My immediate reaction was ‘duh’. You simply cannot out-train a bad diet. If you need proof of that, check out some of these videos:

Craig vs. Pizza
Craig vs. Hamburger and Fries
Craig vs. a Protein Bar
Craig vs. Starbucks

My agreement with the author, John Cloud, stops there. Unfortunately, my take-away after reading his article is that he has just provided the general population with a host of convoluted excuses for not exercising. Most notably:

Research published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS ONE concluded that in their study of previously sedentary, overweight or obese, postmenopausal women that when following most exercise guidelines of 200 – 300 minutes of exercise per week, that this amount of exercise induces compensation that results in significantly less weight loss than predicted.

As Mr. Cloud’s article points out,

The basic problem is that while it’s true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger.

The article goes on to clarify,

Exercise, in other words, isn’t necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

It’s not just exercise however that is the problem according to the article. Mr. Cloud points to research that describes the human behavior of self-control as being similar to “a muscle”. The research the author is drawing his conclusions from states that muscles weaken each day after you use it. Thus, the more you draw on your self-control, the more likely you are to weaken your ability to refrain from eating that slice of pizza or Frappucino. (Funny, I always found that my muscles actually strengthen from exercise).

According to Mr. Cloud, we can actually point to exercise as a contributor to the obesity problem in the United States. He states,

Could pushing people to exercise more actually be contributing to our obesity problem? In some respects, yes. Because exercise depletes not just the body’s muscles but the brain’s self-control “muscle” as well, many of use will feel greater entitlement to eat a bag of chips during that lazy time after we get back from the gym.

That’s not to say all exercise is bad. As the article points out, many obesity researchers believe that very frequent, low-level activity, “the kind hmans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented” may work better at controlling weight than high intensity exercise.

I can visualize 3.4 million Time magazine readers canceling their gym memberships and heading out to Mickey D’s for a burger and fries. They may even bother to take a walk around the block afterwards.

I mean, wow. If I wasn’t confident in my ability to think for myself, I may just crawl under a rock after reading this article. Talk about dis-empowering the human species.

Yes Mr. Cloud, prehistoric man certain did his fair share of walking, but he also had to hunt for his food and I’m certain got in a few intervals out-running a dinosaur or two. He may have even strengthened his muscles by moving a few boulders.

Perhaps most importantly, prehistoric man wasn’t faced with the modern day supermarket and a Starbucks on every corner. He lived primarily on roots, berries fruit, legumes, nuts and eventually unprocessed meats.

Rather than write about excuses for not exercising, perhaps there needs to be a future Time magazine cover story that addresses the importance of moving away from processed foods and adding nutrition as part of our required school curriculum? Perhaps if we start educating our children now, they’ll have the tools to make educated decisions and curb obesity for our future generations.

If you’ve read this article, I’m certain you must have your own opinions! I’d love to hear them so please post your comments once you get back from the gym!

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

Update: We have launched the official challenge rules and information! Join the challenge now.

Do you ever watch those fitness makeovers on TV and wish you could do it yourself?  Do you ever feel like it would almost be easier to really go for it and get healthy instead of just being “sort of” in shape?

I don’t know if you are like me, but I have a hard time just doing something half way. In fact, I tend to be more motivated to exercise and eat right whenever I am on a strict routine and I have a goal in mind.  Are you like me?

On August 17, 2009, I will be launching the DailyBurn CEO Fitness Challenge. For 90-days, I will be doing a strict diet and exercise regimen.  My goal is to lose bodyfat and gain muscle.  It is kind of an experiment – how fit can I get with 90 days of discipline and intensity?  I am going to push it very hard and take it to the limits.

Do you want to join me?  Some of the other DailyBurn team members are going to do it.  There will be prizes for those who see the most change. It is going to be a lot of fun as we come together as a community and get serious about getting fit.

More details are coming.  I just wanted you to have time to start preparing yourself.  August 17 is just around the corner, and I want you to be ready.  Start making your plans to eat right and exercise.

Update: I should also note that we are currently looking for a few more corporate sponsors for this challenge.  We already have quite a few lined up, but if you or your company is interested in sponsoring the challenge and providing prizes, please feel free to contact us.  You can do so at http://support.dailyburn.com

At first glance, canned tuna appears to be an ideal source of protein. A 5 oz can of Bumble Bee Solid White Albacore Tuna In Water will cost you around $1.99 and contains:

175 calories, 2.5 g fat, 0 carbs, 37.5 g protein

However, it’s important to note that The Environmental Defense Fund has issued a health advisory for longline-caught albacore tuna (the kind used in most canned tuna) due to elevated levels of mercury. The EDF recommends that adult men and women limit their consumption of canned, albacore tuna to no more than 3 meals per month (a “meal” is defined as 6 oz).

The EDF also points out that fish is generally healthy to eat, but you should limit the consumption of certain types of fish. You can access a chart here that lists the most contaminated fish, and how much can safely be eaten each month (assuming no other contaminated fish is consumed). The advice is based on EPA guidance and the latest mercury and PCB data.

You may notice what is referred to as “light tuna”.  Canned light tuna is a safer option as Skipjack, which accounts for most canned light tuna, doesn’t grow nearly as large as albacore, so it has approximately one-third the mercury levels.

My Two Cents

As I have mentioned on the message boards, it is never to difficult to find an “expert” to support your side of any argument.  With that said, I don’t believe you would easily find a source that would deem mercury to be non-toxic.  Methylmercury is the most toxic form of mercury.  It enters the body through ingestion, and it is absorbed more readily and excreted more slowly than other forms of mercury.  This is the type of mercury found in certain types of fish, including tuna.

However, all this talk about mercury poisoning should not turn you away from eating fish, which is an excellent source of heart healthy Omega-3 fats and an excellent source of protein!  Not all fish contain toxic levels of methylmercury.

You can still have a can of tuna a couple of times each month, but you also want to make certain to incorporate fish into your diet that are low in toxins. Domestic (US) shrimp, wild salmon, Pacific flounder, rainbow trout and tilapia can be eaten several times each week.

While a bit more expensive than canned tuna, I love wild, canned salmon – which doesn’t need any mayo to taste good! You can literally eat it right out of the can, although salmon cakes are another tasty treat.

Train hard; stay strong.

Susan

I find myself struggling lately with the High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) topic.

Don’t get me wrong; I get that sugar is bad for a variety of reasons. I rarely, if ever, exceed more than 40 grams of sugar in a day. What I’ve been struggling with is whether or not HFCS is really any different than sucrose (table sugar)?

Chemistry Refresher

Sugar is a simple carbohydrate which means it is broken down quickly by the body and used as a source of energy. Sugars include monosaccharides, disaccharides, trisaccharides and oligosaccharides. As the names suggest, multiple sugar molecules (monosacharides) can be combined.

Monosaccharides are the simplest form of carbohydrates. They consist of one sugar and include glucose, fructose, galactose, xylose and ribose.

Disaccharides are made up of two monosaccharides and include sucrose (table sugar), lactose and maltose.

Like other carbohydrates, sugar contributes 4 calories per gram.

HFCS Versus Other Sugars

The Corn Refiners Association will argue that HFCS is similar in composition to sucrose (table sugar). A recent article by Lyle McDonald compared the percentage of fructose and glucose content across different sweeteners and indeed, the composition of HFCS is similar to its counterparts:

Health Concerns Surrounding HFCS

I was listening to a podcast the other day that quickly demonized HFCS by referring to a study that indicates that un-bound fructose causes extremely elevated levels of reactive carbonyls – compounds that are typically elevated in the blood of people with diabetes.

Specifically, here is what was said during the podcast:

It is true that, in fact, high fructose corn syrup is far more sinister than regular sugar. They were doing a study with diabetics and they were finding a compound called carbonyl at extremely elevated levels in diabetics.

When high fructose corn syrup is manufactured there’s a reaction with fructose and glucose molecules where they become unbound and they elevate the level of carbonyls and this is obviously what’s going on with your soda.

With regular sugar, sucrose does not become unbound. The way that it’s processed is totally different.

The podcast in question is one that is hosted by an individual that I feel is extremely intelligent and well versed in many areas of health and fitness. Unfortunately, the information reported is simply incorrect.

The study being referenced is a 2007 research paper by Dr. Chi-Tang Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University. Dr. Ho’s study did not use diabetics as a control base. Rather, it was a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages. If you read on you’ll better understand as to why sucrose does indeed become unbound if used in the manufacturing of soda.

For full disclosure, I requested Lyle McDonald’s assistance in deciphering Dr. Ho’s research and, as always, Lyle’s input was very insightful.

The Research Study De-Constructed

The original news report entitled Soda Warning? New Study Supports Link Between Diabetes, High-Fructose Corn Syrup points out that Dr. Ho’s team tested 11 carbonated soft drinks that contained HFCS and found

‘astonishingly high’ levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with “unbound” fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are “bound” and chemically stable, the research notes.

Keep that last sentence in mind as we’re going to get back to that point later on in this posting.

The news article goes on to point out that

Ho’s group is also probing the mechanisms by which carbonation increases the amount of reactive carbonyls formed in sodas containing HFCS. They note that non-carbonated fruit juices containing HFCS have one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species found in carbonated sodas with HFCS.

The diabetes connection is that reactive carbonyls are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes.

The question begs to be asked, is HFCS the problem, or is it carbonation plus HFCS that is the real issue?

Lyle was able to pinpoint a blog posting with the following information:

First, Chi-Tang Ho et al did not compare the HFCS sodas to sucrose sodas. They compared 11 HFCS sodas to a diet soda control. There was no sucrose soda control, so this research does not allows us to make comparisons.

Second, though the article states that sucrose does not have reactive carbonyls by virtue of the fact that fructose and glucose are bound together in sucrose, this overlooks the fact that sucrose is in fact hydrolyzed in soft drinks into – you guessed it – fructose and glucose.

For instance, The Soft Drinks Companion: A Technical Handbook for the Beverage Industry, Maurice Shachman, pp. 81 – 82, states:

The sugar inversion process takes place under acidic conditions and speeds up with a decrease in pH. Soft drinks are flavored with acids to achieve the sourness notes essential for their taste profiles. They are therefore acidic drinks, usually in the pH+3 range. This is especially true of the sour fruit flavors, such as lemon and other citrus fruit species. Cola beverages that often use phosphoric acid as the acidulant are at even lower pH values. In carbonated soft drinks, the dissolved carbon dioxide is converted to carbonic acid, which further adds to the acidification of these drinks. Regardless of the exact acid content of such beverages, they can all be considered to a lesser or greater degree, as acidic solutions. As such, some inversion of the sucrose in these beverages will take place.

So, even if the drinks starts with sucrose, much if not most of it will be broken down into unbound fructose and glucse by the acid in the soda. In fact, according to Marov and Dowling (1990)*, at typical storage times and temperatures, more than 90% of the sucrose in soft drinks can by hydrolyzed. Therefore, even if a soft drink is sweetened with sucrose, unbound glucose and fructose will start to appear immediately and be available to participate in carbonyl forming reactions.

* Marov, G. J., Dowling, J.F., 1990. Sugar in beverages. In: Pennington, N.L., Baker, C.W. (Eds.(, Sugar: A User’s Guide to Sucrose, vol. 13. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 189 – 211.

Based on this information, Lyle drew the following conclusion and I concur -

There is still NO functional difference in a soda sweetened with HFCS vs. sucrose vs. invert sugar vs. anything else. Put them in acid and they become unbound; carbonate them and you generate carbonyls.

My Two Cents

I myself was on the anti-HFCS bandwagon. The fact is, several times I started to compose seething postings in regards to the commercials run by The Corn Refiners Association.

However, the more I have researched the topic, the more questions I have. Ultimately, it seems as if current research is inconclusive and High Fructose Corn Syrup is simply today’s whipping-boy, same as dietary fat and carbohydrates have been in the past.

We live in a sound-bite era where context is often missing and it becomes easy to draw conclusions without having reviewed all the evidence.

I read a statistic that stated that the per-capita consumption of soft drinks is in excess of 150 quarts per year, or about three quarts per week in the U.S. When you consider that a 20 oz bottle of soda contains 250 calories and the equivalent of 16 teaspoons of sugar, it seems to me that we’re kidding ourselves by focusing on HFCS as being the problem.

My opinion on HFCS is the same as it is in regards to all simple carbohydrates – they should be limited as they are wasted calories, void of any nutritional value.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

www.catapultfitnessblog.com

The system, developed over a two-year period by a panel of 12 medical and nutrition experts from leading North American universities and health organizations, uses a proprietary algorithmic formula to score the nutritional value of foods on a scale of one to 100, weighing some 30 different nutrient factors including fiber, Vitamin content, Omega 3 fatty acids, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, sugar, protein quality, energy density, glycemic load, et al.

A higher ONQI score reflects foods with higher nutritional value, offering consumers the opportunity to evaluate products within and across specific food categories -

• Fruits & Vegetables
• Meat & Poultry
• Seafood
• Frozen Vegetables
• Canned Vegetables
• Salty Snacks
• Cereal
• Cookies
• Crackers
• Pasta

So, now shoppers can literally compare apples to oranges, as well as apples to chocolate, apples to potato chips and just about anything else you would care to compare an apple to.

My Two Cents:

I have admit that I am pretty skeptical about the value of this system.  Do we really need someone to tell us that Pepperidge Farm Bordeaux Cookies (ONQI score: 2) are not as healthy for us as blueberries (ONQI score: 100)?

As Michael Pollan points out in his stellar book, In Defense of Food, if you stick to the perimeter of the supermarket and eat foods that your great grandparents would recognize as food, the better your overall nutrition will likely be.

Clearly, processed foods are not as good as whole foods.

Clearly, we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

Historically, in times of recession consumers turn to cheaper food options such as energy-dense foods high in starch, sugar and fat.

This past December, New York’s Governor, David Paterson, proposed an 18% sales tax on sugary beverages such as soda.  The estimated $404 million that this tax would generate over the course of a year would go towards funding public health programs, including obesity prevention programs, across New York State.

This to me seems like a step in the right direction.  The next obvious step would be to subsidize more healthy foods (fruits and vegetables) so that consumers have a great incentive to buy them.

The real “numbers” consumers need to help motivate them to purchase more healthful foods are the numbers that will impact their wallets.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

www.catapultfitnessblog.com

It is important to acknowledge that caffeine is considered to be a drug; specifically a stimulant. While I leave it to the readers of this posting to decide whether or not caffeine consumption should be part of your diet, I do want to point out that pregnant women need to be aware that there is research that associates an increase in the risk of miscarriage with caffeine consumption.

With that out of the way, I’ll disclose that I am a coffee-holic. I will defend my right to drink coffee until the day I am no longer here on Earth. However, if this stuff is eventually going to kill me, I wouldn’t mind knowing so I have been pouring over what seems like an insurmountable amount of research trying to determine if coffee is actually my friend or foe.

For years there have been correlations made between caffeine and cardiovascular disease and in my research I was able to find several older studies that support the hypothesis that caffeine consumption increases the risk of heart disease.

These studies for the most part are focused on “heavy” coffee consumption (which I will define as five or more 8 oz cups per day) and the role caffeinated drinks play in regards to increased blood pressure. When coffee drinkers ceased drinking coffee, they experienced significant reductions in measured blood pressure, thus reducing their risk for a cardiac event.

A little discouraged I dug a little deeper and found research published this past summer in the Annals of Internal Medicine. This study concluded that regular coffee consumption was not associated with an increased mortality rate in either men or women, and may actually be associated with lower cardiovascular mortality.

These findings are supported by research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which suggests that in adults older than 65 without existing high blood pressure, caffeine intake may be associated with reduced cardiovascular mortality.

As stated earlier, it is not difficult to find research to support your side of the argument.

Caffeine and Fat Loss

Consumed ‘wisely’, caffeine can have a positive impact on fat loss.

A recent study documented in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning supports the use of caffeine as an ergogenic aid in untrained to moderately trained individuals.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers reported that weight-trained men who took a supplement containing about 200 mg of caffeine (equivalent to 16 fluid ounces of regular coffee or a 12 fluid ounce cup of Starbucks regular coffee) before working out, increased their one rep max (1RM) on the bench press by about 5 pounds. An earlier study also found that caffeine increased subjects’ 8 RM. In addition, researchers from the University of Georgia found that when subjects consumed caffeine about an hour before intense cycling exercise that was designed to make their thighs sore, they reported significantly less pain than when taking a placebo.

This means that caffeine can increase muscle strength, as well as your ability to endure more reps at the end of a grueling workout. Over the long, this can lead to greater fat loss and increased muscle growth.

My Two Cents

It is likely that an individual’s response to caffeine will vary and the amount of caffeine which improves performance in one individual may result in negative side effects in another.

Clearly, if you are pregnant or prone to hypertension, drinking coffee may be harmful to your health. Similarly, if you have high cholesterol it would be advisable to limit whole egg consumption, and if you suffer from vertigo my recommendation would be not to climb the Statue of Liberty.

The point is, there are a myriad of factors that dictate how something we consume interacts with an individual. We need to stop trying to neatly fit foods into a “good” or “bad” column and instead look at the big picture to determine what is best for ourselves, at a given point in time.

Ultimately, as with just about everything we consume, my take-away is that moderation is key.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

This is the most important question most of us should ask ourselves during the most tempting time of the year. It is the holiday season again, apple pie, beer and wine, this and that — and lots more FAT! Many people fall off of the wagon now more than ever, and simply figure they’ll get back into it after the New Year. Many people gain 1-2 pounds per year of adult life, and these are usually packed on during the HO- HO- Holidays. If you are already overweight, you have an even greater risk of gaining 5 or more pounds between Thanksgiving and New Years.

It is so easy to just let things slide and eat that piece of pie. But do you really want to undo all of this year’s hard work? If it were easy to have an incredibly fit and trim body, everyone would, right? You have to ask yourself everyday: “How bad do I want it?” I hear people claiming that since they’ve worked hard they deserve a little treat. This is true to some extent, and it mostly depends on how close you are to your goals. But sometimes it can be no different than a former alcoholic having a drink because he or she has been sober for 11 months. A little treat that could undo the progress of the previous 11 months. The mental setback can be more detrimental than the physical.

It is the ultimate question to ask yourself when you are at the precipice: “How bad do I want it?” When you answer it, you can usually muster the strength to say “No thank you”. Just remember, there is no piece of pie, slice of cake or bowl of pudding that is so good, it can ever replace that feeling you get inside when someone says, “Wow! You look great! You’re so skinny!”

Happy Holidays and stay strong.

The same can be applied to what we drink, which has resulted in my taking a very close look at my post-exercise supplementation.

I came across several studies comparing cows’ milk (whole milk, low-fat, skimmed and chocolate) to soy-based and commercial sports drinks (e.g, Gatorade, Powerade) and each supports cows milk as a good post-workout drink for both endurance and strength training.

In looking at the chemical make-up of milk, it contains casein and whey protein, carbohydrates, calcium, and a host of vitamins including D and B12. Compare that to Gatorade which is primarily composed of sugary carbohydrates, and already milk is looking pretty good.

But the news gets even better for cows’ milk as a post-exercise beverage:

- Research suggests that proteins in cows’ milk supports greater muscle hypertrophy post exercise than soy-based protein beverages.

- In addition to building more muscle, research has shown milk drinkers to lose almost double the amount of fat of athletes drinking a commercial carbohydrate beverage. Soy-protein drinkers lose no fat.

- One study found that when endurance athletes consumed chocolate milk as a recovery aid between exercise sessions, they were able to work out longer during the second round of exercise compared to when they drank a carbohydrate replacement beverage.

- Researchers have also found milk to be better at restoring hydration than other commonly used post-exercise beverages including water and Powerade

Personally, I’m not sure I can drink enough milk to reap the same benefits that I realize from using a whey protein supplementation, but I like the idea of mixing the whey powder with skim milk and adding a banana for extra carbohydrates, when necessary.

At the end of the day however, in a pinch, milk looks to be a good post-exercise recovery aid and certainly a cost-effective alternative.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

www.catapultfitnessblog.com

More on that later. In the meantime, as a primer, an essential nutrient is

1. Required by the body for proper function and,
2. One that cannot be made in sufficient quantities by the body and thus must be obtained through ones diet

The Essential Fatty Acids include

1. alpha-linoleic acid
2. linolenic acid

Alpha-linoleic acid (ALA) as well as the fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) belongs to a group of fatty acids called Omega-3 acids. EPA and DHA are found primarily in fish while ALAis highly concentrated in certain plant oils such as flaxseed oil and, to a lesser extent, canola, soy and walnut oils.

Most Omega-6 fatty acids are consumed in the diet from vegetable oils as linolenic acid (LA).

While the ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 should be close to 1:1, the typical North American diet has ratios now over 10:1 due to the addition of corn, sunflower, safflower, and sesame oils to our food supply.

Consequently, this shift is thought by many to be a factor in a number of chronic medical conditions including arthritis, cardiovascular disease, asthma, acne, depression and even obesity.

According to a recent study published in the November 2008 issue of Appetite, 232 overweight and obese volunteers were provided with a calorie restricted, balanced diet. Participants were randomly assigned to take a low dose of Omega-3 (260 mg/day) or a high dose of Omega-3 (1300 mg/day) supplement for a period of 2-weeks.

Those who received the high dose of Omega-3 maintained a better level of satiety immediately following meals as well as two hours post-meal. Blood tests showed not only a higher concentration of Omega-3 in these individuals, but an improved Omega-3 to Omega-6 ratio as well.

If you’re one of those individuals who are hungry 20 minutes following a meal, consider adding more Omega-3 rich foods to your diet!

Foods with high levels of Omega-3 include:

• Salmon
• Scallops
• Sardines
• Shrimp
• Cod
• Flaxseeds
• Walnuts
• Cauliflower
• Cabbage
• Romaine Lettuce
• Broccoli

Being that most folks on Gyminee are concerned with their body fat, It’s important to note that healthy fats do not make us fat. Quite the opposite. Healthy fats suppress appetite and Omega-3s help you lose body fat.  “Fat-Free” diets are partially responsible for the current obesity epidemic in America.  Eat fats, but choose wisely.

Train hard; stay strong.

Peace.

Susan

www.catapultfitnessblog.com

Most of what we have been working on recently has been totally behind-the-scenes (server upgrades, bug fixes, optimizations, etc.). We expect the Gyminee user-base to continue growing, and to do so at a much quicker pace in the near future. Soon, the Gyminee website will be able to scale at near 100% efficiency.

One of the updates that isn’t completely behind the scenes is a new and improved Food Search. I would expect that some of you keen-eyed users have noticed some improvements with their search results lately. This is because of a combination of things.

For one, we have completely revamped the search engine that helps drive the Food, GymBuddy, Exercise, and Forum searches. It will be faster, more stable, and also return more accurate results for all of the above.

On top of that, the (surprisingly complex) algorithm that helps return the best food results possible has been completely rewritten. Things such as how many times the food has been eaten and whether or not it has an image are now taken into account when you search for foods.

Enjoy and stay tuned for more updates in the near future!