Not so Splendid

I used to be very holistic regarding nutrition. I believed you shouldn't eat anything unnatural or processed. I was adamantly opposed to artificial sweeteners, including saccharine, sucralose, and aspartame. I would occasionally "splurge" and have a diet soda. I never noticed any negative side effects.



As you know I still believe in whole, unprocessed foods, a term open to interpretation. The best definition comes from ultrarunner Dean Karnanzes, who uses this question as a test: would our ancestors recognize the food? If the answer is no, then it's probably a man-made food. Ancestors would not recognize artificial sweeteners.



I started incorporating Splenda into my diet a few months ago. My rational was that most sports supplements contain small amounts of Splenda to mask the chalky and unpalatable flavor. Those supplements are designed to be mixed with water or juice, so they must taste good in order for athletes to consume them. I figured Splenda was the safest of the artificial sweeteners. I wasn't sure about aspartame, and saccharine (Sweet N' Low, the pink stuff) wasn't found in many products anyway.



I gradually started using more and more Splenda until I was using several dozen packets per day! I was even using granulated Splenda when I ran out of packets. Moreover, I was drinking V8 Fusion Light, with a small amount of Splenda, and calorie-free salad dressing. The reason I was using so much was because I was drinking up to 10 smoothies per day (see my previous post about the liquid diet, which I still adhere to).



Splenda had the advantage of being cheap. Stevia, Purvia, and Truvia are all a little more expensive. I could get 400 packets of Splenda for about $13, far more than I could get with the other natural sweeteners (which tasted better). Splenda was also available in most restaurants, Starbucks, gas stations, and 7 Elevens, so I could always grab some there when I put ice into my smoothies.



Yes, here I was, a personal trainer with one of the most regimented and structured diets, eating large amounts of an artificial sweetener. I would put my packets into a sandwich bag every day to make sure I would have enough Splenda to last until the evening. The experiment came to end last week. I was at work, role-playing a consultation between a fitness consultant and a prospect looking to lose weight. My co-worker weighed me, and to my splendid surprise, found that I had gained 17 pounds! I couldn't believe it. I couldn't see the extra weight anywhere. My clothes weren't tight. I didn't feel fatter. I didn't look different. My diet hadn't changed. All I could suspect was the introduction of this chemical into my system caused me to retain all the water I was drinking.



Could this benign sweetener cause such a drastic change in my body? According to my perfunctory research, possibly. Here's what I found:



According to findings published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, a 12-week feeding study conducted at Duke University, control animals experienced an increase in body weight of 93 per cent over the 12 week study The effect of Splenda on body weight is likely due to the combined elevation of both intestinal P-gp and CYP. Splenda also affected the expression of certain enzymes known to interfere with the absorption of nutrients and pharmaceuticals. At the end of the initial 12 weeks, significant reductions in the levels of so-called beneficial bacteria were observed

Eight years of data collected by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio showed that diet soda is linked with obesity. They report a 41% increase risk of obesity with every can of diet soda consumed.

Observational evidence shows that there are side effects of Splenda, including skin rashes/flushing, panic-like agitation, dizziness and numbness, diarrhea, muscle aches, headaches, intestinal cramping, bladder issues, and stomach pain.

While I didn't notice any of those side effects, I definitely noticed the weight gain, which could've been a result of excess water retention. Some scientists speculate that Splenda can interfere with proper metabolism of nutrients and lipolysis (liberation of fat for fuel). So I am anecdotal evidence that Splenda can interfere with fat metabolism and can cause weight. Other side effects include an increased craving for carbohydrates and sugar. I definitely noticed this! I have never craved sugar like I have in the last few months.

I have not cut out all Splenda. No drinks, no supplements, no packets, no granulated sugar. I want to see if Splenda is really causing this weight gain. It could be the liquid diet I'm on, or drinking too much fruit in the afternoon and evening. We'll see. But others have reported unexpected weight gain with Splenda.

Should everyone absolutely avoid Splenda? No. Small amounts in sports supplements or drinks are fine. One or two diet sodas probably won't kill you. A moderate amount of Splenda is less likely to kill you than excess sugar, which is associated with obesity, insulin resistance, and type-II diabetes. So I'd rather you eat a little Splenda than a lot of sugar. Just don't add Splenda to your diet. You shouldn't avoid a performance enhancer just because it has a little Splenda.

My experiment with Splenda has ended. I wish I hadn't conducted it in the first place. Now I'm back to using just Stevia, and occasionally some Truvia. Keep it real.

Kevin

PS- I should've listened to my Aunt Lori before conducting this experiment. I should have listened to her warnings!

How Many Minutes Do You Need?

One trend in the fitness industry is designing workouts that are so effective and hard that they only need to last several minutes. These programs promise results in as little as seven minutes per day. It's hard to believe, but do these workouts really produce the results they promise? They have some validity. The infamous Tabata intervals, first produced by the Japanese scientist Isha Tabata, show that eight 20-second maximum bursts of effort interspersed with 10 second rest periods produced dramatic improvements in both aerobic and anaerobic fitness.

This trend isn't new. Remember eight-minute abs? Remember Bowflex's claim that you could get a strong, lean body with 3 20-minute workouts? Remember that machine that promised results in as little as 4 minutes per day? It was so expensive that it never really took off. A couple recent examples of this trend come to mind. I saw the 7-Minute Muscle by Jon Benson. Fabrice Ribalde takes it to an extreme with his 1-Rep workout. Body by Jake promises results in 11-minutes per day. Some magazines offer awesome workouts with guaranteed results in just minutes a day.



It makes you wonder why anyone would train for an hour in the gym. Who would train that long when you get results in a fraction of the time?



These programs have a lot of appeal for a couple reasons. First, people just don't think they have the time to train. They have the time, they just don't make the time. That's the crucial difference. If their life depended on training, they'd find a way. These same people always find time for television, video games, happy hour and and one-hour commutes, but can't find the time to take care of thier bodies. That's why "minutes a day" sounds so appealing. They don't have to make any adjustments to thier lifestyle. They can do a few easy exercises at some piont in the day and think that they are going to get results.



Womens' magazines are the worst culprit of this type of nonsense. They promise thier readers "flat abs fast," "get fit fast," and "drop 20 pounds before Christmas." I'm not making these up. I saw them at the grocery store this morning. These claims are of course false but you can print almost anything you want as long as you don't slander somebody.



On the one hand, I think the trainers who design these programs actually care about people getting in shape. I don't think there are many trainers who don't want thier clients to get results. The trainers who promise fast results realize that many people will not even consider using thier program unless it requires minimal time and that results will come fast. If they said their program required hard work, sweat, time, effort, and commitment, they might not capture their audience. Hard work doesn't sell.



However, these trainers are doing a huge dis-service to their audience. They make them believe that they can get results in a few minutes per day, and that results will come quick. They never mention lifestyle factors, such as previous exercise history, injuries, nutrition, posture, or fatigue. They promise thier readers something they can't have: great results with minimal investment. How appealing. Have the strength of a warrior in less than an hour per week.



These workouts are of course ridiculously easy. More often than not they show a model with a beautiful physique. This model of course did not get this body with this workout. Sometimes, the model is even smiling. Let me tell you something. If you're smiling and laughing in your workout, you're not working!



Here's the reality. If you want to get into shape or lose fat, you're going to have to work to do it. There are no shortcuts in life. If something is too good to be true, it's false. You have to invest time and effort to get results. This applies in all aspects of life. I laugh when I hear "hard-earned" money. What money isn't hard-earned? Somewhere, somebody worked hard to create the value of that money.



You cannot have the body of an olympian or champion with minimal investment. If you could, there would be no such thing as an olympian. Olympians are what they are because of the time and effort they invested to achieve their goals. They pushed their limits and never quit. They overran their mind's protective mechanism and expanded their comfort zone. Few people have the inclination to go that far.



So what do you have to do to get into shape? First of all, don't say you want to get into shape. You have to visualize your goal, and then say, I'm going to get into shape. There's a huge difference. Tell somebody you know. Write your goal on an index card and put it in your wallet. Then you need a plan to take you to your goal. Whether you're trying to increase muscle or lose fat, you're going to have to commit for several weaks, maybe even several months.



You have to be consistent too. You can't be discilplined one day and then slack off the next. This has to be a consistent effort every day. Your life has to change. You can't commit to going to the gym for one hour per day and then not change anything for the other 23 hours. In fact, it's those 23 hours will determine whether or not your achieve your goals. You have to adhere to a strict, but palatable nutrition program. You'll have to commit to eight or more hours of sleep. You'll have to skip some social events to make time for workouts. Everything comes with a price.



If you're trying to lose fat, expect to work out every day. You will have to do both strength training, metabolic conditioning, steady state cardio, and high intensity cardio. You will have at most one day off. If you're trying to build muscle, you'll still have to workout several times per week. But the other 23 hours in the day will be just as critical. You will have to have a dedicated recovery and nutrition plan.



One reason why people don't get results is because these trainers keep peddling programs and products that promise maximum results with minimum work. People believe them and then wonder why they don't get results. Becaues results require time and effort! You have to work. You can't do a few sets of easy exercises, and a few wind sprints and then think you'll have the body you want.



I think these programs are a manifestation of one of the worst characteristics of modern society: a short attention span and instant gratification. We want things to happen instantly. We don't want to wait. We want what we desire now. Now, now, now. That's why so many books and magazines use words such as "quick," "fast," "simple", and "easy." Those words are so appealing. I sound pessimistic and cynical, but if our society really did think long-term, we wouldn't be drowning in debt like we are now. The debt that is burdening this nation is a result of our impulse for instant gratification at the expense of the long-term consequences.




Kevin

How to Avoid Holiday Weight Gain Forever- Part II

My first post was an attack against Thanksgiving. Again, I'm going to anger some people and I'm going to get angry responses. Just at least consider this post. This time I'm going to attack another cherished holiday: Christmas. But I'm not attacking the purpose of the holiday or the religous aspect. Instead, I'm just attacking one of its unhealthy traditions: the constant parties, dinners, and festivals that take place in the weeks before Christmas. I'm not going to say we shouldn't celebrate Christmas. It, along with the Fourth of July, are the two holidays I think actually matter and that warrant a day off.



Like Thanksgiving, Christmas is a time of abundance of unhealthy food that ends up on peoples' waists. The health "experts" continue to recycle their advise about how to avoid weight gain this winter. Their tips are always the same, and they never seem to work. They don't work because they don't attack the root cause of the problem, or the unhealthy and ingrained beliefs we have about Christmas feasts.



The root problem is that we think we should gorge ourselves on Christmas Day, and during the four weeks preceding the holiday too. For some reason, the adage "everything in moderation" is no longer applicable. Call me Scrooge or a miserable human being (I'm neither), but the real solution is to have fewer parties, less food at those parties, healthier food at those parties, and smaller Christmas meals.



For some reason we think that part of the Christmas spirit is to eat enormous amounts of food. If there isn't a lot of bad food, then Christmas just isn't Christmas. Let's take a look at all the traditions that make Christmas the most wonderful part of the year (except the cold!)



-Christmas trees are beautifully displayed with ribbons, ornaments, bulbs, and even glass bulbs with trains that spin around in them



-Christmas carols. Unless you work in retail, you won't get sick of them. All the stores and radio stations play them for the last five weeks of the year. There's no other holiday that has its own soundtrack.



-Giving gifts. While I think we spend too much time and money giving presents to each other, there's no other time in the year when we do this. Only one person receives a gift on a birthday. I could say much more about gifts, but this is a health and nutrition blog, not a personal finance one.



-Santa Claus and all the other whimsical tales we tell each other. I use to love watching old Disney Christmas cartoons.



-Decorations. Parking light posts, stores, and even homes are all decorated with a beautiful assortment of wreathes, manger scenes, ribbons, statues, and lights. Our towns and neighborhoods look much different in December than during the rest of the year.


Christmas has both a secular and religious purpose. Obviously you should already know the religious aspect. It's a celebration of the birth of Christ, but there's no indication in the Bible that he was born on December 25. We're not even sure which year he was born in, much less which day. His birthday wasn't even celebrated for some 300 years after his death. December 25, then, is an arbitrary date to coincide with the pagan holidays, such as Rome's Saturnalia.



The secular aspect has to do with the time of year. Many cultures have holidays that celebrate the harvest, or the end of the growing season. Western nations are no different. Our harvest festival comes at the end of the year, when the days are the shortest.



The purpose of Christmas then, is to celebrate Christ, the harvest, and the end of the year, as well as to have a chance to be together with family and friends. Christmas provides a reason for families to see each other. That's very important in today's hyper-mobile society.



But one tradition needs to go: the large, gargantuan meals. I'm not referring to the number guests either. A large gathering of family, friends, or even neighbors is wonderful. I'm referring to the food. For some reason, people tend to make high-caloric, nutrient-poor food at Christmas that they never make at other times of the year. Let's take a look at some of the usual suspects:



-Candied sweet potatoes (one cup): 400 calories

-Fruitcake (one slice) 165 calories

-Cranberry sauce (1/2 cup) 200 calories

-Stuffing (1 cup) 400 calories (nothing beats a bunch of bread crumbs and meat juice!)

-Breadroll roll 130 calories

-Shortbread Cookie 40 calories (nothing but butter, by the way)

-Ham (3 ox) 250 calories

-Duck (3 oz) 260 calories

-Eggnog (1 cup) 400 calories -This one blew me away. One little cup has 400 calories. That would be almost a half gallon of soy milk.

-Pecan Pie (1 slice)- 500 calories. Pecans are healthy, but not everything else it comes with.



Despite all the traditions of Christmas, our culture seems to think that it's all about food. Without all that food, Christmas just wouldn't be the same.



Just as some athletes and people have physical contraindications to avoid particular exercises (think baseball pitchers and bench presses), some cultures have contraindications to avoid particular activities. Our society is broken, overweight, and sedentary. There is simply no need to have five weeks of overeating. It's only making our problem worse.



Imagine for a moment that Russia, a country with a notorious epidemic of alcoholism, had a tradition of drinking parties that lasted an entire month. Wouldn't people think, "why do they do that? That's why they're always so drunk! They're always looking for excuses to drink!"



We've established a tradition in this country of over-eating at a particular time of year, even though we overeat during the rest of the year, except in smaller quantities. Weight gain is the steepest in November and December, but weight loss is not as steep in January and February. Perhaps people are overweight as a result of the fat that they have accumulated over the past holiday seasons.



Planned overeating is okay once in a while. Everyone has a "cheat" meal once in a while. I disagree with this term, but it refers to a meal that is high-caloric and nutrient-poor and that deviates from the typical diet. As I've said before, there's room for all food in a diet.



The problem planned overeating at Christmas is that we don't just overeat once, we overeat starting on Thanksgiving. Everybody has a party. And at every party you'll find the typical unhealthy fare.



As I've already shown, there's plenty more to Christmas than a lot of food. That's what we should focus on instead. Friends and family should be the focus of Christmas parties, not a lot of food, much of which will go to waste anyway.



You might say that I'm breaking a tradition. Yes and no. Having a constant stream of parties has not always been part of our culture. I suspect it's only been in the last 40 or 50 years that we've done this. It used to be that people would cook a few delicacies on Christmas Day, like a goose and a pie. Like I said before, not all traditions are good. Just because we've always done it doesn't mean we should always do it.



We eat a large amount of food for all the wrong reasons. We don't eat it to become healthier, that's for sure. We don't eat eat it because we actually need it, but only because we think we deserve it, or because it's there, or because it's free, or because it's what we've always done.



Let's be honest. Overeating, especially for several weeks, is self-destructive. It's grotesque and unhealthy. I can't find any rationalization for it yet people get angry whenever I suggest that we stop overeating during the holidays. "Just because you don't want a lot food, doesn't mean nobody else does," they tell me. "You don't have to have the cookies." I won't have those cookies, but just because other people want those cookies doesn't mean we should provide them. Then they'll tell me, "life is short. Enjoy it." To me, putting dirty, greasy food into you mouth that might provide a few minutes of pleasure is ridiculous when you consider that you will deal with that fat gain for the rest of your life. I enjoy life because I am healthy, and I feel the benefits of healthy living every day, not just for a few minutes.



No holiday or tradition can justify such a destructive and unhealthy behavior such as massive eating. Massive eating is no more acceptable than hot dog-eating contests. I find them just as gross. The thing is, at least the participants admit that they're disgusting. We have a hard time admitting that the five-week marathon of indulgence is okay just because it's part of the Christmas spirit.



I prefer not to feel overstuffed, glutinous, and fat after every holiday. I prefer not to look at those extra pounds of fat around my body on January 1. Just ask yourself, "is it worth it?" We have equated a lot of food with pleasure, and we pay dearly for it. If everybody were fit, healthy, strong, and at a normal body weight, then a few traditional treats wouldn't be a bad idea. The problem is, we're not fit, healthy, or strong, and we don't limit ourselves to a few treats. It's not just once Christmas dinner, it's a series of dinners.



What would a healthier Christmas season look like? Here's my proposal:



If you're going to host a party, banquet, or luncheon, then have the food catered. Tell the guests that they do not need to bring any food. All food will be provided. Instead of having dozens of trays of food and a ton of different cookies and desserts, it would be best to have Whole Foods or Boston Market provide all the food for you. Nobody will complain about your party if there are plenty of people there and if the atmosphere is good. In fact, some people might thank you for not having tempting treats and other high-caloric food.



If you're the boss of a company, plan to give your Christmas bonuses at a palatable restaurant. Reserve a room, and let everybody eat a regular meal.



Limit the number of parties you need to attend. Unless you're the head honcho, you probably don't need to go to every event you're invited to. Limit yourself to one business and one personal party over the course of a month.



When cooking Christmas dinner, you have a couple options. Go to Whole Foods or Boston Market a couple days before, and buy what you want. Everybody will get a plate of turkey, vegetables, and maybe a couple scoops of traditional stuffing. That's it. There are several advantages to this option: you don't have to cook anything; you don't have to clean anything; you won't be stuck with leftovers; and best of all, food will not be the focus of Christmas



You're second option would be to prepare your own food, but serve less than you think. Buy the smallest turkey possible. Cook a ton of vegetables. Skip the ham, the potatoes, the drinks, the cookies, the pies, the gravy, the sauces, the chocolates, and all the little extras that will linger in your refrigerator and your fat cells.



That concludes my analysis and diagnosis of Christmas. Other "solutions" to not overeating do not work because they don't even attempt to fix the cause, which is our misguided belief that Christmas justifies massive eating. It doesn't and shouldn't.



Kevin

How to End Holiday Weight Gain Forever

I was perusing the health and fitness magazines the other day at my local grocery store. Since it's the beginning of November, they all have at least one article telling thier readers how to avoid gaining weight in November and December. These articles never say anything new and they are more or less recycled versions of last year's article.
Typical tips include:

-Eat before you go to the party so you're full
-Eat plenty of fiber
-Stay away from the buffet table
-Choose what you'll eat before you grab a plate
-Hold a bottle of water so you're hands are occupied
-Eat mindfully and slowly

If these tips really worked, then why do they have to publish these guidelines every year? Clearly they don't work. If they did, then people would not gain an average of seven pounds in November and December. By the way, that's over 35,000 extra calories! It's hard to imagine such rapid fat gain. But consider that one cup of eggnog has 400 calories, one slice of pecan pie has 500 calories, and a little spoonful of stuffing (whole wheat or not) has 200 calories, and you can begin to see how 20,000 is achievable. But still, that's a lot of food.

In a previous post, I talked about how we need to modify Halloween. Trick-or-treating is fine, but we need to limit the amount of candy we give to kids, and the quality of the treats. I'm going to take another controversial stand and say that the holidays need to be modified as well. Let's begin with Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving was originally celebrated in 1621 in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The happy and whimsical story we teach our kids isn't true, but that's beyond this article. If you want to read what really happened, refer to Charles Mann’s article.

But I want to point out the context of the first Thanksgiving. The pilgrims were starving. It was a celebration of survival, and an attempt to forge an alliance, not a celebration of a lot of food. My point is that a large feast was a sign of gratitude and friendship. Today, we aren't starving. We don't have to worry about our next meal. We're not trying to make peace or finagle our neighbors. We have more than enough food. We could have Thanksgiving every day if we wanted to. And judging by the size of many people today, perhaps they do.

Thanksgiving wasn't even celebrated as a holiday until 1863. It's not as if it's an indelible part of our culture. Should we continue to celebrate Thanksgiving? I don't think so but it's not going away any time soon. Any person with faith should give thanks every day, or at least a lot more frequently than once per year. I give thanks before a good meal, or sometimes even after a hard workout. Thank you for giving me the ability to run today, God, because I might not have my legs forever.

Here's my prescription for a better Thanksgiving:

-If you're not celebrating with family, then consider it a work day. Don't worry, Christmas is only four weeks away and Veterans Day was just a couple weeks ago. It's not as if you're deprived of holidays.

-Rake up the rest of the leaves. If there are still leaves on your yard, then don't wait longer. You'll kill your grass and everyone will think you're lazy. Don't use a leaf blower either. It shows that you don't like yard work and they're too loud.

-Play flag football. Instead of watching football, why don't you actually play football? The weather in most of the United States is perfect for explosive sports like football.

-Put up your Christmas lights. -As for dinner, don't be extravagant. Imagine that Thanksgiving is just like any other dinner. You've invited some friends to your house, and you're going to share a meal together. The focus should be on the company and the people, not the food. Instead of having a seven-course marathon, have some turkey, stuffing (I'd skip it), and some vegetables. It's really that simple. If you make less, you'll have fewer leftovers, less cleaning, fewer dishes, and less preparation time. Skip the pumpkin pie, thick gravy, and other "traditional" foods.

-Make less than you think. I've been to parties where there was less food than normal and nobody complained. I suspect it's because people are more focused on conversation than food. -Do your Christmas shopping on Amazon.com and skip the mall tomorrow. In my next post, I'll talk about a modified Christmas. Don't expect recycled tips. Expect to be offended.

Kevin

A Natural Bias

I was watching Isabel de Los Rios' video blog about high fructose corn syrup. She's the creator of the popular Diet Solution Program. She's passionate about her product, and about good nutrition. I like her articles and her blogs but I have to take exception to her latest rant against chemicals.



Her first countercharge is that HFCS is not the same as natural sugar, or sucrose. She admits that HFCS is somewhat natural because it's derived from corn, but it goes through so much processing that it becomes a chemical. Thus, when we eat HFCS, we are ingesting chemicals (along with the thousands of other chemicals that are floating around in our body.) She calls HFCS a "toxin", a claim she doesn't back up.



She says HFCS and table sugar (a disaccharide) are not the same. In fact, they contain very similar amounts of glucose and fructose (monosaccharides). I'll tell you something: the effects of eating too much of either are the same. As I've said before, ingesting a lot of sugar, as natural as it is, will lead to rapid fat gain. De Los Rios admits, "even if they were the same, sugar is horrible for you too."

Here's the best part. She refutes the charge that HFCS and honey are the same. She says honey is "natural" and made by bees, while HFCS is made by evil chemists.


Her second and third charges completely contradict each other. She says we should avoid sugar on one hand, but then she says honey is a wonderful natural product. What is honey? Honey is straight sugar! One tablespoon has 15 carbohydrates. It's also very high on the glycemic load index (a measure that takes into account the volume of food as well as the rise in blood sugar). As natural as it is, it's still sugar, and humans were never designed to consume large amounts of honey. Our ancestors were rarely able to obtain it. There were no teddy-bear-shaped containers of honey back then.


De Los Rios is not really attacaking HFCS at all. In fact, she's part of a wider campaign to discredit anything that is not considered natural or organic. Anything man-made is bad, while everything from nature is good. Honey and sugar are good because they're natural, while Splenda, HFCS, and all the millions of other chemicals are bad


Is natural necessarily better? No. Honey is a concentrated source of sugar that should only be used in small quantities. The bees that produce honey can injure or kill people. Swine Flu is natural too. So is the common cold. Nature can be a brutal, nasty place. Humans used to die after 30 or 40 years. But in our "toxic" and man-made environment, we're living twice as long.

And what about medicine? If we aren't supposed to ingest chemicals, then I suppose we should never take man-made medicine. Instead, we should only use herbs and natural remedies from Andrew Weil's books to solve our medical problems.


Just 40-50 years ago everyone believed in "better living through chemistry." Man could perfect the world through the wonders of technology. At some point, chemistry and man-made chemicals become synonomous with evil. It was seen as tampering with nature. Natural now means good and benign.


Life is never so simple. We cannot create such simple distinctions. It's like saying some foods are "bad" and some are "good." In fact, some foods are only good until a certain point, and some are only bad beyond a certain point. We need to discard black-and-white thinking.


I think the natural movement is a testament to how spoiled we are. We have so many conveniences, comforts, and features these days that we forget how much they have actually improved our lives. The people who attack "man-made" chemicals or products fail to realize how much they benefit from the marvels of the modern world. Almost all of them use You Tube and laptops, drive cars, have iPods, expensive TVs, cell phones, and use the internet on a consistent basis. None of them actually live "naturally."

If they want to live naturally, they can. They just shouldn't expect to live as long or send text messages.

Kevin

Is Your Hand in the Cookie Jar?

That's the question that Smart for Life Cookies asks on its TV commercial. This is another fad diet that claims to have the solution to fat loss. Here's the concept in as few words as possible:

Eat specially-formulated cookies six times per day and lose weight. It's that simple. It was created in the early 2000s by Dr. Sasson Moulavi, a bariatric physician.

The diet, as silly as it sounds, actually has quite a few benefits:

-It’s cheaper than food. It costs as little as $10 per day to sustain your body on this program. Of course, that also depends on your nutritional needs, but if you ate nothing but cookies all day, you could certainly save money. You only save money on this program because you're eating so little. Want to really save money? Eat one fast food meal and take a multi-vitamin to cover your nutritional deficiencies. I guarantee rapid fat loss without expensive programs like this.

-Reduced hassle. I like this one. I like good meals, but I'm a busy person and I don't have time to cook a different meal every night, much less for every meal of the day. Even if you did, your life would be spent procuring ingredients and cooking them. We live in an age of convenience, and Smart for Life is certainly compatible with that.

-Good taste. According to the testimonials, they taste good. All diets must include food that is palatable to the person on the diet.

-Plenty of nutrition. It has no preservatives, and it somehow incorporates fruits, vegetables, dairy products, and plenty of protein and carbohydrates. It sounds like Alive! Energizer to me.

-High level of satiety. According to Smart for Life, a few cookies every few hours will keep you satisfied. I highly doubt this. Who actually feels full after a couple of cookies? I suspect people who eat these cookies count the hours and minutes before they can eat another cookie. If it does keep you full, it’s because it has fiber and a generous amount of protein. But you don’t have to eat expensive cookies to get fiber and protein.

-Support. Smart for Life has over 30 weight-loss centers to help and counsel their clients.

-Benefits. According to the web-site, a cookie diet will reduce your cholesterol, increase your insulin resistance and keep your insulin levels in balance, lower your weight and improve bone health. But I imagine this is due to the caloric deficit it creates. If you ate two pieces of cake everyday, you'd get all these benefits too (but also a sharp rise in insulin).

Of course, there are two big catches here. First, it's not really a cookie diet. Smart for Life sells shakes, muffins, supplements, and other food. Perhaps even they realize that the monotony of cookies is not sustainable for most people. So it's not really a cookie diet, but really a diet of Smart for Life products.

The other big catch is that the Lifestyle Program that they offer places the "patient" on a very strict diet of 800-1200 calories per day. Anything less than 1500 in my opinion is death. An old lady in a wheelchair would need more than that. Of course, if you're trying to lose weight, you have to create a deficit. Smart for Life says most people need 2500 calories per day (not true), and that if you ate only 800 calories per day, you'd create a 1700-calorie deficit per day, which would be one pound of fat per day. So they then calculate that you can lose 15 pounds in one month. Of course, they used the highest estimate for average intake the lowest estimate for caloric intake on the Smart for Life diet to come to their outrageous calculation.

If you want to get results like that, eat 800 calories per day of real food and skip the Smart for Life cookies. Good luck.

Kevin