"We never repent of having eaten too little.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)

When Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he was around 33 years old, and he lived until age 83 during a time when food was not as easily obtainable. Even though he did not experience our modern readily-available-highly-processed-food world he seemed to understand the value of eating less.

How little is "too little"?

I’ve noticed that people who eat far too much, seem to spend a lot of time worrying about eating too little. Why do people who are obese, or even merely overweight, fear eating too little, and just how little is too little anyway?

Many overweight and obese people appear to have an irrational fear of starvation mode.
However, one really can't eat too little for weight loss - Starvation Mode (the way most dieters define it) is a Myth.

"Starvation mode" is a phrase that gets thrown about loosely. Many people think that eating below 1000 to 1200 calories a day, will cause their metabolism to slow down so much that their body will stop losing weight. The reality is that until a male has only 5% excess body fat, or a female has only 10% excess body fat, it is very unusual for a person to go into “starvation mode”.

When it seems impossible for a dieter nearing goal to lose weight, they assume their metabolic process is slowing down, and think that they are “in starvation mode”. However, people with extra weight obtainable to oxidize, can oxidize extra body fat per second. The less human body fat one has, the less fat oxidized for each moment. So as one gets closer to the body’s individual reduction limit of human body weight, the slower one will burn up what body fat one has. This is why taking off the final 10 pounds happens very slowly, NOT because one is wrecking one’s metabolic process with an aggressive diet regimen.

By the way, I’m using the term…”excess fat”… to define the entire genetic make-up of an individual body, not “troublesome” fat on specific body areas that one wishes were leaner… like stomach or thighs, etc. It is not uncommon for someone who is “normal weight” or even “underweight” to be unhappy with the way their own body’s necessary fat is genetically distributed.

The article quoted below makes a number of good points:

Are You In The Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth?

Recently we discussed the myth that dieting can lead to an eating disorder and saw this common dieting myth was inaccurate.  Another common dieting myth held by people is that they may not be losing weight because they are in the "starvation mode" from eating too few calories. And, in response to the intake of this low calorie level, their body has gone into "starvation mode" and slowed down their metabolism and is holding on to the weight. The usual recommendation to get out of starvation mode and allow the body to lose more weight, is to consume more calories. Eat more calories, to lose more weight.

Really?

Well, for anyone struggling to lose weight, this may sound sensible, but as you will see, it, like most other dieting myths, it is inaccurate. A few things to consider before we get to the "starvation mode."

First, the human body, as is our world, is governed by the laws of physics. Body weight is a product of energy balance. We can not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The energy we consume must go somewhere, and to maintain a certain level of weight, an equivalent amount of energy must be consumed and an equilibrium must be achieved.

Second, in regard to metabolism, about >70% of our base metabolism is driven by our brain and other vital organs and is not really effected by food consumption as I discussed in the metabolism blog. We have little impact on this basal metabolic rate.

Third, most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30% and attempts to track exercise and activity levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem. Fat people are not accurately able to determine their caloric intake and output.

Now, in regard to the "starvation" mode, someone who has extra body weight and body fat is not in any "starvation mode" where they need to 'kick start" their metabolism by eating more calories. You can not "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight".

In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight.

Let's say we look at someone who says they are only eating only 800 calories and not losing weight. A well meaning and good intentioned friend (or professional) has told them they are in starvation mode and in order to lose weight and/or kick-start their metabolism, they need to eat more. But, what if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they go further into starvation mode and continue to stay at the same weight or maybe even "gain" weight?

Clearly, they would lose more weight if they stopped eating altogether.

We all know (especially those who are familiar with fasting) that if you were to stop eating completely and just live on pure water, you would start to lose weight almost instantly and would continue to do so.

But according to this theory of the "starvation mode," if you were really in it and you fasted, by its own rational you would lose less weight ... if any at all, not more. We know this is not accurate.

So, where did this myth come from?

There is a true phenomenon known as the starvation response and it is well documented in the Minnesota Starvation experiments and the Hunger Fasts that have been studied. However, it only happens in humans when they lose enough body fat that they fall below the level of essential fat. In a man, this would be below around 5% fat and in women just above that, about 10%.

Most humans will look like holocaust survivors at that time. Here is a picture of some of the subjects from the famous Minnesota Starvation experiments from the 1940s.

Even at this point, after months of a low calorie diet with heavy exercise, they were not yet in the so-called "starvation mode" where they experienced significant metabolic changes. If you have more weight/fat on you than them, then neither are you

In addition, when this point is truly reached, the body does make several metabolic shifts to preserve itself, and if it is not fed more calories, can cease to exist. It is a matter of life and death. Hence the name.

This is not the same thing that happens when someone who is overweight and has a high percentage of body fat, is not losing weight. Usually this is due to an inaccurate assessment of their energy balance.

Now, it is possible that a medical condition, like hypothyroid could contribute to a slowed metabolism. However, if someone was to have a thyroid problem, it can be diagnosed and treated. But, then we are right back to my points above and dealing with an energy balance issue.

So, if you are overweight and/or overfat and not losing weight, the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your energy balance. And the best way to do this is to focus on foods that are low in calorie density (and high in nutrient density) and maintain a healthy level of activity.

The above-article was written by Jeffrey S. Novick, MS, RD, LD, LN, in January 2009 at www.healthscience.org

MS = master of science,

RD = registered dietitian

LD = Licensed dietitian

LN = Licensed nutritionist 

What’s the Difference between a Diet “Cheat” and a Life “Choice?

  What do you mean when you say you cheated on your diet?

Do you mean you ate a food that was high in calories?
Do you mean you used food for a role other than fuel?
Do you mean you veered from a path of food restriction paved by an “expert”?

It’s important that we make informed choices in our lives,
and if our weight is a consideration,
the amount of food, and the calories of food, can be important.

 But if a person can’t decide to have food as a pleasure in one’s life,
then that person is probably not living a realistic life.

It seems to me that the choice to embrace a such a Fantasy,
will more likely lead to overall failure in one’s weight-loss or maintenance
than any independent choice concerning a particular food.

What is “Junk Food” anyway?
Is it an "edible food-like substance"? The opposite of:

“real food”
“proper food”
“healthy food”
“organic food”

Not necessarily.  
Junk food is slang - an informal term - for food that contains a high level of calories from sugar or fat, with little protein, vitamins or minerals.

The definition of Junk is anything that is regarded as worthless, meaningless, or contemptible; trash. The definition of Trash is anything worthless, useless, or discarded; rubbish, So Junk or Trash is something worthless. The opposite of that would be Treasure, as the definition of treasure is a valuable or precious possession of any kind.

There’s a wise old proverb that says: “One man's trash is another man's treasure”, meaning that something that one person considers worthless may be considered valuable by someone else.

Whether something is trash or treasure is a matter of an individual’s perception. This proverb is applicable to current popular culture and its food issues.

The most common viewpoint is that junk foods include salted snack foods, candy, sweet desserts, fried fast food, and sweet carbonated beverages. Although every person has their own list of foods that they call junk foods, society uses the slang term “junk food” as though we all agree on exactly what these specific foods are.

White sugar and white flour are carbs that become glucose when ingested, and will provide life-sustaining physical energy, just like other carbs. This, when used together with a bit of protein, some fat, and an added multi-vitamin-mineral pill, is a diet that many modern humans use to sustain reasonably healthy lives. We see the term “Healthy” everywhere nowadays, but “Healthy” really only means not-sick and not-dead.

Recently I saw an article headlined: “Junk food is an issue of national security”. And in fact, there appear to be foodie terrorists everywhere ... People who insist on forcing their strong opinions about which foods are trash, and which foods are treasure.

Nowadays, one can’t go for long without being exposed to the assertion ... (everything seems to be believed by someone) ... that some specific micronutrient, such as carbs, or animal proteins, or fats  cause heart disease, cancer and/or Alzheimer’s disease.

Assertations abound that chemicals used in processing foods, or genetic changes in the way food is now grown, or foods fed to the animals providing protein products make many of the major foods unhealthy and unsafe.

There are many opposing opinions on which food micronutrient, or which of the chemicals within foods, will kill us or make us sick. People can’t even totally agree on which ones will make us fat.

In my lifetime, I’ve personally experimented with a great variety of different food plans. Some were labeled “fad” diets. Some were labeled “crash” diets, Some were labeled “healthy” diets. Some were labeled “balanced” diets. Some were labeled “low-fat” diets. Some were labeled “low-carb” diets. Some of these food plans tried to distinguish themselves by redefining themselves … insisting that they weren’t “Diets” at all.

No matter which food plan I was currently on, there were always plenty of “nutritional experts” around to tell me that my current plan was wrong. “Nutritional Experts” across the board have delighted in telling me that my diet-of-the-moment was providing me with too few calories to meet my body’s nutritional needs, and that I absolutely MUST eat at least 1200 calories or more every day. The reality is that I’m a short, light, elderly, sedentary “reduced-obese" female and my body requires LESS than 1200 daily calories to sustain my current normal-sized weight. Despite my low-calorie intake my body isn’t shrinking into nothingness, and my recommended daily multivitamin seems to work well to effectively correct any potential nutritional deficiencies.

One common question that the “experts” all seem to find unique and meaningful about any specific diet is: “Are you going to continue to eat like this for the rest of your life?” As to any one specific diet, I find that question irrelevant, because there are literally thousands of different food plans possible. My personal choice is to engage myself in serial diet monogamy which has brought me from morbid obesity to a normal size, and allowed me to at normal size for quite a few years. Although I’m over age 60, all indications are that I’m still in excellent health.

The truth we all need to face is that the human body is designed to wear out, and even if we are fortunate enough to avoid the major diseases, we will eventually die of old age… Probably by our mid 80s, but perhaps not until we are in our 90s. The time I’ve spent visiting the elderly in nursing homes has taught me that the stretch between death in one’s mid-80s and death in one’s 90s, seldom comes with years of excellent health, and practically speaking, it might actually better to avoid an attempt to extend one’s life span for an extra 5 or 10 years.

So, are the following pictures Junk Food to YOU?

The majority classify the above foods as Junk Foods,
but would you agree with the people
who classify the foods below as Junk Foods?

Bread  (carb)  -   Butter (saturated fat)

Hot Dog in Bun with ketchup and mustard & fried Onion Rings (carbs, processed fatty meat, sugared condiment & fried food) - - - Cheese, crackers & Grapes (animal based fatty protein, wheat-flour carbs & high sugar frutose carb)

 
Roast Beef Sandwich  (fatty red meat, wheat carbs) -  Tuna Salad Sandwich (wheat carbs - mercury tainted protein source?, mayo- fat & carb, chopped eggs - cholestrol)

Beefsteak, green beans, carrots & roasted white potatoes  (fatty red meat, high starch vegetables) - - crisp fried bacon (processed fatty meat with nitrates).

The examples above demonstrate that almost every food seems to contain some micronutrient or substance that SOMEONE can find objectionable.

I often read articles involving diverse perspectives on Obesity and Dieting. I consider the evidence and put it into my mental file on the issue. Sometimes I even change my mind. But, truthfully, I most enjoy the articles that agree with my own beliefs.

I’m well aware of the existence of a great deal of dietary research involving “bad” science.   Some of these are studies based on inaccurate, self-reported, dietary recall which don’t even attempt to account for the actual quality of the participant’s diets, but then make conclusions about different food and health issues, including the impact of artificial sweeteners on one’s health.

I think that an Ideal end goal would be to drink the smallest amount of “sweet” beverages regardless of how the beverages got their “sweet” in the first place. In an Ideal World, I’d replace all of my artificially flavored and artificially sweetened beverages, including tea and diet cokes, with clear and undiluted water.

However, it’s NOT an Ideal World.

 As my current choice is to frequently use Splenda, and to drink Diet Cokes or Coke Zero, I enjoyed the following article.

             Artificial sweeteners help keep it off.

Not exactly a surprising result, but likely one that will be poo-poo'd by all those who love to vilify artificial sweeteners.

Researchers in New Zealand studied folks who had successfully lost weight and their dietary consumption patterns. More specifically they looked at folks who had maintained a weight loss of greater than 10% of their weight for 11.5 years and they compared these folks' dietary strategies to folks of similar weights who had never been overweight.

What unshocking yet valuable results did they find?

They found that folks who lost the weight had to work harder at their dietary strategies to help keep that weight off than folks who never had weight to lose. Their strategies included consuming fewer calories from fat (though the importance of this one's debatable as the 90s were the low-fat decade and more recent data from the National Weight Control Registry suggest that low-calorie is of course more important than low-fat and can be accomplished many different ways), consuming more of sugar and fat modified foods (reduced fat, reduced sugar), consuming more water, less pop and three times more daily servings of artificially sweetened soft drinks.

Go figure - folks who are predisposed to weight gain can help themselves keep the weight off by employing dietary strategies to help themselves consume fewer calories.

Go ahead, drink your diet Coke.

Phelan, S., Lang, W., Jordan, D., & Wing, R. (2009). Use of artificial sweeteners and fat-modified foods in weight loss maintainers and always-normal weight individuals International Journal of Obesity DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2009.147

Dr. Yoni Freedhoff MD,
Sept 17, 2009
weightymatters.ca

I identify with the words of wisdom in this post by a member of a forum I frequently visit.

"When I think about overeating I remind myself that it is just a thought fleeting through my head, I don't need to do anything about it.

This helped me when I was struggling with emotional eating. I would feel compelled (it really was a compulsion) to eat when I wasn't hungry, to eat over my emotions and I finally realized just because I am thinking about it doesn't mean I have to do it.

Every Friday in the staffroom at work I face Friday treats. Just because there are a gazillion different kinds of cookies, cakes, donuts etc, does not mean I have to have them all (or even any). I’m working to remember: Food is not leaving the planet! I can have what I want another time … when I fit it into my eating plan. I don't need to eat something just because it looks good, and it’s there!"
 

There have been times in my life that I thought the only way I could get rid of a thought was to act upon it.  Like, I'd start thinking about eating a specific food when I wasn't hungry and it wasn't mealtime. The thought would persist in my mind, and I'd often act upon it....which would frequently lead me to eating quite a lot of that specific food, and then I'd usually follow-up with unplanned eating of whatever other available foods that seemed tempting to me at that moment in time.  Sometimes, upon reflection, it seemed like I ate that original food item just so I'd stop thinking about it.

Finally, I realized the Truth that is contained inside the post above:
It is just a thought fleeting through my head,
I don't need to do anything about it.