Only 5% of Canadian Youth Active Enough: Report

The 2014 Active Healthy Kids Canada Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth is out.. and.. have to catch my breath.. that's a big title..

On page 10 of the 100+ page long form report I read stats that show about 5% of kids 5 to 17 years old get the recommended 60 minutes of daily moderate to vigorous physical activity, providing us Canadians with a D- grade.  Which maybe we can justify because hey, Australia and the US also were awarded a D- for youth physical activity, so maybe we're really leaders and onto something big.

Like our obesity.  From the 70's to present time childhood obesity has doubled from about 15% to 30%. About 60% of adults are overweight or obese.

I found it interesting that around 80% of parents believe that there is adequate infrastructure for physical activity for youth close to where they live, but only 37% of parents report being active with their kids.

75% of kids participate in organized sports. What's going on here? The report say's only 5% are active enough, yet also say's 75% of kids participate in sports.

The report breaks down some numbers:

75% of 5 to19 year olds in Canada participate in organized physical activities.

Of those, 46% do so year round and 53% participate for less than 8 months and up to 11 months of the year.

34% participate at least 4 times per week, 50% 2 to 3 times per week, and the rest drop off dramatically from there.

Of the whole 5 to 19 year old group participation drops from 83% of 5 to 10 year olds, to 61% of 15 to 19 year olds.

One study showed that 24% of kids playing organized soccer got at least 60 minutes of physical activity while only 2% of baseball players met this level of activity during their practice.  Hockey scored a 50% of kids meeting the 60 min physical activity bench mark.

After the drill down we can see how we can arrive at the overall low physical activity grade.

The report didn't mention anything about how some youth practices are actually over exuberant with getting young athletes to train too hard too soon, but that's another subject I guess.

The report goes on to mention how kids are getting too much screen time, don't walk enough for destinations that are within a reasonable walking distance, like perhaps school, after school activities, or whatever.

While there was some mention that we have developed a culture of convenience and that this influences us to drive instead of walk or ride a bike, I saw no mention of what I think is a larger influence overall.

We love overeating, don't like exercise, and hate being told what to do, especially where overeating and exercise are concerned.

The report did produce a line that I quite like, "we built it and they didn't come", referencing how Canada is actually one of the best equipped nations when it comes to infrastructure for active living like fitness centres, parks, arena's and walkways, but we don't seem to use these facilities that much.

It was also noted that 61% of parents agreed that their kids spend too much time watching TV or using the computer.

I could present you more of the stats, some of which are interesting, but I don't think this report addresses the real issue so I won't go into all the comparisons of Canada's provinces or Canada to other countries. If you're into that data, click the link to the report at the bottom of the page.

I wonder how much we're (adults) influencing our youth with our sedentary habits.

Most adults are overweight and out of shape.  You can certainly gather up a few thousand active people and make it look like there's a lot of interest in living healthy, but overall we're still trending towards increasing our waistline and decreasing our physical activity.

The most difficult task I've experienced as a coach in helping people switch to healthy living is getting people to let go of the reward associations with unhealthy living.  It's hard to not perceive that a walk around the park shouldn't be treated as a behavior that needs the reward of an ice-cream cone or two.

We also have this weird irony where most of the population is overweight, yet there is an unfair judgmental stigma against being overweight. Complicating the matter with another level of irony; although we're all aware of the idea that healthy choices really are better for us, we also offer unfair judgment to those who do make healthy choices; they're the "health nuts".

We have the idea that exercise is a punishment of sorts (which is why you're a nut.. self punishment), which is best delivered by either a screaming commando, methodologically plotted by a science geek, or gently conveyed through a mystic.. whatever way you cut it, exercise is hard, and is delivered by some kind of guru type who of course is a health nut.

So you're wrongly condemned for being overweight while living in a culture that adores and defends overeating, while also being wrongly condemned for making healthy choices while we all know we should be making healthier choices.  If you do make a healthy choice you have to begrudgingly  submit yourself to a health nut guru who's going to punish you and make you do things that you're not sure you really want to do.

The report didn't cover this.  Very few do.

It feels uncomfortable to talk about how we mess up by overemphasizing the reward of eating too much.  The reward attachment is strong, the cultural socialization is strong, and eating too much crap tastes pretty good too; don't want to give that up.

Where exercise is concerned we also have an number of conflicting habits and perceptions.  For those on the no exercise side, many can't see the value in it and may despise the idea of being told to exercise.  It feels too much like someone is meddling in personal affairs. Instead of taking healthy choices at face value, the choices are treated as a kind of oppression or social engineering attempt.

"Don't tell me what to do".  We can get pretty defensive when we're being told what to do, or think we're being told.

For others it's the old "no time" excuse.

For many who do exercise they often have unrealistic expectations of super gains over short periods and that hard exhaustive exercise is the only good exercise.  This soon fizzles out and ends with injury or simply giving up.

We're all messed up when it comes to a balanced and informed take on what exercise is why we do or don't do it.

Our youth are less and less active because adults are less and less active.  It's true that there is growth in the number of people taking up physical activity, which is great, but we still have faster growth in those who leaving being physical activity as well as our population growth overall, leaving space for the sedentary to outnumber the active.

It's in our culture to be inactive and eat too much.  We've socially engineered ourselves to live this way. Somehow we have to get a grip and reverse the trend.

I think a multilevel approach is good; we need reasonable easy access to being physically active, we need some of our tax dollars going towards projects that work, and we need non government resources to kick in as well.

We have all that happening now, but like the report said, we built it and they didn't come. The main piece we're missing is taking a step back from believing that overeating and inactivity are actually not worth the appreciation we assign.  We need to challenge the notion of what we think healthy eating and exercise really are.

I only gain fat when I eat too much.  I lose fitness when I don't exercise.  I feel better, am happier, and am more healthy when I eat healthy and keep up my exercise.

Healthy choices are not restrictive, they're liberating.

It's the unhealthy crap we love so much that is restricting.

Straighten this out, and we'll allow ourselves to naturally gravitate towards healthy choices instead of lamenting them.  It's likely our kids will model our behavior.  They already do now.

After all, who is really going to be motivated to give up something that is perceived as rewarding for something that isn't?

Canadian Youth Activity Report

Exhale to lose fat

Where does fat "go" when we burn it off?

Nearly all the stored fat we use as energy is expelled primarily through our lungs when we exhale carbon dioxide and water vapour (fat is made of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen).

All of the food you eat can be accounted for by measuring everything that goes in and out of our bodies.  There are no mystery calories, and there is no mystery fat gain or fat loss.

If we eat too much, the extra food is stored as fat.  If we eat less food than the total energy we burn off in a day, we use energy from our fat stores.  We can measure the process of using food for energy in the carbon dioxide we exhale.

This is a normal measurement and is done daily in exercise labs all around the world.  I've been looking at this data for decades as a coach, and have had the testing done on myself many times. There's a description of this test at the bottom of the article (with photos).

It's all about accounting for mass.  We know the mass of molecules of carbs, fats, and proteins, and we know how we use the components of those molecules for energy, and we know how much energy is needed to move the mass of our bodies and keep our cells functioning.

It's an energy equation where we are able to accurately account for the mass of what we eat, and the by products of metabolism.  It's physics. Don't be misled by corny non-evidence based ideas that don't account for the mass of molecules.

I realize all this molecule stuff doesn't sound as promising or as exciting as the latest "fat loss breakthrough" claims, but it is reality.  All the fad fat loss claims out there are always proven to be fake anyway, so let's bypass the hype and go straight to the science.

Learn this reality so you can't be fooled by weight loss gimmicks. And more importantly, if you're trying to lose fat and are feeling frustrated about the process, learn how your body works (for real), so you can lose fat while by-passing the phoney promises, the hype, and all the crooks carefully constructing great sounding lies. We know fake news travels faster and reaches more people than supportable facts. Give the facts a chance.

Via a fairly complex chemical pathway, we breakdown fat molecules to make energy, and have some waste products left over, namely water and carbon.

The fat molecule: a triglyceride (right) is made up of atoms of carbon (black), hydrogen (grey), and oxygen (red).  Lot's of these are stuffed into fat cells in our "love handles", and aroud the rest of the body.

Carbon dioxide molecule (1 carbon + 2 oxygen).  We breathe out a bunch of these.  The black thing in the middle (carbon) used to be part of the fat molecule above.  After we break apart the fat (break the carbon-hydrogen bonds) for energy, there is carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen left over, the same amount as we started with, but no longer put together as a fat molecule. At the end of the energy production cycle, oxygen bonds with hydrogen to make water, and oxygen bonds with carbon to make CO2. We exhale the CO2.

Water and carbon mass, formerly fat in fat cells, former (too much) food on a plate, leaves our bodies through three primary paths.

Exhaling

The toilet

Sweat

A very tiny amount of the water is lost in sweat and through the bowel, some is recycled, and a fair amount is also exhaled as water vapour. The vast majority of the mass lost in fat loss goes out, a little bit at a time, in the carbon dioxide we exhale, save for the less than 1% that goes into urine.

Fat doesn't "melt" off, is not converted to muscle, can't be spot reduced with abdominal exercises (or triceps exercises or whatever), and isn't increased or decreased due to different genetics.

You also won't lose fat by exercising in a "fat burning zone", unless you have a calorie deficit, in which case it doesn't matter if you burn fat during exercise or not.  Only a calorie deficit, considering all calories consumed VS expended, will result in fat loss.  Consider this.  If you burn off 500 calories exercising in a fat burning zone, but the total calories you eat is the same as the total calories you expend during the day, no fat loss will occur because you have replaced everything you burned off.

The reasons why this is, are explained here.

We eat food, which has molecules of fat, carbs, and protein, which are made of mostly - you guessed it - carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms.  When we eat too much we store the extra as fat (carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms).   When we don't use the food molecules we eat as energy, we're literally left holding the bag.  We have left over molecules of food with nowhere to go, except our fat cells.  That's where we put the overflow.

We don't have anywhere else to put the fat.  We can't store it in our heads, though some might argue that some are capable of this feat. There's no room in our bones for lot's of excess fat from chronic overeating.  Our blood lipids can increase, but this is really a temporary thing as it takes time to shuttle excess fat to our fat cells.  Our blood can't handle all the extra food we overeat - it would simply become too dense and would't be able to be circulated.  We have adipocytes (fat cells) in our organs and do store some extra fat there, which is really bad for our health, but the storage capacity in our organs fat cells is very limited compared to the virtually unlimited capacity of our fat cells in our large adipose sites between our muscles and skin.  If we fill up our existing fat cells and keep over eating, our bodies just make more fat cells.

We don't poop it out - if we did we would have very oily stool every time we overate fat.  Sorry for the detail, just eliminating some of the common guesses out there.  When we do the drill down, all extra food we eat can be accounted for in the storage of fat in our fat cells.  It simply isn't biologically possible to put it anywhere else.  If it were, we'd see obvious evidence of this.

When we use up the stored fat, that mass has to go somewhere, it can't just disappear into nothing, that's not realistic.

Are you breathing?  Some of what you are exhaling used to be excess fat. Some of that carbon comes from using carbohydrates and protein as a fuel as well, so not all the carbon we exhale comes exclusively from fat.  If you have a calorie deficit, the molecules of fat used to make up for what you didn't eat come from your fat stores and are lost through exhaling carbon dioxide.

Without a caloric deficit or surplus, what you exhale matches what you ate. There is no net gain or loss of fat mass.

Visualize your foods in their microscopic form; a bunch of molecules. Follow the journey of these molecules through your digestive tract and into your body.  The molecules will be used for energy by every cell in your body.  If you ate more molecules than your cells need for energy that day, the unused molecules are shuttled to your fat cells.

Your living cells use energy 24/7 even if you don't eat enough for the day.  Your cells still use molecules of carbohydrate and fat for energy, but when what you eat isn't enough to supply energy needs for the day, your body uses fat stores, and every gram of fat used can be accounted for.  You exhale it as carbon dioxide and some water vapour.

Actually, fat is continually shuttled in and out of our fat cells. Kind of like a storage depot that receives and ships out product every day. When our energy consumption matches our energy use, fat cells have no extra fat stored or lost.  Like a storage depot receiving 10 boxes but also shipping out 10 boxes.  Eat too much, and more fat is stored than used (you receive 10 boxes but your customers only need 6 boxes from you), leaving you with extra inventory.  Have a calorie deficit, and more fat leaves the fat cells than is put in, and you lose weight, a few grams at a time.  You're always breathing, and when you have a calorie deficit, some of the CO2 you're exhaling comes from fat in your fat cells, even when you're sleeping.  You're still burning molecules of sugar, fat, and protein to make energy (measured in calories) when you sleep.

Through being a little more active and eating a little less anyone can create a calorie deficit, and reduce their extra fat inventory.  A calorie deficit can't fail at producing fat loss, but we can fail to accurately account for how much we eat and exercise, obscuring the truth of us eating too much.

In case you were curious about how much carbon dioxide mass we exhale- (and I know you are), here are the stats:

About 2.45 grams (0.005 lb) per hour at rest

Between 50 and 90 grams (0.11 - 0.2 lb) per day for the average sedentary person

350 - 400 grams for a moderately active person 

600 or 700 grams per day for a very active person exercising 1 - 2 hours per day.

In an hour of moderate to hard exercise the average exerciser will exhale about 350 grams of carbon dioxide (0.8 pounds).

A very active person will blow out about 700 grams of CO2 on the days they exercise for about 90 minutes.  That's nearly 2 pounds!  This accounts for the equivalent mass of food energy consumed for the day, if there is no weight loss or gain.  Despite nearly 2 pounds of CO2 being exhaled, if you eat more than you burn off, the extra goes to fat cells.  Ever gone for a run or going to the gym and justifying eating more because you worked out?  Sure, you burned off energy, but if you eat more than you burn off, fat gain occurs.  The gains can be accounted for, as can the losses if you burned off more than you ate.

You don't have to exercise 90 minutes a day to lose fat, I only used that example because it exaggerates the values making it easier to see the difference.  150 minutes of moderate exercise per week and being mindful of reducing food intake is enough.

This exhaling carbon thing has been butchered and abused by diet "gurus" who invent crazy diets that involve, yes, "special" breathing techniques to breathe your fat away.  Impossible, of course, but because we can become desperate to lose fat, we can become susceptible to believing these false claims.  When you look at the calories recommended in these corny methods, they all use a low calorie diet.  They don't address this fact, and use misdirections to convince you "special" foods or food combinations have a magic influence on fat loss.  It's eating less, not the "special" claims, that is causing fat loss. The crackpots who push this stuff are gladly being paid by their customers whom they are lying to.

Changing how you breathe has no effect on fat loss.  You have to eat fewer calories (food energy) than you burn off in order for some of the carbon you exhale to result in fat loss.

If we eat as much carbon (from food) as we exhale, our weight will stay the same, no matter how much we breathe or how we breathe.

If we consume less carbon (from food; this is all about eating food, and what happens to it) than we exhale, we lose weight. For many people, weight loss is difficult.  People make different claims or assumptions about why this is.  When investigated it's always found that people who make such claims or believe in common weight loss fallacies, don't realize they over-report their exercise, and under-report their food consumption.   This is easy to do in our overeating culture, and also easy to do when food is habitually used as a reward.  You're less likely to want to acknowledge overeating, because that would mean having to deal with eating less, which can feel like getting less reward.

Calories in, calories out.  All accountable by adding up the carbon.  Sure, it's complicated science to do the measuring to figure all this out, but that's what scientists do.  For us, the science is already done, and to benefit from the research, we need to eat less and move more, to achieve a calorie deficit.

While calories in, calories out is the sole equation for fat gain and loss, we also have to be mindful of meeting our energy needs without eating too little or exercising too much in desperation to lose fat. We need a certain amount of food to supply important nutrients, and to meet our healthy minimum energy needs.

Did you know that gas powered cars also use energy stored in hydrocarbons?  That's what we're blowing up in the cylinders of our automobile engines; hydrocarbons are in the molecules of gasoline.

Let's say you have 65kg (29.5lb) of gas in your tank when full.  Fill your tank, and your car weighs 65kg more.   Use half a tank, and you lose 32.5kg of mass.  As you burn gas driving, the gas level in the tank goes down, and the car weighs less.  Where does the mass go?  Out the tail pipe in the form of exhaust.  Every kilogram of fuel that goes into your engine can be accounted for in the exhaust.

Lets say you plan on a long road trip, taking a route where there aren't any gas stations for part of the trip.  You'll need to fill some gas containers and keep them in the trunk. Kind of like eating too much food and storing extra fat.  When the gas tank is near empty, you start using your stored gas, and now you have less gas in the trunk, and your car weighs less.  This is analogous to fat loss in people.

What if you had those extra gas containers in the trunk, but then came across a new gas station where you expected none to be?  Might as well take advantage and top up the tank right?  This might be like someone surprising you with a box of donuts (or whatever unplanned eating).  You "take advantage" and add to your fuel stores when you do that.  If you don't have extra energy expenditure to burn off the extra, you retain the excess in fat stores.  If you don't drive off the extra stored gas, It doesn't go anywhere.

Most of us manage our gas use in cars reasonably well, rarely running out of gas.  We pay attention to the gas gauge and have a fair idea of how much driving we get out of a tank (or range from a charge). Pretty much all of us drive our cars in this way.  We're already good at managing the daily energy needs of our cars. If we incorporated this skill into how we eat and exercise, seeing food as energy supply, it makes it easier to understand our food intake/ energy needs.  But we can still be find it frustrating to overcome the temptation to overeat.

To lose fat we have to fill up less when we eat so we can use the extra energy we already have stored in our "tank".  We still need to replenish our supply of carbohydrates, proteins, essential fats, and vitamins and minerals daily, so cutting back too much deprives us of essential nutrients we need every day.  Remember the storage depot analogy, it's a continuous cycle.  If we cut off too much of the supply to the storage depot, the depot can't perform it's function because it won't be able to supply its daily baseline customer demands.  If we eat too little we can get tired and sick.

The only way to deplete the stored fat is to eat less than we burn off.

On average an approximate 500 calorie per day deficit is safe and reasonably manageable for most people, especially with adding a little bit of physical activity.

Gas mass in, exhaust mass out.  Storage depot boxes of product in and out.  A couple of analogies that very closely reflect our calories in - out balancing needs.

Carbon-hydrogen bonds, calories, food.  Just different words to describe the same thing in greater or lesser technical detail. Calories refer to the energy potential of food.

A lot of the mass of food we eat is not extracted into our bodies through our digestive system.  Much of it remains as the bulk that we - leave in the toilet.  A lot of the food mass we eat is actually water, so a pound of food doesn't have a pound of carbon in it. For instance, a 70 calorie, 28 gram slice of bread has about 2 grams of fiber and about 11 grams of water. About 40% of a slice of bread has no calories in it, and most of that portion has no carbon in it (the water).

Of the 70ish calories in that slice of bread (mostly from sugars, a tiny bit of fat, and small amount of protein), about 15% of the energy is used for digestion. We're left with about 60 calories worth of energy stored mostly in the carbon-hydrogen bonds of the sugars, fats, and proteins.

Fats, carbs, and protein are each different combinations of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and in the case of proteins; nitrogen as well. Fat is the most densely packed.

Like a shrewd accountant, your body can reconcile every molecule of food you eat with every molecule you use for energy and store as fat.  There is no metabolism mystery that causes unexplained fat gain, no genetic trait that causes people to gain fat without over eating, no verified accounts of people having a calorie deficit and gaining fat (impossible), and no verified accounts of people having a calorie deficit and not losing fat (also impossible).

The reason I wrote about fat loss from this perspective was to show that fat has a known value.  There is no mystery as to what fat is, and where body fat comes from and where it goes.  My hope is that I can put a small dent in all the contrived, misleading, misunderstood, and urban myth idea's that are so popular.

I'm not suggesting we focus conceptually carbon atoms to control body fat. That's impractical.

In day to day practical application we’re thinking about portion sizes, number of servings, and matching that up with our activity level.  We also need to be mindful of how some foods that fire up our reward centres can cause us to feel really compelled to eat too much.  Noting the difference between feeling hungry because you need the energy and feeling a craving because you want the reward of a favoured food is important.

Healthy fat loss is about burning off more than we eat and to do so we need to be mindful of how many calories (food energy) we're consuming.  What I offer here is proof of the fact that we know what a "fat roll" is made out of, where it comes from, and where it goes.  Creating a caloric deficit works to lose fat, and it works because it can't not work; it works because of physics and chemistry that is real and measurable.

No tricks, no gimmicks, no mystery.  We know how this works. Fat loss is explainable. Don't let anyone fool you with weird ideas, alternative facts, or fake news.  Be wary; the gimmick pushers are practiced at seeming sincere, know about peoples vulnerability, and know how easy it can be to manipulate a person feeling frustrated and desperate.  They make themselves appear as though they are empathetic and are on your side.  They know how appealing this can seem.  But really they are scammers.

Eat less, move more, and address where your eating motivation comes from.

Mayo Clinic says what I just said here, but they do it in two paragraphs click here

What are you eating?  Use eatracker to find out, and Cronometer

Update! Apparently I made a scientific breakthrough without knowing it... - sort of.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal has published a study on this topic, but interestingly, they state that this is a novel perspective on how fat loss works.

Not really, since I posted this article a year before the study was published., - and also... yeah... um... -everything I've written here is standard, basic science- that has been known for several decades.

Study: When somebody loses weight, where does the fat go? 

So how do we figure out how much carbon dioxide (CO2) a person is exhaling?

Why, in an exercise lab, of course..

Below is a picture of me in the University of Manitoba's exercise lab having my VO2 max assessed.

The tube in my mouth delivers the gases I breathe in and captures the gasses I breathe out.

In the print out below there is a VCO2 column that shows how much carbon dioxide I was exhaling in liters per minute.  At my moderate pace I was exhaling about 330 grams of CO2 per hour, some of the carbon in the CO2 from fat, a lot from carbs, and a little bit from protein.

For you calculating types out there, the density of CO2 is 0.001977 g/mL

This carbon thing isn't my idea, it's proven through research, and we've been measuring this for many decades. It's no secret.

The most challenging part of successful weight loss isn't the mechanics of eating less; it's changing our habits, our thoughts, and our sense of reward with food and exercise.  Studies show that the single reason why many people regain fat after losing it- is because they stop the new healthy habits and return to previous overeating habits.  The return is made because, as many will be able to concede, it's very difficult to get past the strong internal drive to overeat.  I have a lot of posts on how to do this though, so read my blog articles and learn how to lose weight and get fit.

Calorie denial... why we can't face the truth of overeating. Click here for article

Why boot camps are stupid

In a previous post I mentioned unabashedly that I think boot camps are stupid.  What inspired me to do a follow up about why this form exercise mayhem is stupid is a reader response on FaceBook.

"I agree Cris, Boot camps are stupid. They will not cause lifestyle change."  Thanks to KM for the post.

Rather than just saying that boot camps are stupid, I'll do what I usually do and that is tell you like it is with facts and reason.  

I did a Google image search for boot camp. Endless pictures of people suffering and also endless pictures of very poor exercise form.

The boot camp idea perpetrates the myth that hard, arduous exercise is what counts. Anything less has no value. Suffering equals success. Sure, hard training is needed to capture peak performance, but hard training isn't what getting started is all about.  Forget this Hollywood idea of what productive is supposed to be.  In reality even for well conditioned athletes hard training is best done with careful preparation and timing, not arbitrarily entering a boot camp to kick ones butt into shape.

 I think a person could make a boot camp with few people work.  Maybe an instructor - student ratio of one to eight. You'd have to do a complete fitness assessment on each person so the instructor would be properly informed as to what exercises are appropriate for the people in the group.

You'd start slow with basic moves and gradually increase the intensity and complexity of moves over months of boot camps.  When anyone became tired you'd encourage them to take a break or stop altogether so they can resolve their fatigue with proper rest.

I've never heard of a boot camp being run like this but if there is one out there run correctly, this article is not about them.

For most, the kind of anti-boot camp group exercise I suggested, catering to peoples needs and starting easy, is going to sound too boring.  But, only because it will be compared to traditionalized expectations of loud music and or a loud instructor, and pushing so hard you wonder why you showed up.  How about a re-think?  What would be wrong with building gradually and hitting it hard when you're ready?  There's nothing wrong with that.  In fact, research shows that's the most effective way to make large, long term gains.

Lets take a look at the actual military boot camp which the civilian exercise fad is based on.

Results of this study (1) show that 39.6% of of military recruits entering boot camp became injured.  Keep in mind that the military recruits from the general population, not the athlete population. These are everyday folks that are entering an abrupt change in how much they exercise, like most people taking part in exercise boot camps.

The cause of 78% of the injuries? Overuse.  Researchers concluded that abrupt increases in training intensity and volume are the cause of injury.

An abrupt change in training volume and intensity.  Um, isn't that the point of a boot camp?  I'm sorry folks but my brain gets twisted when I try to make sense out of that.  This is harder than trying wrap your head around quantum physics.  The very thing that causes injury is the very premise of boot camps.  And boot camps are super popular. What the H E double hocky sticks is wrong with this picture?

The model of boot camp training is bogus.  People are pushed too hard too soon without preparatory training.

How about those pro-level pre-season training camps?  This is where the pro's tune up for real competition.  Sort of. In reality (2) this is where 51% of hamstring injuries occur in NFL players. The reason?  Training too hard too soon.

What? So even pro athletes who are far more conditioned than the average person considering a fitness centre boot camp still get hammered with injuries from advancing too quickly with volume and intensity?  You got it.

According to this study (3) girls aged 9 to 15 who participated in more than 8 hours per week of high impact sports and sport training were twice as likely to sustain a stress fracture compared to those doing 4 hours or less of high impact activity.

Is this an obvious outcome?  I think so, but obviously others don't, otherwise nobody would be training 9-15 year old girls 8 or more hours per week without proper preparation.

Whether adult or child, pro or not, there seems to be a tie that binds most popularised exercise- go really hard, and do it often, and glorify the heck out of it. And admonish, publicly humiliate, those who don't comply.

Boot camps are the anointed child of the ever popular go hard or go home concept; a concept that is continually proven invalid by sport science, yet continually offered to and sought out by the public.  I feel like I'm in the middle ages trying to tell people the earth isn't at the centre of the universe.

In my personal observation I've seen boot camp instructors shout out what sound like good instructions.. keep your core tight, watch your knee alignment, etc.  What I find a little weird is that the instructor will also shout out platitudes, you're doing great, keep it up, burn that fat..  Why is this weird?  Isn't positive encouragement good?

Strangely most of the students have poor mechanics, indeed even the instructor has poor mechanics. So what's with telling people to watch their knee alignment then have most of the class express poor knee alignment then do nothing about it other than saying good job keep it up?  Why can't these instructors see the poor mechanics and help people make the necessary corrections?  Is it a case of you can't teach what you don't know?  Most of the time I think this is the case.

Confounding that problem is the one size fits all formula, along with the need to turn over classes in a timely manner to produce revenue.  So each class has a script.  Next class; repeat script, and say it with meaning so you can sound convincing.

Something else to consider.  Although many instructors say things like, go at you're own pace, in reality there is great pressure from the instructor plus peer pressure to push hard no matter what.  Also how could it be that everyone in the class is at the same level of conditioning and equally capable of doing the intensive moves?

Remember KM's comment about lifestyle changes?  Boot camp is all about short term pain and short term gain.  This is not a suitable strategy or a "kick start" to a new you.  It's more like a kick in the hamstring.

The sport science is clear; training too hard too soon and over-emphasizing intensity and going for the burn as well as skipping assessment and base conditioning is disaster in the making.  Some of the complex moves found in boot camps are simply made up by the instructor or are culled from the black hole of fad exercises instead of being well thought out proven exercises that are gradually implemented based on an individuals ability to do the exercise.

Sound like TMI? This is another common error made with those feeling like they need to do something to increase their fitness but feel that they don't want to be burdened with too much of a learning curve; "just tell me what to do and I'll do it, I don't want to know about how my lungs work, I just want to get fit fast."

The outcome of following this path is nearly always failure, even though it may seem perfectly justifiable at first.  Lifestyle changes include gradually changing how we think and feel about the reward of exercise and how to integrate healthy living habits permanently into our lives, and that involves learning a little bit about how our bodies work.  It's about  making informed decisions.

It is true that starting with less complex and easy to implement actions is the best way to start.  Better to start with simply eating less of what you already eat rather than with an instant overhaul of your diet.  Better to start with going for walks for exercise rather than with a complex exercise routine.

The conflict here is that most boot camps employ fairly complex exercises that are advanced well beyond base conditioning, so while boot camps may imply that you can simply be a body in a crowd accepting instructions that you don't have to think about much, the reality is getting good at complex movement does take time, concentration, practice and long term improvement.

Boot camps are the antithesis to the healthy living idea.  Boot camps are the animation of our get fit quick fantastical thinking.  Boot camps are about playing to the idea that you don't have time to exercise, you don't have time to waste.  You need to work hard fast for short periods and get it all done so you can get back to a busy schedule. Boot camps survive on the old urban myth that sweat and burning muscles are an accurate measurement of exercise quality.

I've been in exercise labs a lot.  I've even had the privilege doing exercise studies. The standards of measuring effective exercise are not sweat or a burning sensation.  In fact the body of sport science tells us the best way to ensure continued gains while avoiding the setback of injuries is to start really easy, so easy that you never feel tired during or after your exercise.  Gradually you build your exercise capacity and when you're ready to go harder you can continue to get more benefit from higher intensity exercise.

You should only expect to feel tired from exercise once you're fit enough to endure hard training.  I'm not about avoiding high intensity exercise.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Just ask the athletes I train how hard they work during VO2 Max intervals or doing 4-6 rep max single leg squats.

I'm no stranger to high intensity training myself, you name it I've done it.  VO2 Max, TABATA, German volume training, plyometrics, and circuit training that we lovingly used to call "the barf circuit". I've done hill running sprints carrying a person on my back using the fireman's carry and loved every moment of it.  I manage to win the odd bike race as well.  I've also endured my self-imposed misfortune of training too hard too soon and can tell you repetitive strain injury isn't fun.

Training hard works, but training too hard too soon doesn't.  You don't need hard arduous exercise to experience great improvements in weight loss and strength gain.  The greatest gains I've made and any of my athletes have made have been on a long term gradually more challenging path to harder exercise. That's athletes though.  Nobody needs to train that hard to be healthy and fit. Athletic training routines is not where we start out with getting into healthy living or even bumping up our fitness to the next level.  What is generally not that well understood is that to do the most popular balance provoking exercises, and the jumping exercises, and the high intensity gut wrenching exercises, we need to have a substantially strong foundation of very strong core, hips, and shoulders.  Otherwise we're just asking for trouble.

Making healthy living choices is about learning about how our bodies work, making both short and long term easy to accomplish realistic goals that build us towards more complex goals.  Healthy exercise doesn't blow your brains out (or biceps out) or make you hurt every time you do it and we need to be mindful of this.

Boot camps don't instill or support this healthy and realistic thinking.  Boot camps will tell you to push hard when you're tired.  Sport science says to cut back exercise when you're tired to allow your body the recovery it needs to adapt and progress healthily.

I'm sure if a person tried hard enough they could find a boot camp that isn't as extreme as I'm describing here, but the reality is the very concept of group training where people are pushed into complex exercise too hard too soon simply makes no sense.  It's a marketing gimmick.

I could easily put on boot camps and act like an excited drill sargent.  I'd make a good dollar too. Trouble is I wouldn't really be helping anyone make the key lifestyle changes that will really benefit their health long term.

I have an athlete whom I love to reference often because he's in his 50's.  This guy in his 50's can do over 30 good quality chin-ups (yes, in one shot with no breaks) and over 80 push ups.  He doesn't do boot camps.  In fact he hardly does chin-ups.  How can a person spank of 30 chin-ups if they hardly do chin-ups?  Don't misunderstand me.  The fellow worked many many months to build up to this, but he backed off when fatigued and added a little more when recovered and wasn't fanatical about it.

He does chin-ups once a week or sometimes once every two weeks.  Of course he has a complete program as well, but he does it at his own pace doing strength training once or twice per week along with cardio training 2 - 3 times per week.  He's more fit than he's ever been in his life and he loves it. .. I'd put my money on him to kick butt on any boot camper..

(1) Military training-related injuries: surveillan... [Am J Prev Med. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

(2) Hamstring Muscle Strains in Professional Football Players

(3) JAMA Network | Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine | Prospective Study of Physical Activity and Risk of Developing a Stress Fracture Among Preadolescent and Adolescent Girls

I finally got a cold

Not too long ago I wrote a piece on how not to catch cold where I mentioned that I had not had cold symptoms in many years.  The reason why the number of colds I have plummeted is because, while not always successful, I do manage to eat, sleep, and exercise healthily most of the time.

I got the familiar feeling in the back of the throat on Saturday.  By Monday I had the runny nose and sneezing and felt a little lethargic.  I still managed to get in a training ride on my bike (mounted on my indoor trainer Kurt Kinetic trainer review), but I cut the ride at 90 minutes instead of the 2-2.5 hours I would normally had done.

Side note:  exercising with a cold rule of thumb: symptoms above the neck (head cold), exercise is not a problem but you may have reduced exercise capacity.  If you have a cough or really sore throat exercising intensely with heavy breathing may aggravate an already irritated respiratory tract, possibly inviting a bacterial infection, so don't exercise hard. Nausea or fever? Don't exercise.  You need rest and a visit to the doc might be a good idea if symptoms persist. 

Today I feel pretty good.  Only had to blow my nose twice so far.  I'd say the cold is pretty much over.

So that's Saturday to Wednesday, maybe a little into tomorrow - 5.5 days with three days of a fairly snotty nose.

That's not too bad, and thats what the research suggests you might feel if you live healthy, primarily exercising regularly and getting good sleep.

Healthy living can reduce the frequency, duration, and intensity of cold symptoms by 40%.

I've been lucky and had good multi-year stint of no cold symptoms.  I say no cold symptoms as I would have still had cold viruses enter my body, but my strengthened immune system would have defeated the cold virus before I became symptomatic.

I didn't take a pill that's promised to reduce colds.  I didn't take an alternative medicine concoction that is the suposed secret cure for the common cold that apparently regular doctors don't want you to know about.  I didn't take massive doses of vitamin C.  I didn't whip up an antioxidant detox super juice every morning.

I ate healthy, exercised regularly, and most of the time got good sleep.

I recall a few times though where it felt like a cold might be coming on but then nothing further materialized.  There were several times where I was in the company of people with colds and I thought for sure I would be sniffling a few days later.. nope.

Aside from maintaining if not gaining athletic performance as I approach age 50 I think not getting the two colds per year I used to get a pretty good dividend from healthy habits.  I don't know anyone who likes the misery of a cold.

The benefits of exercise aren't limited to the most commonly referenced weight loss and muscular or lean look.  The main benefits are feeling more energetic, preserving health, having the strength to easily do pretty much any normal task.. shovelling snow is no big deal, neither is lifting heavy things like furniture.

I see many of my mid-late 40's peers gaining weight and getting weaker.  That could have been me and I'm glad it isn't, I'm also glad it doesn't have to be this way for anyone.

I didn't make the change overnight and pretty much everyone who tries to do it fast fails and returns to a state of being less fit and more overweight than when they started.

Ignore all the goofy claims to lose weight fast and get fit fast.  That's for losers, or I guess gainers as the weight comes back later when a return to previous habits occurs.

Make some small changes like eating a little less and learning to feel good about it.  Gradually add small amounts of exercise.  Boot camps are very stupid.  Yes, I said that and mean it.  I'm not some shlep who fell off the bus yesterday, I've been studying this subject and coaching for two and half decades and I live it myself.. quick fix promises are meant to appeal to desperation and gullibility; they don't actually work.

How did I get to "boot camps are very stupid" from exercise prevents colds?  It's not hard to get me going.  I am passionate about the subject.  And why not?  Making these changes turned my life around and the lives of many others.  I really, really want people to feel as good as I have after having made these changes.

Having fewer colds is better.  Colds are miserable.  Less misery from colds, from aches and pains, from lethargy, and from illness.  It's all good.   Best thing?

It's not a miracle product that costs $49.99 per month or more.  It's not a pill.  It's not a secret metabolism energizing exercise routine (those don't exist by the way so don't fall for the con).

There is one catch though. Your benefits will automatically renew without your consent if you keep living the healthy lifestyle.  That's right, even if you find that you don't like not having colds, can't stand being strong, hate your doctor for telling you your cholesterol and blood pressure are normal, and don't want to deal with near boundless energy and clear cognition day after day, the contract can't be broken.  So long as you live healthy you will reap the benefits.

Oh well.  What can you do?

95% Fail to lose weight. What are the 5% doing?

You'd think the person with the answer to this question would be heralded as modern societies saviour,  the person who solved the mystery of why we gain weight and can't seem to lose it.  Or perhaps at least this person would be rich in finding a way to capitalize on such a discovery.

There are indeed many who have become wealthy in selling their solution to the weight loss problem but in doing so another mystery arises; if all these people with the solution to weight loss do have the answer, why is it the population of the entire planet continues to become more overweight every year?

When humanity learned how to eradicate smallpox it was the end of smallpox.  We have the antidote for excessive weight gain, but don't use it.

More of the population is overweight.  This seems a logical explanation for why more weight loss clinics  classes, blogs, news stories, and apparently novel weight loss concepts would materialize.

It's a question of supply and demand.

Interesting that the more this problem spreads the more full-proof solutions are propagated and sold.

Maybe at some point sock makers would sell so many socks that all the worlds people would have socks so no more socks would be needed.  Too simplified.  The population grows, socks wear out, and maybe people want to upgrade from $5.00 socks to $10.00 socks and so on.

Is fat loss the same way?  Does one weight loss strategy wear-out requiring another strategy to continue weight loss? Is the more costly fat loss option more effective?

This can't be true because fat loss is about eating fewer calories than expended.  There isn't another strategy.  It is that simple, but complexities arrise in achieving that simplicity.

The National Weight Loss Registry, an ongoing study of what people who successfully lose weight and keep it off actually do has found the following:


To register people must have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for one or more years.

Registry members have lost an average of 66 pounds and kept it off for more than 5 years.

The study is open to US residents and has published it's findings to date.

Here is what those who have lost weight and kept it off have in common:


45% lost weight on their own and 55% lost weight with the help of some kind of program

94% increased their physical activity with walking being the most common exercise, and one hour of exercise daily being average frequency and duration.

98% of Registry participants report that they modified their food intake in some way to lose weight.

78% eat breakfast every day

75% weigh themselves at least once per week

62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week

The increase in physical activity increases calories out and the modification of food intake decreases calories in.

I'm writing this during the Christmas holiday season, but what I'm saying is relevant anytime of the year.

A common strategy that people tell me about when they are about to enter a social feeding frenzy, be it a birthday, an after the game or after the whatever chow-down, is this:

Since we're going to overeat anyway, why bother trying to mess with that since it won't work.  Why not simply concentrate our efforts on what to do after we're finished the overeating celebration?

Makes sense.  Christmas dinners?  I've already bought the ticket to that train and I'm going to ride it out.  Plus; why ruin Christmas (or whatever)?

"I just want to have a good type two diabetes with my family".  Crap.  Freudian.

What I meant to say sarcastically is, "I just want to have a good time feeling bloated and regretful for overdoing it and gaining even more weight".  Whoops, I did it again.

The flaw in this strategy is that it is completely denial based and is merely used as an excuse to justify more overeating.  Hardly anyone is actually going to follow through with the "I'll deal with it later" self afflicted con-job.

What is the expected outcome of never preventing overeating and always thinking about what to do after overeating?

Most will tell you the expected outcome is successful weight loss.

Crazy-talk.

We are crazy about overeating, even when we know better.

Like I've said before in previous ramblings, the current consensus is that decisions surrounding eating are largely bound to seeking gratification.  Not just any gratification, but the kind that has greatest power to amputate our better judgment.

Instant gratification.

This is ultimately what the 5% of the population are tapping into when they successfully lose weight and keep it off; understand the source of instant gratification and doing something about it.

They modify their behaviors and feelings about food and eating to such an extent that they no longer fall prey to their self-generated compulsion to overeat.  Indeed the compulsion itself is greatly diminished down to a realistically manageable state.

Everyone who loses fat does it the same way.  They consume fewer calories than expended.

The 5% who keep it off do so not by short term dietary and exercise habit changes, but rather over very long periods of lifestyle management.

The success is in realizing that overeating is just not worth the trouble.

We can all follow the habits of the the study subjects in the National Weight Control Registry.

If we did we would all permanently lose weight and keep it off.  It's the "permanently" part that get most people (95%), as within mere weeks of implementing these proven habits, most people will feel like they are missing their doses of instant gratification.  Most will feel compelled to fall back into the habits and social practices that promote and celebrate overeating.

When you surly love overeating there is nothing in the world that will break that love.

Wait..  There is one thing.  It's the relationship killer.

Cheating.

No, I'm not talking about "cheat days" where you overindulge to cool your heals during a diet phase.

I'm talking about your love partner cheating on you.  I'm talking about overeating stabbing you in the arteries while making love to your tastebuds and that part of the brain that allows you interpret the sensation of "wow, this is really good".

I'm talking about the epiphany the 5% get when they realize that the way they are living is not really making things better, but worse.

The hardest part about changing to healthy living habits is letting go the reward association with overeating and inactivity and making new reward associations with healthy eating and exercise.

If you don't fall for healthy living like falling in love you will forever be chained to the old relationship. The abusive relationship where you beg for those few moments of feeling good only to be burdened with lethargy, weight gain, and health issues surrounding unhealthy living.

Call me preachy if you like.  I'm just telling it like it is and have no intentions of being a lifestyle judge and jury or diet zealot / guru.

I only write what I feel and what I have learned through reading research.  My delivery is what it is.

Implement what I say though and you won't be doing what I say, but rather doing what research suggests we can do to escape one of the greatest societal plagues ever: the love and celebration of chronic overeating.

Everything you need to know about not getting a cold

[Creative Commons photo by Matt Musselman]

In general living healthy; healthy eating, regular exercise, and good quality sleep, can..

Reduce the number of colds per year by 40%

Reduce the intensity of symptoms by 40%

Reduce the duration of a cold by 40%

The number one transmission of the cold virus into the body is touching your eye with your finger after touching a surface with a cold virus on it.

#2 is touching your nose

#3 is touching your mouth

A cold virus can stay alive on a surface such as a door knob 24 hours.

You can also inhale a cold virus.

When a person with a cold speaks they spray an approximate 1 meter (3 foot) cloud of water vapour that contains aerated cold virus.  You can't see it or feel it, but you can breath it in and introduce the cold virus to your body.

Here's a nice thought, especially for the germaphobes out there..

If a person with a cold coughs or sneezes in a hallway, they'll leave behind a cloud of aerated cold virus that lasts for a minute or so.  You could walk into an otherwise empty hallway, save for the virus cloud, and breath it in.  You now have a cold.

Or do you?

Maybe, your timing has to be right and if you do suck in a bit of rhino-virus (no relation to me), whether you develop symptoms or not depends on how robust your immune system is.

People who "don't get colds" actually do get colds.  Their immune systems are strong enough that the cold virus is defeated before cold symptoms arise.

The healthy living strategy does not prevent cold viruses from entering your body, rather living healthy makes you into a cold virus killer.  A ninja killer, because you make antibodies swiftly and silently in the background without you knowing that you're waging a virucidal war inside your body.

The hygiene strategy does reduce the chance of "catching" a cold. Washing hands, avoiding touching your face, and staying away from others when infected prevent cold virus transmission.

Once you have a cold there is little you can do to change the course of the cold.  Taking vitamin C, or any vitamin, drinking hot lemon juice, changing your diet, doing a magic dance that appeals to the cold gods, or doing nothing, are each likely to yield the same result: your cold will end within 5 to 10 days.

There is conflicting evidence for whether or not the popular supplement echinacea works for cold prevention, but one thing is for sure; those who sell echinacea swear it works.

Of course the longer you wait to implement any folklore cold remedy the greater the chance your cold will end sooner, as by that time your immune system would have defeated the cold anyway.

High stress levels are known to suppress the immune system so working on keeping stress levels low will help protect you from developing colds.  Regular exercise and good sleep are two of the most potent stress reducers.

For the record I haven't had a cold in over 4 years.  Whoops.. I mean I haven't had cold symptoms in over 4 years.. I've most likely had several colds but my antibodies went Chuck Norris on the evil cold virus before symptoms developed.  I used to get two colds a year; one in the early winter and one around spring time.  They lasted a few days to a week.

Four years ago I tuned up my nutrition using eatracker.ca making sure that I met 100% of all my nutrient needs from food every day (no supplements other than vitamin D).  I also put more emphasis on getting to bed at about the same time most nights and getting good quality sleep.  My exercise was already there, although I did reduce the amount of times I did prolonged high intensity training.

Is it a coincidence that I have had no colds since I made these healthy living changes?  I don't think so.  I read the research, implemented the recommendations, and got the result.  Will I be cold-free forever?  I don't have that expectation but I can vouch for what our white-coat researchers keep telling us to do.

Since it's unlikely that we'll be able to completely avoid being exposed to cold viruses the best strategy is bolstering your immune system through healthy living so when you are exposed your inner ninja's can cut down viral invaders before you feel symptoms.  I'm not saying we should give up on the hand washing thing, we shouldn't, but at some point a cold virus is going to get in us unless we live in bubble wrap, so it's best to be ready.

One last thing.. being out in cold weather does not cause colds, only transmission of cold virus into the body causes colds.

A randomized controlled trial of the effect of flui... [Am J Med. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI

Echinacea purpurea for prevention of experim... [Clin Infect Dis. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Echinacea in the prevention of induced rhinovirus ... [Clin Ther. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI

Treatment of the common cold with unrefined e... [Ann Intern Med. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

Ineffectiveness of echinacea for... [Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

Vitamin C for preventing and trea... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Upper respiratory tract infection is reduced in physically fit and active adults -- Nieman et al. -- British Journal of Sports Medicine

Ontario doctors waging war on fat

The Ontario Medical Association is taking off the gloves, and shoes, in recommending a multifaceted attack on curbing the over-consumption of junk foods in an attempt to reproduce the success of the movement against smoking in the fight against obesity.

Here's an excerpt from the OMA's press release on the initiatives they recommend

• Increasing taxes on junk food and decreasing tax on healthy foods;
•  Restricting marketing of fatty and sugary foods to children;
• Placement of graphic warning labels on pop and other high calorie foods with little to no nutritional value;
• Retail displays of high-sugar, high-fat foods to have information prominently placed advising consumer of the health risks; and
•  Restricting the availability of sugary, low-nutritional value foods in sports and other recreational facilities that are frequented by young people.

The recommendations put forward today build on the actions Ontario’s doctors have already called for including:

• Legislation that would require calorie contents to be listed adjacent to the items on menus  and menu boards at chain restaurants and school cafeterias;
• An education campaign to help inform Ontarian's about the impact of caloric intake on weight and obesity; and
• Making physical activity/education mandatory throughout high school.

Of course I'm all for actions that can help reverse and prevent obesity.  I think this hit 'em from all sides initiative is a good idea.  

If you sense a "but" coming, your intuition is impeccable. 

First, I agree with the marketing, calories on menus, education, and physical activity ideas presented by the OMA.

I'm not 100% sold on the increased tax on junk food and decreased tax on healthy foods, but not because the concept lacks academic validity, rather because it isn't as practical or as potent as it seems. 

You all know I love researchers and doctors.  I love those who have true altruistic motivation to do good for humanity.

I have a bit of a problem though, with impractical idealism's that may sound intuitively good at first wash, but once you get the shine off and get down to the wood you may find a few knots and maybe even a bit of rot.

There is currently no tax on most basic groceries, including fruits and veggies, in Canada.  

Maybe the Ontario Medical Association would benefit from reading about food product taxation in the province of Ontario.. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/guides/rst/500.html 

Some of the foods not taxed in Ontario (identical for the rest of Canada)

Fruit

Vegetables

Yogurt

Nuts

Bread

Eggs

Dairy

Vitamins and minerals

Meats

Cereal

Some of the foods that are taxed

Alcohol (not really a food..)

Candy

Chewing gum

Ice cream

Snack food (like potato chips) 

Um.. zero tax on healthy food, and tax on junk food.  Am I missing something here?

Junk food is already taxed and is already significantly more expensive than healthy food.

A grapefruit will cost you around $2.80/ kg with no tax, and a bag of potato chips will cost $9.80/ kg plus tax.

It is an urban myth that people buy junk food over healthy food because junk food is cheaper.  People buy junk food because they like it more.

Read my post where I did a grocery store price comparison of healthy food vs junk food:

Healthy food cheaper: Potato chips 1134% more $$ than potatoes

You buy a banana, orange, or apple from a grocery store and you're out of there for under 50 cents, no tax.  Tell me what junk food you can buy for 50 cents.  Exactly.  People aren't buying oranges at the same rate as they're buying potato chips because people want the potato chips more, even though a bag of chips is a few dollars and an orange is bought with nickels and dimes.  People will pay more for what they want. Significantly more.

How many times have I bit my lip in a grocery store line up witnessing a person on a very tight budget put back the healthy items and keep the pop and chips to stay within their spending ability?  Too many times.  I've seen down on their luck mothers with kids in tow put back milk and keep the pop.  I'm not talking about putting back $5.00 worth of milk and keeping $2.00 worth of pop and chips, I'm saying there are many that, in spite of their tight budget will opt to favor displacing $5.00 of milk in favor of $6.00 of chips and pop.

It isn't as though most people are complaining about how they can't afford healthy food; it's that most people complain that they don't prefer healthy food as much as they prefer unhealthy food.  Remember, healthy food is already cheaper than junk food.  People preferentially buy unhealthy food because they like it more.

When I was a smoker and hurting for cash and managed to make a few extra bucks I didn't think, "wow, now I can buy some broccoli".  Nope.  I thought, "Players Special Blend, king size". The smokes were a reward, a treat, much more so than healthy eating.  I wasn't the only nicotine fiend making the same delusional decision.

This is reality.  This is what happens right now and has been happening for decades.  Many low income people smoke.  In fact smoking decreases as income increases.  For many adding more tax to cigaretts and junk food would result in even less of their income going towards healthy choices as many will put aside the healthy choices in favor of the more appealing unhealthy choices.  We need to help people change their reward associations so healthy choices feel intrinsically more appealing than unhealthy choices, and cost alone wont make this happen, and wont have as much of an influence as other more socially and emotionally compelling reasons will.

So if healthy food is already significantly cheaper than junk food and has zero tax, what's the point of raising tax on junk food, and how can you reduce tax on something that already has zero tax?  How about a tax refund for making healthy choices?

Although currently more expensive, maybe junk food isn't yet prohibitively expensive.  Maybe that's what they are thinking.   There is some research showing that tax on unhealthy food reduces spending on the taxed food, and that making healthy food cheaper increases the sales of healthy foods.

A fat tax might change the current public perception that healthy food is more expensive than junk food.  People may be buying junk food because it tastes good and is perceived as being a bargin.  Bring in a fat tax and advertise it and people may be more fiscally motivated to spend their cash on cheaper, healthier food.  Maybe, but I would think the first reaction would be simply paying more for chips and donuts because the lowly orange isn't currently perceived as all that appealing. 

There is also research showing that the more overweight you are, the less influenced you will be by the increased price of unhealthy foods.  The less overweight you are the more likely you will choose healthy foods when healthy foods are made cheaper and unhealthy foods more expensive.  This may help in preventing obesity, but it appears that once you're overweight the habit of overeating compels you spend more on what you've habitually come to feel satisfied with.

Has a national fat tax been done anywhere?  Yes, in 2011 Denmark implemented a fat tax.  Is it having an affect?  Yes, people are shopping for cheaper junk food in adjacent countries with cross-border shopping.  Denmark is now considering repealing the fat tax.

The question I have; is a fat tax likely to be a major player in reducing obesity amongst Canadians?  It will be, if the tax is so high that junk food simply costs far too much forcing people to make a decision that isn't necessarily out of careful contemplation but rather through punitive big brother influence.  That's a bit Orwellian. 

I may be jumping the gun there with suggesting that we're all smart enough to make our own correct, self preserving decisions where our health is concerned.  It doesn't appear as though this is the case.  If it were we wouldn't see an obesity epidemic. We wouldn't see the vast majority of the population wilfully living in a way that causes them to develop all the unhealthy outcomes known to be associated with being overweight.  I mean, how much sense does it make to eat ourselves into heart disease? So maybe we do need the government to tell us what to do. 

Or maybe it isn't as simple as someone telling you what to do.  Maybe once you start overeating it's hard to stop because of hormonal changes and habituated behaviors.

What is the real driver for buying junk food?

How about because it tastes good?  How about because eating unhealthy is an indoctrinated social norm?

There is still a lot of work to do on smoking.  The reason for smoking being on the way out is because of the multi-pronged approach of increased taxes, reduced advertising, education, and of course the change in how smoking is depicted in entertainment media. Except for period specific shows like Mad Men, modern depictions of smokers in movies is that of the evil character or a duffus.  Was it mainly the high taxes, or was it a change in social acceptance that provoked smokers to quit and potential new smokers not to start?

When I smoked the cost was not an issue. Sure, it was an expensive habit but my interpretation of the value of smoking was such that I justified the cost.  Out of all the X-smokers that I've spoken to, very few say they quit because it was costing too much.  Nobody has told me they quit because of the pictures on the packages, but I'm sure at least a few have.

Most quit because they came to realize that smoking wasn't a very smart thing to do, what with the self inflicted harm and all.

Smoking is now viewed as a turn off.  It stinks, it's messy, and has a "I'm not too bright, and I'm indignant towards you and your "fresh air"" stigma attached to it.  Smokers aren't cool anymore, they're a bit of a social scourge who's haplessness is often forgiven because we understand the burden of addiction. 

The habit of overeating still enjoys social support.  You have a box of donuts and you're everyone's friend.  Try that with a box of cigarettes. Or a box of carrots.  You'll get a few takers for the smokes and carrots, but you'll get a mob line up for the donuts.  Chips and donuts; we've bought in, and bought in like Bernie Madoff customers.. the deal is too good to be true, but the reward of overeating is more appealing than the health bankruptcy it will cause, so we make friends with Bernie.

Like smoking, maybe overeating needs a long time to be recognized as the health hammering waste of chewing that it is.  Maybe we do need these tax initiatives that we initially balk at but over time people will relent to the cost and the public awareness campaign.

Or maybe the tax bit is the lesser of influences and change in public perception through awareness campaigns and reduced images of and reduced support of celebrating overeating will be the winner.

I would think that less advertising of high calorie foods and more public awareness of letting people know that eating a 10 oz steak is about as smart as wanting to develop type II diabetes, would have more affect than taxing junk food (which is already taxed).

I understand the reasons for a fat tax, but this isn't the first place I'd go.  I think it's a tax grab, and not very well thought out.  It's worth mentioning again that healthy food has had zero tax for decades, and junk food has been taxed for decades.  Obesity has increased every year for decades despite zero tax on healthy foods, and tax on junk foods.  How is this a new idea, and why do people think it will work? 

We eat too much, and have put far too much social and personal acceptance into celebrating and self gratifying via eating too much.  We need a big slap in the face.  Will the OMA's plan be the slap we need?

Maybe.  I know a lot of people will jump on board with feelings of social superiority and will happily retail the idea that fat taxes and pictures of diseased bodies on bags of chips is the obvious answer, but these people wont be thinking of the person on a fixed income who already puts back the milk so they can drink pop, or the low income smoker who already chooses to pay for the death darts instead of healthy food.

I like the fact the Ontario Medical Association is getting a lot of traction in the press with this issue only in that it gets people talking about how we eat too much junk food and aught to do something about it.  I don't like the fact that the OMA didn't do their homework before presenting their ideas.

Maybe merely threatening a fat tax is the OMA's savvy strategy to get people thinking about and discussing the larger issue, and they don't actually want a fat tax. That's a huge stretch though and I'm giving the OMA too much credit for being so wise.  No, the OMA is most likely as it appears to be on this issue; hapless meddlers using their platform to show everyone how heroic they think they are.  Too bad because you'd think educated physicians would get their facts straight before going public with something so important.

Why we fall for diet and exercise myths

Slow metabolism makes weight loss difficult, preventing many from losing weight

It's hard to get vitamins and minerals from food, we need pills

To get fit, we need exercise that beats the hell out of us

Carbs make you fat

Let me demolish these four myths

The power and durability of the common urban myth is often greater than what the truth is.  While disassembling urban myths gives me personal short term gratification because it makes me feel like I'm making a difference in the world by conquering the dark side, the satisfaction I feel is undeserved because in reality I'm not making much of dent.. I'm up against something bigger than me.  Who, or what, is keeping these myths alive?

Is it big brother?  Big fast food?  A cult movement? Darth Vader?

Nope.  It's a 3 pound gelatinous mass that has infested 100% of humans, and we can't get rid of it.

The human brain.

Dum dum duuummm!  - that's dramatic music, not a slag against dumb brains.  Although that works too.

I have been told that my brain is up my um.. well you know where.   I'm not sure if this is a genetic trait or perhaps I have an advanced mutation that occurs in higher (or lower) thinking evolving humans.  Wherever the location, the brain is bit of a busybody recluse doing a heck of a lot of work behind the scenes, often to our detriment.

Don't believe me?  Ever tried finding your keys?  You would think your brain could remember this one simple value.   Even when you nail a key hook to the wall, there is no guarantee that your brain will remember that this is where keys go, and confoundingly, when keys are placed there, your brain won't remember putting them there.

Brain

Brain in denial. 

Myths play to our denials

Denial ; something we do when it's too hard to face reality. The brain is really, really good at denial.  In fact studies have shown that when we're presented with plane, easy to understand facts that refute our current beliefs our brains go into "FU" (False Understanding) mode and our belief in that which is clearly wrong is strengthened.

We humans can be somewhat stubborn when trying to get a grip on reality, and we have a lot of historical boondoggles to show for it.

It seems our natural instinct is to deny facts.  More facts?  Bring on more myths to support our denial.

"Cris, you should quit smoking".  Did I like hearing that?  My defence?

Get angry with the person (redirect away from subject of me smoking).

Make up some crap about them meddling with my life (redirect).

Claim that is hasn't hurt me so far (denial), that lot's of old people smoke and they're not dead yet (redirect/ denial of how it affects me personally).

Demonize the person delivering the message (so I could make it feel easier to discredit their quit smoking concerns).

Having been in denial of reality and a believer of some these myths myself I can say I know exactly where the myth believers are at.

If my writing style had the talent of brevity I might write something like, "You're all wrong.  Cut the crap and get real.  You'll be better off.".. I could make this would a one line blog entry.

I'm not so talented though so I make satirical references hoping that that my cro-mag humour will lull you into reading more of my stuff.

On with the myth busting..

Slow metabolism makes losing weight more difficult.

It's difficult to change our habits and eat less and exercise more to lose weight, but a slow metabolism isn't one of the things working against us; slow metabolism causing weight gain is a myth.

What's more work; walking up stairs carrying just yourself, or walking up stairs carrying 40 pounds of bricks?

Of course it could be 40 pounds of anything, but hey, bricks sound heavier.

The more we weigh the more energy we expend to move our bodies around.  Comparing our lean selves to our extra weight selves, the extra weight version will always expend more energy doing the same tasks.  Even sitting down relaxing is more energy intensive when we weigh more.

Our breathing muscles have to work harder to move the extra mass on our upper bodies to allow our ribs to expand to fill the lungs.  When resting metabolism is measured the heavier versions of ourselves will always burn more calories at rest than the leaner version.

Resting metabolism increases as body fat increases, the exact opposite of the myth that suggests weight gain slows metabolism.

"Whoa, whoa there Cris.  OK fine, calories in calories out.. whatever.  You can't seriously be in denial of true health disorders that actually do reduce metabolism can you?

Ever heard of hypothyroidism? Look who's in denial now!

Gotcha Cris!"

I put that in here because I've actually had people say those words to me.

Here's an excerpt from the American Thyroid Associations brochure on Thyroid and Weight

"In general, 5-10 pounds of body weight may be attributable to the thyroid,

depending on the severity of the hypothyroidism. Finally, if weight gain

is the only symptom of hypothyroidism that is

present, it is less likely that the weight gain is

solely due to the thyroid."

Hypothyroidism does not cause excess fat gain.  Most of the weight gain that occurs with hypothyroidism is water mass. If a persons primary complaint is excess weight gain, Hypothyroidism will not be a suspect for the weight gain, even if Hypothyroidism is diagnosed.  Eating too much and not enough physical activity will be suspect.

Here are the facts for all to deny..

[Obesity and hypothyroidism: myth or reality?]. [Rev Med Suisse. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

Weight loss after therapy of hypothy... [J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

The only way to gain excess body fat is to eat too much, hypothyroidism alone cannot cause extra fat to accumulate in the human body.. that is in fact, an urban myth, a myth to support the denial of overeating.  This myth drives peoples creativity to generate other myths, such as believing there are special foods or food combinations that will speed up metabolism, or special exercise routines that increase metabolism after exercise.  Admitting to ourselves and others that we eat too much can feel bad, so we deny we eat too much.

If our daily energy expenditure reduces, we need to eat less to match the reduced energy expenditure.  Hypothyroidism can make people feel tired and less likely to be active. Less activity means fewer calories expended.  If a person develops hypothyroidism and becomes less active, but doesn't eat less to compensate, fat gain will occur from eating more calories than expended.

Only about 4 to 5% of the population has hypothyroidism so thyroid problems can't be the main driver for 60 to 70% of the population being overweight.  But due to the pervasiveness of the thyroid and metabolism myth, many people will self-diagnose themselves as having some kind of metabolism challenge as the root cause of their weight gain.  When facts are presented showing that this is really not the case, many can feel like they're being attacked and dismissed . What's really happening is their brains are refusing the new information, they're in denial, and they want to stay in denial by perceiving others as picking on them.

I'm not talking about the unacceptable nonsense of teasing someone because they are overweight or skinny for that matter.  I'm talking about straight talk about why we eat too much.  I wish the social stigma of overeating wasn't so strong, that would make it feel more comfortable talking about a problem that affects so many of us.

Here's a study that revealed why diet resistant people were not losing weight.

Discrepancy between self-reported and actual ca... [N Engl J Med. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

The study examined obese people who "perceived a genetic cause for their obesity, used thyroid medication at a high frequency, and described their eating behaviour as relatively normal." However the researchers revealed these study subjects underreported their food intake by 47% and over-reported physical activity by 51%.

Study conclusions: The failure of some obese subjects to lose weight while eating a diet they report as low in calories is due to an energy intake substantially higher than reported and an overestimation of physical activity, not to an abnormality in thermogenesis.

They ate too much and didn't exercise enough and were in denial of this reality, to support this denial they bought into the myth of a genetic problem causing slow metabolism, causing weight gain. It's a difficult place to be.  Difficult to talk about openly.  That's one of the principal assets of denial; it's a protective mechanism that allows us not to face an uncomfortable truth.

That's how myths survive.  Myths play to our denials and play up our unrealistic hopes.  Diet and exercise myths tell us that eating too much didn't cause our weight gain.  Myths tell us to engage in crazy short term exercise plans because long term plans feel too daunting and we don't want to face that reality.  Long term exercise plans are actually not daunting but in reality are continually rewarding and liberating as we continue to increase fitness long term.

Hard to get vitamins and minerals from food

Here's a nutrient profile from a day of my own eating.

Here's what I ate

I actually ate a little more than this.  I ate a banana, some dried figs and apricots, and a homemade chocolate muffin.  The reason I didn't include these in the above analyses is I wanted to show that you can get all the vitamins and minerals you need in a day by eating fewer than 2000 calories in a day.  Most people wanting to lose weight will need their daily caloric intake to be between 1500 and 2500 calories, depending on their weight and activity level.  It's important to eat healthy nutrient dense foods, especially when reducing calories to lose weight.  Less food means chance to get the nutrients you need.

I am not at all saying that people have to eat what I ate here.  I'm simply demonstrating that we can get all the vitamins and minerals we need from food we buy at the grocery store.  The food I ate here requires minimal prep time, which addresses another myth; eating healthy takes too much time.

There are many ways to change up the variety of foods to get the same or better nutrient profile.

It took me 10 minutes to enter the foods I ate into eatracker, a free online diet analyses tool.  It took me longer the first time, but I've got the hang of it now.

Vitamin D is the exception here.  Research shows that people living above the 49th parallel most likely need daily Vitamin D3 supplements.  

 To get fit, we need exercise that beats the hell out of us

This myth comes from many places, one of the more common is from athletics.  No doubt; we can't develop peak athletic ability without pushing hard, really hard.  This leads many to jump the gun and superimpose elite athlete training onto those with little or no developmental training.

To gain performance we need to push hard, but only when we're trained enough to handle it otherwise injury and overtraining occur.

Not everyone is into trying to develop performance.  Why then are the majority of fitness programs based on killer gut busting workouts?  Because that's what sells.  It's a good business model.

Many believe in the myth that you have to exercise really hard and feel really sore to get a worthy workout.  Why not sell people what they believe they want?  This keeps the myth going.

The truth is productive exercise is moderate to easy most of the time, only reserving the more challenging workouts for when we're durable enough to do hard work, or when we're recovered enough from our last hard effort.

Healthy productive exercise takes time and a gradual progression.  Since we want results yesterday, we create myths telling of fast results from "advanced" workouts.  These myths support our denial of the fact that it takes months and years to get fit, not days or weeks.

Here are a few blog entries on the subject

Young athletes forced to train too much

Runners get injured, then incur another injury before healed

Too much too soon injures pro's and 1st timers alike

Carbs make you fat

Do people ever love this myth.  It serves many purposes.  Allows us to believe that we didn't overeat to gain weight, it's those damn carbs. It allows us to make double bacon and egg sandwiches and laugh at those "nuts" eating veggies.  News flash.. only eating too much causes weight gain.  It doesn't matter if its carbs, fat, or protein.

Cut the high fructose corn syrup, pop, and high sugar snacks?  You bet, but don't toss the whole grains, fruits, veggies, beans, legumes, and potatoes.

If you cut out most of your carbs, What does that mean? No really, what is that?  Well if your daily carb rich muffin has 300 calories in it, and your daily white bread daily has another 300 calories, and that serving of rice, pasta, or potato each have 200 calories, and you're cutting all that out you're.. wait for it..

Cutting hundreds of calories per day!

Let's take a look at a typical low carb diet day..

These meals were taken off a "low carb" recipe web site. Although this day of food intake is a few hundred calories more than my own intake detailed above, it doesn't deliver all the vitamins and minerals that mine did, it comes up short on meeting daily needs.  That's what happens when you cut out or dramatically reduce carbohydrate sources; you drop a primary source of vital nutrients.  As expected though, the nutrients found in meats and fish are in abundance. Don't be going into denial and say, "look at those five nutrients! They're off the chart!  Low carb must be good."  This warped perspective is expected though, based on what we know about our ability to deny objective facts so we can sustain our current beliefs.

Sure, 5 nutrients are delivered in spades, but 8 come up short.  We will choose to deny the significance of over half of our nutrients needs not being met by focusing on information that supports our denial.

What I found most interesting is that the website I took these recipes from claimed that each day of meals delivered fewer than 20 grams of carbs per day, as 20 grams of carbs per day is supposedly the magic number for carb intake.  When analyzed though, the actual amount of carbs is double what is claimed.  Should I be surprised that a website supporting a myth based diet has incorrect data on it?

Typically low carb diets emphasize fats and proteins.  Interestingly a person would have a better chance of losing weight eating my diet compared to the low carb diet as mine had fewer calories.

My carb sources were whole grains, fruits, and veggies.  No refined sugars except what occurs in the multigrain bread, but this is insignificant.

Low carb extremists have become slightly more savvy since the typical low carb diet has been publicly eviscerated and its nutrient deprived profile revealed for all to see.  The modern low carb diet has more veggies and more carbs in it than the traditional (but still popular) variant I've used here.

So what does that mean?  Does that mean after decades of the validity of the low carb diet being hammered by the facts, the low carb'ers finally started to see past the myth and thus alter the low carb diet by what..  Increasing carbs via more veggies, grains, and fruits?  Say it ain't so.  Give it a couple more decades of maturing and the low carb diet will evolve into a normal diet.

The basic slight of hand (or mouth) scam of the low carb diet is diverting your attention from calories in/ out and focussing on carbohydrates.  In reality you're cutting calories. 

If you cut out hundreds of calories daily you're going to lose weight so long as you eat fewer calories than you expend.

The low carb restrictive diet isn't sustainable. The science shows that most people eventually gravitate back to eating the way they did before and gain back all the weight they lost plus more.

So if the low carb thing is a myth, why do so many fall for it?  Why do people keep smoking?  Why do people buy snake oil?  Why do smart people make dumb decisions?

It's the brain!  Blame it on the brain.  Once we humans believe something, it's near impossible, despite good evidence, to change that belief.  Our brains also get used to reward seeking patterns and if our brain knows we're going to feel rewarded from high doses of fat, salt, and sugar, then that is what we will crave.

If we've developed a habit, it can be very hard to quit because our brains are wired to keep it up, even if it's bad for us.  So is this denial as well?  It's not me, it's my brain?  Sure, this could definitely be used as an excuse to not change.. but it is our brain, and ultimately we can make efforts that do make for long term positive outcomes

Eating less and exercising are not actually all that difficult.  What is difficult is overcoming our prejudice, being myopic, old habits, wired in reward seeking, and our denial of reality.

I've repeated bad habits enough that they became wired in my brain; smoking, overeating, and exercising too much.  I also practiced not doing these things, and making better choices.  And like the stats suggest, I failed many times before I succeeded, but I did succeed and so have many others. It can be done.

That's the great thing about the brain, neuroplasticity is an adaptive asset of the brain.  It can change.  In fact the brain is just as good at changing as it is at maintaining the status quo.  All it needs is consistency  with the new thoughts and practices and it will change, we will change.  Living healthy can and does feel like a relief from living by these crazy urban myths.