem! By agreeing to promote these products that directly harm the health of your readers, you are promoting a culture of disease and death.

Greed is powerful in the western world, and it often overshadows compassion. In a world where compassion took precedence over greed, no one would dare advertise sodas and sugary drinks. But we don't live in that world; we live in the world of ingrained American greed and blatant pass-the-buckishness. Some of the wealthiest people in the world have accumulated that wealth primarily by pushing products that harm or kill children. It's true for Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and the junk food giants, too.

Sources for this story include:
LA Times:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/boo...

California Center for Public Health Advocacy:
http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org...