86%

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that 86% of our healthcare costs are spent on individuals with one or more chronic conditions. In addition, chronic conditions are responsible for 7 out of 10 deaths. Think about these statistics.

Chronic conditions can be ongoing or reoccurring, and they can last for years. Some cause only minor annoyances while others can greatly affect the quality of our lives. Often, people deal with more than one condition at a time. Complicating matters, no cures exist for these disorders.

The usual course of action—you go to your doctor or healthcare professional, they say you have such and such, they hand you a prescription, you fill it, and begin taking pills. Have more than one disorder? Then, you’ll probably be taking multiple medications. Because of this, the question must arise—what about the possibility of drug interactions?

In fact, your “condition” could actually be the result of a reaction to a drug you’re taking or perhaps, the interaction of one medication with another. Please take time to read what the side effects are for each medication you’re taking as well as how it interacts with the other drugs you may have been prescribed. You may be surprised by what you discover.

We are a nation that automatically seeks drugs to treat our symptoms; you could say we have been conditioned to seek this approach. Have a symptom, ask your doctor about a drug you’ve seen advertised or one a friend mentioned to you. I can understand this reaction to immediately seek a pill; if you’re suffering, you want relief.

But is this the appropriate response? Does the symptom reflect the underlying cause? In many cases it does not. How can a doctor really know what to prescribe without knowing the true cause and given this, will the treatment be successful?

For example, you’re having stomach/digestive issues and yet, your doctor says everything appears fine. What do you do? Do you reach for antacids for relief? Have you thought about first eliminating dairy and wheat from your diet for a month before taking that pill? Try this elimination approach and see if your discomfort lessens or disappears. Isn’t it worth a 31-day trial to possibly avoid having to take a prescription or over-the-counter medications for the rest of your life?

During this period of healthcare upheaval, our nation needs to shift to one that practices preventive medicine. Take control—make the necessary dietary and lifestyle changes that can eliminate or greatly reduce your chances of having to deal with a chronic condition. Do you truly want to face an endless cycle of doctor visits as well as taking multiple medications? Remember, the pharmaceutical companies want us to have this dependence—they can’t make money if we’re healthy.

If you’re thinking, my parents or grandparents have/had this condition; it’s in my genes. Please, think again. The McArthur Study reveals:

  • Only 30% of aging/longevity can be assigned to genetics; in fact as we get older our genetics become less important, and guess what, lifestyle and environment become more essential.
  • The significance of an active engagement with life.
  • The importance of diet, exercise, and in certain cases, medication in delaying or eliminating the emergence of disease.

Keeping these above points in mind, examine the various aspects of your lifestyle and environment. Look for foods, habits, actions, products, and behaviors that are detrimental to your health and wellbeing. If during your examination you find something that’s damaging, change it for the better and reap the rewards of that change.

Revisiting “Have You Ever Noticed . . .?”

Connecting to last week’s post on Metabolic Typing®, I’m returning to a request I made last June.

For the next week please write down all the foods you eat and all the beverages you drink. You do not have to count calories, weigh food, or record the amounts of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. First, just make note of the foods and drinks you consume.

Then, one to two hours after eating record how you feel. Ask yourself questions such as:

  • “Am I still hungry?”
  • “Do I have certain cravings?”
  • “How’s my energy level?”
  • “What’s my mood?”
  • “Is my thinking focused and clear or just the opposite?”

I ask people to do this exercise because I discovered, in working with them, many individuals have lost touch with their bodies, and the clues it provides them. We often eat mindlessly and never make the connection between the foods we consume and how we feel afterwards.

After a week, take time to review your reactions. Some new questions to consider:

  • “Do certain foods always create the same reactions, moods, and feelings within you?”
  • “Do you feel full and satisfied or do you feel physically full, but still hungry?”
  • “Which foods produced cravings and what types?”
  • “Which foods improve your energy, and which ones drain it?”

Take note. Do you notice any patterns emerging?

As an example, I had a client who regularly ate frozen dinners from a “healthy” company.

Her records revealed that whenever she consumed these frozen meals she had reactions such as stomach upset, low energy, slight headaches, and feeling unsatisfied. Like many of us, she had never thought about how her body reacts to the food she eats. When I pointed out the negative reactions she had associated with those meals, she finally made the connection. She dropped those “healthy” frozen entrees from her diet.

As a follow-up, for one week eat/drink only the foods and beverages that gave you positive reactions, and again, record how you feel one or two hours after eating. Be aware of and really observe the changes in your body.

The foods that work for you and those that don’t work reflect your uniqueness. Chances are if a family member or friend did this exercise with the same foods/beverages, they would have different results/reactions. Thus, this connects to Metabolic Typing’s® philosophy that we are all biochemically unique.

I hope this exercise assists you in making new and healthy decisions around your food and drink choices.

“One Man’s Food Is Another Man’s Poison”

The above quote is by Hippocrates. As you read the following, please keep his words in mind as well as forgetting everything you’ve heard or have read about diet/nutrition. Basically, keep an open mind.

In connection to my previous three posts on obesity/weight, I want to bring the Metabolic Typing® approach to your attention.

Has This Ever Happened to You?

  • You want to lose weight, so you try your best friend’s diet. She loses 35 pounds quickly, but you can’t seem to shed an ounce.
  • Your friend, the vegetarian, thrives on pasta and vegetables and has boundless energy. But when you imitate his diet, your energy plummets, and you can hardly drag yourself out of bed.
  • You eat all the best foods, take only the finest quality supplements, you exercise and lead a healthy lifestyle. Yet you still don’t feel well.
  • You believe in nutrition, but you’ve given up on it. It’s impossible to make sense of the confusing and contradictory information flooding the market.

Metabolic Typing® helps to put an end to the confusion about what diet is right for you.

You are actually very different, biochemically speaking, from every other person—your body’s biochemical makeup is as unique as your fingerprints.

For genetic reasons, we all vary in the way that our bodies process foods and utilize nutrients. Throughout man’s evolutionary history, people all over the world have been forced to adapt to widely varying environmental circumstances, including very different climates and food supplies.

As an example, the traditional Inuit thrive on very large quantities of meat and fat, while people born in the tropics stay healthy eating fruits and grains and other light vegetarian fare. Do you know your unique nutritional needs?

Over the last few decades, there has been an extraordinary nutrition revolution in the U.S. Yet at this time, the health of Americans has greatly declined. Obesity, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, asthma, heart disease, digestive maladies, chronic fatigue—all these problems have reached epidemic proportions.

From the Metabolic Typing® perspective, our poor health is, in part, a result of serious dietary deficiencies and imbalances. Dietary solutions need to be tailored to individuals, because what works for one person may have no effect on another person, and may, in fact, make a third person worse (see Hippocrates’s quote).

Could this be the one of the reasons why your diet attempts have failed you? Also, please remember, the diet industry is a multi-billion dollar a year business—could they want and need you to fail?

Through Metabolic Typing® you can discover your own highly-individualized dietary needs. With this approach, you’ll know how to select just the right “body fuel:” foods, food combinations, and nutrients that will enable your body to function at peak efficiency. Through Metabolic Typing® you may:

  • End dieting, counting calories, punishing exercise, and/or deprivation to achieve permanent fat loss.
  • Lose weight without restricting calories.
  • End the cravings for junk food, sugar, and processed food.
  • Eat foods that convert into energy instead of being stored as fat.
  • Let go of dieting forever to rediscover how to enjoy your food and end your guilt.
  • Freedom from food cravings.
  • Determine your unique dietary needs and examine your relationship with food.
  • Personalized eating plans that provide an escape from crazed dieting.
  • Eliminate mood swings, lose body fat, have mental clarity, and energy throughout the day.

If you would like information on Metabolic Typing®, please contact me at rob@mybodyphysics.com. Thank you.

While we emphasize an integrated, personalized approach to health, fitness, & lifestyle, My Body Physics’ programs are not intended to be used to diagnose, treat, manage, or cure any disease/condition. We strongly recommend you consult with your physician or healthcare professional before beginning any exercise and/or health/wellness program.

 

Beyond Calories

I’m continuing to build on my two previous posts regarding obesity. In my last one, I discussed the outdated approach of “eat less, exercise more” and advocated looking for other connections to obesity mentioned in Time magazine’s special obesity issue such as genetics, the biochemistry of hunger/fat metabolism, fast/junk food, food psychology, and a metabolic disorder.

An important item to add to the above list is hormones. You might ask what do they exactly have to do with our weight? In The Schwarzbein Principle II, Diana Schwarzbein, M.D. provides straight-forward, user-friendly information on the role three major hormones (adrenaline, cortisol, and insulin) and minor ones (growth hormones) play in our weight.

Insulin and growth hormones are used for rebuilding your body’s biochemicals while adrenaline and cortisol use up your body’s biochemicals: “The ideal is to have all you regeneration reactions in balance—what you use up, you rebuild. Since your hormones determine how your body regenerates, you need to balance the hormones that use up your biochemicals and the hormones that rebuild your biochemicals to keep these reactions in balance.”  Schwarzbein reminds us all hormones work together; for ease of understanding she considers the actions of the each hormone alone.

Thus, it’s a question of balance. Think back to when you were a kid, and with a friend, you tried to balance on a seesaw—keeping your feet off the ground. Not always an easy thing to do. Now think about keeping your body’s hormones in balance: “If you use up your biochemicals faster than your body can rebuild them, you are destroying your metabolism and accelerating your aging process. Therefore, you do not want to use up your biochemicals more than you can rebuild them for too long.”

For a brief example of how “rebuilding” and “using up” hormones interact, take a look at adrenaline/cortisol (“using up”) and insulin (“rebuilding”): “If the ratio of your adrenaline/cortisol levels is higher than your insulin levels, you will use up your biochemicals faster than you can rebuild them, especially if your insulin levels are low or normal. If the ratio of adrenaline/cortisol is lower than your insulin levels, you will rebuild your biochemicals faster than you can use them up, especially if your adrenaline/cortisol levels are low or normal.”

Schwarzbein continues: “If you chronically diet, overexercise, ingest too many stimulants and are under too much stress, you will use up you functional, structural and energy (including storage) biochemicals faster than you can rebuild them. If this were to go unchecked, you would not survive.”

Now, how does the “eat less, exercise more” approach hold up?

I used a number of quotes today. One of the purposes is for providing information, and another is to show how readable and user-friendly Schwarzbein’s writing is. By telling her own story as well as those of some of her patients, Schwarzbein creates a connection with the reader—“That’s me.” I highly recommend her work especially for an alternative perspective on our diet-crazed nation her books provide.

What Not To Count

I’m continuing with my thoughts on Time magazine’s June 7, 2004 special issue “Overcoming Obesity” and reflecting on the progress that has been made and not been made on the topic.

The lead article asks: “So why is this [obesity] happening? The obvious, almost trivial answer is that we eat too much high-calorie food and don’t burn it off with enough exercise.” The articles in this issue do mention other connections to obesity such as genetics, the biochemistry of hunger/fat metabolism, fast/junk food, food psychology, and a metabolic disorder—“what they are finding is an exquisitely fine-tuned system of chemical and neurological checks and balances that regulate what we eat and how much our bodies store fat.”

Even with these additional connections being made to obesity, “calorie” and “eat less, exercise more” appear in the issue’s various articles:

  • “How about eat less, move more, and eat your fruits and vegetables.”
  • “If you’re dealing with obesity, people have to eat less.”
  • On a woman’s weight loss: “. . . what she did was buy a couple of books that listed  the nutritional value and calorie content of the food she ate.”
  • “After reaching their goal, most long-term losers followed a single general strategy toward nutrition: limiting the calories and to a lesser extent the amount of fat in their diet.”

For a moment, let’s return to high school science—what is a calorie? According to Webster it’s “the amount of heat required at the pressure of one atmosphere to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius.” Our calorie obsession is based on turning us into a calculation.

Why the calorie focus? We are creatures of habit. For more than half a century, we’ve been repetitively told and have heard calories, calories, calories. Think about the TV/magazine ads highlighting this aspect of foods. Exactly how many 100-calories food/snacks exist today? This approach makes all calories seem equal. But does your body treat 100 calories of potato chips the same way it treats a 100-calorie apple? I don’t think so.

In The Schwarzbein Principle, Diana Schwarzbein, M.D. reminds us that a one-hundred calorie snack doesn’t equal one hundred calories worth of available energy: “If the snack is composed of carbohydrates, your body has to use the hundred calories for immediate energy or store that energy as fat. But if the snack is made up of protein and fats, your body can use these foods first for building materials (cells, enzymes, hormones and so on), leaving fewer calories to be used as energy or stored as fat.”

Schwarzbein also provides nine points on why you can’t lose body fat by restricting calories. One of these points: “If you continue with the low-calorie diet, your body is forced to take material from bones and muscle to keep your brain and kidneys going.” Not something I would be comfortable with doing. Think of damage we’ve caused to ourselves by our obsession with low-calorie dieting.

With the above point in mind, Gary Taubes, in Good Calories, Bad Calories, reminds us of the contradiction of “eat less, exercise more:” “Though more strenuous exercise would burn more calories, it would lead to a significant increase in appetite. This is the implication of the phrase ‘working up an appetite.’”

The time has more than come to drop the antiquated, decades-old “eat less, exercise more” mentality and turn our attention to other potential causes such as genetics, the biochemistry of hunger/fat metabolism, fast/junk food, food psychology, and a metabolic disorder.

Percentages Escalating

Recently, while sorting through my files, I came across a special issue of Time magazine from June 7, 2004:

Time Cover

The issue is a fascinating read as well as a measure of how far we have or have not come regarding obesity in America.

The lead article states: “There’s no doubt that the obesity epidemic is real and our collective health is getting worse.” Also, included in this piece is the statement: “But the following pages will make it clear that there is plenty of hope.”

From a 2016 perspective, one can ask how much hope?

Some of the obesity statistics from this Time issue:

  •  Fully 2/3 of U.S. adults are officially overweight.
  •  About 1/3 of the above can be classified as full-blown obesity.
  •  In kids 6-19, 1 in 6 (15%) are overweight, and an additional 15% are heading that way  (notice no mention is made of obesity in this age bracket).
  • The total medical cost for obesity-related disease is $117 billion/year.

Roughly six years later, information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-10 states:

  • More than 2 in 3 adults (68.8%) are considered to be overweight.
  • More than 1 in 3 adults (35.7%) are considered to be obese.
  • 1/3 of children and adolescents 6-19 are overweight or obese.
  • 1 in 6 of children and adolescents 6-19 are considered to be obese.

As the above 2009-10 figures point out, the number of overweight and obese American adults and children reflects an increase from the Time statistics.

More recently, figures from a 2014 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study state: 36% of adults and 17% of children are obese.

Bringing additional focus on the above information, obesitycampaign.org states: “If the rate stays constant by 2030, 51% of Americans will be obese.” While, according to the Trust for American Health: “20 years ago, no state had an obesity rate above 15%—today 41 states have an obesity rate over 25%.”

Interestingly, the figures for the yearly total medical costs vary widely. Some of the calculations I came across are:

  • In 2005, the Harvard School for Public Health estimated the cost to be $190 billion.
  • In 2008, the total cost was $147 billion (a $30 billion increase over the Time’s estimate), and an absenteeism from work cost of $6.38 billion.
  • A 2011 Gallop Poll points out obese people miss an estimated 450 million days of work each year compared with healthy [sic] workers—for an estimated cost of $153 billion annually in lost productivity.

The above statistics show we have not made progress curtailing the rates of obesity. If these rates continue to rise, the Trust for American Health’s estimate that 51% of Americans will be obese by 2030 will become as reality as well as Dr. David Katz’s, current President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, prediction that “today’s kids may be the first generation in history whose life expectancy is projected to be less than that of their parents.”

Sorry for the above bombardment of statistics. Has the promise of “plenty of hope” in the Time article disappeared?

In this post, I’ve concentrated on a general overview of the facts/figures/percentages regarding obesity. In future ones, also based on Time’s special issue on obesity, I’ll narrow my focus.

Transparency—Pending

Pepperidge Farm, Swanson’s Foods, Bolthouse Farms, Pace, Prego, Spaghetti O’s all have something in common—they are owned by Campbell’s. Yes, the makers of the chicken noodle and tomato soups many of us ate while growing up.

The above brands also have something else in common; Campbell’s plans to begin disclosing if genetically modified foods (GMOs) are in their products.

Denise Morrison, their chief executive, stated: “We are operating with a ‘Consumer First’ mindset. We put the consumer at the center of everything we do.” She went on to say: “In addition, we have declared our intention to set the standard for transparency in the food industry.”

Connecting with the above, Morrison also said: “Today, consistent with our purpose, we announce our support for mandatory national labeling of products that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMO) and propose that the federal government produce a national standard for non-GMO claims made on food packaging.”

The above quote is interesting, because of the pending legislation, “The Safe and Accurate Food labeling Act” (H.R. 1599), that the House of Representatives passed in July 2015 (still to be voted on in the Senate). Among other things, this legislation would ban states from passing laws requiring the labeling of GMO foods. Interestingly, this act has been referred to by opponents of the legislation as the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act (DARK Act). With her above remark, Morrison is opposing both the above legislation and the major food companies supporting H.R. 1599.

We have no way of knowing what brought about Campbell’s shift—oh, to be a fly on the wall to know their thinking. I would have loved it if Campbell’s had also issued a challenge to Kraft Foods, PepsiCo, General Mills, ConAgra, Nestlé, and other food companies, to follow Campbell’s example regarding the labeling of GMO ingredients.

As you know from my previous posts (October 12, 2015, “The Right To Choose” & September 21, 2015, “GMO & GE—Different Names, Same Process”), I strongly believe in transparency and having the right to know what’s in our food.

Morrison also stated: “I want to stress that we’re in no way disputing the science behind GMOs or their safety. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence indicates that GMOs are safe, and foods derived from crops using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods.”

No mention is made to which research she is referring to or who sponsored this research—was it the food industry or was it independently conducted? Also, Morrison fails to mention the scientific research showing that GMOs are not safe to eat.

I possess a “yes/but” mindset of Campbell’s announcement.

Yes, since I am opposed to GMOs, I am pleased by Campbell’s announcement and will follow their progress over the next one to two years to see if they’re fulfilling their promise “to set the standard for transparency in the food industry.”

But, in this ongoing discussion and in light of Morrison’s endorsement of GMOs, we need to be provided with and have access to all the facts and information concerning this important topic.

Again, contact your senators to let them know your stand on H.R.1599.