A report in the New England Journal of Medicine is getting a lot of press mainly because of it's refutal of a purported myth about sex and calorie burning. Sex works good for headlines and attention grabbing.
I'll bust the so called myth busting. The report is partially almost accurate in a sort-of-maybe way.
I don't know what the intention of the report was, but most of the conclusions it draws are contrived and not evidence based. Which is a rather pathetic irony since the study authors are fairly boisterous about presenting their report as being a myth buster pointing out common myths about weight loss and weight gain.
The report identifies "7 obesity-related myths":
Small changes in exercise or food consumption will add up over time resulting in weight loss.
They challenge the idea that if someone burns 100 calories in a day that over 35 days they will lose a pound of fat, apparently debunking the "myth" that 3500 calories equates to a pound of fat.
It is true that, in isolation, if someone were to eat 100 calories less or burn off 100 calories more every day that no actual weight change may occur. A person might even gain weight.
Here's how the reports take on this is sneaky..
The reality is a significant caloric deficit is required to lose fat. Nothing else can cause fat loss.
Will eating 100 calories per day less do this? Not if a person is overeating by 300 calories per day and they cut back by 100. They'd still be overeating by 200 calories per day.
Pretty sneaky. Because this is true, these researchers can make the claim that a small reduction in calories added up over time wont cause weight loss.
Yeah.
They also make the point that if you do reduce calories in - out so you do have a long period of caloric deficit and you do lose weight, the rate of weight loss will eventually level out because when you weigh less your caloric needs are less so what was a calorie deficit when you were heavier is no longer a calorie deficit at a lighter weight.
Therefore, these researchers say, it is a myth that sustained caloric deficits cause sustained weight loss.
You know that feeling when someone says something that is a flat out lie, but at the moment you can't say anything about it, and you feel that stressed, anxious feeling in your gut? You want to expose the liar, but you can't?
Thats what I feel when I'm typing out what these researchers reasoning is. I hate that feeling. Fortunately I can say something about this flat out, and utterly bizarre lie.
First, a person who is losing weight consuming fewer calories than expended is obviously successfully losing weight. There is no myth here.
Second, if by the time what amounted to a deficit now becomes equal calories in - out the person still needs to lose weight, the obvious course of action is to eat less or exercise more to create a caloric deficit again.
For example, if a person weighed 250 lb. and with their daily activity needed 2500 calories per day to maintain their weight, eating 2000 to 2300 calories per day would provide a reasonable caloric deficit and they would lose weight.
Once they lost around 20 lb. though, they would have less mass to push around for the day so their calories needed to maintain weight would no longer be the same as when they weighed 250 lb.
The 2000 - 2300 calories per day would need to be adjusted to account for the weight loss, if more weight loss was needed. 1800 calories per day might be the new daily intake they need.
Here's the reality check that this report failed bring to readers attention:
It's already known that a persons mass, how much they weigh, is a primary variable in figuring out how much food energy they need to consume. Obviously if someone weighs less the daily needs value for a previous heavier weight would no longer apply. We know this. There is no myth here.
The only grain of truth is that it is unrealistic to expect dropping 20 calories from your daily intake is going to add up to any significant weight loss. Don't be thinking that not putting a spoonful of sugar in your coffee is going to translate into real weight loss over time.. it wont. The amount is too small. The normal variability of how much we eat and move in a day is far greater than 20 calories, so we can't add up small calorie changes over time.
Myth about myth, busted.
Establishment of realistic weight goals
Apparently because they found two studies where some people lost weight with aggressive weight loss goals, that somehow nullifies all those who have successfully lost weight with smaller more achievable goals.
The reality is that for most people, small, moderately challenging goals over longer periods result in greater long term success than trying rapid weight loss.
For the majority of people smaller goals, like losing 5 - 6 pounds every month or two provides a better result that trying for 2 pounds every week.
It's great that some can have success with a more aggressive approach and if someone has the personality type that can do this, that's great, but more people lose weight successfully more slowly over longer periods.
Myth of myth, busted.
Weight loss readiness
If people have been thinking about weight loss for a long time but never acted on it, but then reached a state where they felt motivated to act on losing weight, their "readiness" does not guarantee success in weight loss.
No, it isn't a guarantee of success, it's a guarantee of a start.
This one is so twisted. It doesn't even make sense. I really have to wonder what is on these researchers minds to even say what they said about this. It's non sequitur.
There is no claim that state of readiness guarantees weight loss success, so it can't be claimed that this is a myth.
If a person feels ready to start losing weight on their own or to seek help in doing so, they should.
Busted.
Phys-ed classes in school wont cause weight loss.. they're too short and the intensity is too low
This doesn't sound like myth busting. This sounds like pointing out a problem with not exercising enough. Also, it doesn't matter how much kids exercise in phys-ed class, if any person, child or adult, eats more than they burn off, weight loss will not occur. So if 400 calories is burned off in Phys - ed but a 1000 fast food lunch is consumed making for a calorie surplus for the day, the Phys - ed class wont have an obesity preventative affect. But this doesn't mean Phys -ed can't be part of the solution.
This one is almost agreeable. We shouldn't believe that a gym class will resolve childhood obesity.
A more complete approach of teaching the values of healthy living choices including eating less and getting the right amount of exercise is the right idea.
It isn't really a myth that phys - ed can't work though.
Breast feeing prevents obesity
Ok, this is a myth. Breastfeeding alone is too small a variable over a child's development to be a singular preventer of obesity.
Sex burns lots of calories
It depends. The researchers cited old studies that measured intimacy lasting about six minutes. If that's your metric then, no, sex will not be a big calorie burner.
Even if the deed is done for longer periods, on average the total calories burned during sex is not very high.
So this one is true, sex, on average, does not burn off a lot of calories, but, I'm sure there are some exceptions..
Cris LaBossiere
Strength training and mountain biking. My two favorites
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
One year of creatine supplementation: results
Nothing.
Nada.
Zilch.
After one year of creatine supplementation I experienced no change in how I adapt to exercise. My rate of gains in the gym and on the bike had no change. That is, the gains that I made were the same as what I usually expect to see with the training I do.
I tried a loading phase of 20g a day for a week followed by a daily maintenance dose of 5g/ day of pure creatine monohydrate. I always had a carb source when taking the creatine, much of the time grape juice. I cycled about 12 weeks on and 4-6 weeks off the creatine. I also tried a low dose long term loading phase 3-5g/ day for 10 weeks.
I tried pretty much every dosing regime I could find in the research. Not that there are a lot of loading protocols, there are really only two primary strategies; lower dose loading phase over a longer period and a high dose over a shorter period, followed by a maintenance phase. Maintenance phase is typically recommended to be between 3-6g per day.
I experienced no weight gain when I was on creatine, and no weight loss while cycling off creatine. I experienced no weight gain during the loading phase, where some research reports an approximate 1.5 - 3.5 pounds of water gain (creatine holds water with it in muscle cells).
I experienced no extra mass gain beyond what I would usually expect from strength training.
I experienced no added ability to do more repetitions, no increased power in a set, and no increase in the number of sets I could do before fatiguing. My sprint power on the bike did not improve beyond normal increases, nor did my ability to sustain short term power (30 to 90 seconds).
I'm not saying I trained and didn't get results, my performance did increase, but my rate of gain was unchanged from when I was not taking creatine.
I use a periodized strength training regime with repetition ranges 4-6, 8-12, and above 30. I compete in mountain biking so building huge mass is not an objective, but I do train to offset muscle loss from endurance sport, and to have a small net gain in mass as well, as I've lost mass in the past few years.
A few years ago I became quite ill and was not able to train for a few months, I was entirely sedentary with most days spent lying down. On my return to training my ability to train was low and took about a year to get back. Over this time my thigh girth measurement reduced from 61 (24in) to 53 cm (21.5 in). I also lost a couple centimetres off my biceps and chest (about 1 inch).
Before some readers take the view that I'm an endurance athlete and don't train for size, keep in mind that I lost mass due to atrophy from disuse, due to illness. I want that mass back, and I train hard (smart hard, not just hard), to get it, but since I am an endurance athlete I can't afford to dedicate myself to a muscle hypertrophy program exclusively. I expect to gain only 2 - 3 pounds of lean mass over a year of training, when considering that I have to train for mountain biking as well.
The original intent of creatine was not for mass gains, but rather for performance gains. Creatine is meant to increase creatine stores in the muscle. Creatine is used to generate energy rapidly for muscle contraction, over about an 8-15 second duration.
More creatine in the muscle theoretically would result in more energy production where shorts bursts of energy are required, such as in strength training or sprinting. Despite creatine not being intended to enhance mass gains, some research has suggested it may produce this effect, and most gym goers have the belief that mass gain is a primary benefit of creatine supplementation.
There was a time in my past, about 13 years ago, where I did less bike riding and hit the gym with the intent on putting on mass. Over 3 years I went from 180 lb at 6% body fat to 197 lb at 6% body fat.
I was still riding and doing some competing at the time, but I was tired of being the skinny cyclist and wanted some mass. I put on nearly 20 lb of lean muscle mass. Things have a funny way of changing and I wanted to be the skinny cyclists again. The bike bug returned and I went back down to 175 - 180 lb.
After being ill about 3 years ago my weight reduced to 162 lb. Right now I'm at 165 lb at 8% body fat.
When I first started competing in cycling back in the 1980's I weighed about 160 lb. I'm 6ft 2in.
I went to a Golds gym and asked a bodybuilder to help me get stronger and bigger muscles to help me sprint better. The bodybuilder had never trained an endurance athlete before and was pretty excited to take a shot at it. He helped me go from 160 lb to 171 lb over about a year and half. No supplements.
I have experience in gaining lean muscle successfully (no creatine), and I'm now training for mass again. My mass gains with creatine are not any greater than without creatine.
This makes sense because not all research on creatine shows that every person responds with performance or mass gain. I am clearly one who has no significant results.
I keep a detailed training log as well as a body measurements log with thigh, chest, calf, bicep, hip, and waist girth, as well as fat calipers skin folds and a high-end body fat scale.
For those who know me or have read my opinions on supplements you may be asking, 'Cris, why would you do creatine?' Isn't it true that I'm always on about how there really isn't any good research that shows 100% conclusively that any of these sports performance supplements do anything at all? Yes, that is my opinion. Actually it's not really an opinion, it's a research proven fact.
My main motivation to use creatine was so I could write about the experience.
I wanted to personalize what I wrote about creatine.
Going by the research, there really isn't any logical reason to believe that any of the so-called performance supplements are going to make a real significant gain in human performance. With a couple exceptions.. creatine and caffeine. Although far from a iron clad consensus, there are studies that show some people who take creatine or caffeine do exhibit a mild increase in sports and training performance.
The emphasis is, some people in some studies. Not all people in all studies. The reason why some people don't respond to creatine might be that their muscles already store maximal levels of creatine so supplementing creatine does not load any additional creatine into muscle cells. There may be other genetic reasons that aren't understood yet.
It could be that some studies that showed gains failed to use a study method that controlled for natural response rates to exercise between individuals. That is, some people respond to exercise to a greater degree than others and if this isn't considered some of the extra gains may be attributed to creatine when the gains were simply a natural response to training.
In studies that are not placebo controlled those on creatine may have a placebo response where they are expecting to feel more energetic when on creatine so this is how they behave.
Whatever the case, the take home here is that even with the two supplements that may contribute to performance, creatine and caffeine, neither may have any effect at all in you.
Nobody should expect to have miracle results from these pills or powders. If your friend tells you they got great results, that doesn't mean you will, and it doesn't mean their results were from the supplements.
They may have simply become more motivated to train because they were excited about being on a pill that makes them perform so they put more effort into their training.
When I tell people creatine will most likely not work for them so don't bother, a common comeback is, "how do you know it doesn't work, have you tried it?"
I don't need to try creatine to know if it works or doesn't. There is enough research showing the degree of response, if any, that can be expected from creatine. What's the possible practical outcome of taking creatine? If you're a responder you may squeak out a few more repetitions than usual compared to when not using creatine. You may extend the duration you can maintain short term high power output, perhaps by 5 to 10 seconds. If a person actually gets this result, that's pretty good; but few studies show this degree of response occurring, and no studies show this result occurring in all study subjects.
You will lose this extra performance once off creatine, but it's possible that after repeated cycles of creatine use a person may retain a degree of the benefit because the small extra training load resulted in a small permanent benefit.
A person is likely to increase performance in a competition to a greater extent with a good training taper, diligence with quality sleep and nutrition, and trigger point massage therapy, than they may achieve with creatine supplementation. We know that recuperative sleep, good nutrition, and proper recovery increase performance in everyone, every time. Creatine? Maybe, maybe not, and the degree may not be that great.
Reporting research findings isn't enough for many though. So now I can say, "yes, I tried creatine and I gave it an honest try, for one year, and it did nothing."
My post exercise nutrition is usually a 250 to 500 ml serving of 1% chocolate milk, sometimes with whey protein added so I can get about 25g of protein post workout. Most of my protein comes from food, about 20-40 grams on some days come from pure unflavoured whey protein for convenience. I consume about 130 -140 grams of protein each day when training.
I'm now starting a caffeine study of one on myself. I'll be following researched caffeine loading protocols that reported the greatest effect. I will be taking caffeine pills since the research shows the pills have a better effect (if any) compared to consuming coffee or caffeinated beverages.
I don't drink coffee or anything caffeinated. I don't agree with caffeine supplementation for sports performance. As with creatine I want to report on my personal experience. Caffeine and creatine are the two most popular, legal supplements that people use to improve their performance. I want to see if they make a difference in me. Maybe yes, maybe no. No for creatine.
Creatine did nothing for me. Stay tuned for my report on caffeine.
Did I take the wrong creatine? What about other types? How about buffered creatine? There are no studies that show conclusively that creatine other than creatine monohydrate work any better than creatine monohydrate.
Should anyone use creatine? I'm not sold on the idea. I say train healthy with the right work to recovery ratio, sleep healthy, and eat healthy. Stay consistant, and expect small gains over long periods that add up to large gains. That strategy will take you where you want to go, whatever level you're at.
Avoid dependancy on pills and promises, train healthy, eat healthy.
Here's some phone camera pics of me.. Sorry.. Some day I'll get some good high res pics. I expect to put on a few pounds over the next year.. I'll post those pics at that time.
I'm not a strength athlete so I'm not a huge guy, but I'm doing not so bad for an endurance athlete. I'm 46 old.
International Center for Sports Nutrition PDF on creatine
Wikipedia creatine
Nada.
Zilch.
After one year of creatine supplementation I experienced no change in how I adapt to exercise. My rate of gains in the gym and on the bike had no change. That is, the gains that I made were the same as what I usually expect to see with the training I do.
I tried a loading phase of 20g a day for a week followed by a daily maintenance dose of 5g/ day of pure creatine monohydrate. I always had a carb source when taking the creatine, much of the time grape juice. I cycled about 12 weeks on and 4-6 weeks off the creatine. I also tried a low dose long term loading phase 3-5g/ day for 10 weeks.
I tried pretty much every dosing regime I could find in the research. Not that there are a lot of loading protocols, there are really only two primary strategies; lower dose loading phase over a longer period and a high dose over a shorter period, followed by a maintenance phase. Maintenance phase is typically recommended to be between 3-6g per day.
I experienced no weight gain when I was on creatine, and no weight loss while cycling off creatine. I experienced no weight gain during the loading phase, where some research reports an approximate 1.5 - 3.5 pounds of water gain (creatine holds water with it in muscle cells).
I experienced no extra mass gain beyond what I would usually expect from strength training.
I experienced no added ability to do more repetitions, no increased power in a set, and no increase in the number of sets I could do before fatiguing. My sprint power on the bike did not improve beyond normal increases, nor did my ability to sustain short term power (30 to 90 seconds).
I'm not saying I trained and didn't get results, my performance did increase, but my rate of gain was unchanged from when I was not taking creatine.
I use a periodized strength training regime with repetition ranges 4-6, 8-12, and above 30. I compete in mountain biking so building huge mass is not an objective, but I do train to offset muscle loss from endurance sport, and to have a small net gain in mass as well, as I've lost mass in the past few years.
A few years ago I became quite ill and was not able to train for a few months, I was entirely sedentary with most days spent lying down. On my return to training my ability to train was low and took about a year to get back. Over this time my thigh girth measurement reduced from 61 (24in) to 53 cm (21.5 in). I also lost a couple centimetres off my biceps and chest (about 1 inch).
Before some readers take the view that I'm an endurance athlete and don't train for size, keep in mind that I lost mass due to atrophy from disuse, due to illness. I want that mass back, and I train hard (smart hard, not just hard), to get it, but since I am an endurance athlete I can't afford to dedicate myself to a muscle hypertrophy program exclusively. I expect to gain only 2 - 3 pounds of lean mass over a year of training, when considering that I have to train for mountain biking as well.
The original intent of creatine was not for mass gains, but rather for performance gains. Creatine is meant to increase creatine stores in the muscle. Creatine is used to generate energy rapidly for muscle contraction, over about an 8-15 second duration.
More creatine in the muscle theoretically would result in more energy production where shorts bursts of energy are required, such as in strength training or sprinting. Despite creatine not being intended to enhance mass gains, some research has suggested it may produce this effect, and most gym goers have the belief that mass gain is a primary benefit of creatine supplementation.
There was a time in my past, about 13 years ago, where I did less bike riding and hit the gym with the intent on putting on mass. Over 3 years I went from 180 lb at 6% body fat to 197 lb at 6% body fat.
I was still riding and doing some competing at the time, but I was tired of being the skinny cyclist and wanted some mass. I put on nearly 20 lb of lean muscle mass. Things have a funny way of changing and I wanted to be the skinny cyclists again. The bike bug returned and I went back down to 175 - 180 lb.
After being ill about 3 years ago my weight reduced to 162 lb. Right now I'm at 165 lb at 8% body fat.
When I first started competing in cycling back in the 1980's I weighed about 160 lb. I'm 6ft 2in.
I went to a Golds gym and asked a bodybuilder to help me get stronger and bigger muscles to help me sprint better. The bodybuilder had never trained an endurance athlete before and was pretty excited to take a shot at it. He helped me go from 160 lb to 171 lb over about a year and half. No supplements.
I have experience in gaining lean muscle successfully (no creatine), and I'm now training for mass again. My mass gains with creatine are not any greater than without creatine.
This makes sense because not all research on creatine shows that every person responds with performance or mass gain. I am clearly one who has no significant results.
I keep a detailed training log as well as a body measurements log with thigh, chest, calf, bicep, hip, and waist girth, as well as fat calipers skin folds and a high-end body fat scale.
For those who know me or have read my opinions on supplements you may be asking, 'Cris, why would you do creatine?' Isn't it true that I'm always on about how there really isn't any good research that shows 100% conclusively that any of these sports performance supplements do anything at all? Yes, that is my opinion. Actually it's not really an opinion, it's a research proven fact.
My main motivation to use creatine was so I could write about the experience.
I wanted to personalize what I wrote about creatine.
Going by the research, there really isn't any logical reason to believe that any of the so-called performance supplements are going to make a real significant gain in human performance. With a couple exceptions.. creatine and caffeine. Although far from a iron clad consensus, there are studies that show some people who take creatine or caffeine do exhibit a mild increase in sports and training performance.
The emphasis is, some people in some studies. Not all people in all studies. The reason why some people don't respond to creatine might be that their muscles already store maximal levels of creatine so supplementing creatine does not load any additional creatine into muscle cells. There may be other genetic reasons that aren't understood yet.
It could be that some studies that showed gains failed to use a study method that controlled for natural response rates to exercise between individuals. That is, some people respond to exercise to a greater degree than others and if this isn't considered some of the extra gains may be attributed to creatine when the gains were simply a natural response to training.
In studies that are not placebo controlled those on creatine may have a placebo response where they are expecting to feel more energetic when on creatine so this is how they behave.
Whatever the case, the take home here is that even with the two supplements that may contribute to performance, creatine and caffeine, neither may have any effect at all in you.
Nobody should expect to have miracle results from these pills or powders. If your friend tells you they got great results, that doesn't mean you will, and it doesn't mean their results were from the supplements.
They may have simply become more motivated to train because they were excited about being on a pill that makes them perform so they put more effort into their training.
When I tell people creatine will most likely not work for them so don't bother, a common comeback is, "how do you know it doesn't work, have you tried it?"
I don't need to try creatine to know if it works or doesn't. There is enough research showing the degree of response, if any, that can be expected from creatine. What's the possible practical outcome of taking creatine? If you're a responder you may squeak out a few more repetitions than usual compared to when not using creatine. You may extend the duration you can maintain short term high power output, perhaps by 5 to 10 seconds. If a person actually gets this result, that's pretty good; but few studies show this degree of response occurring, and no studies show this result occurring in all study subjects.
You will lose this extra performance once off creatine, but it's possible that after repeated cycles of creatine use a person may retain a degree of the benefit because the small extra training load resulted in a small permanent benefit.
A person is likely to increase performance in a competition to a greater extent with a good training taper, diligence with quality sleep and nutrition, and trigger point massage therapy, than they may achieve with creatine supplementation. We know that recuperative sleep, good nutrition, and proper recovery increase performance in everyone, every time. Creatine? Maybe, maybe not, and the degree may not be that great.
Reporting research findings isn't enough for many though. So now I can say, "yes, I tried creatine and I gave it an honest try, for one year, and it did nothing."
My post exercise nutrition is usually a 250 to 500 ml serving of 1% chocolate milk, sometimes with whey protein added so I can get about 25g of protein post workout. Most of my protein comes from food, about 20-40 grams on some days come from pure unflavoured whey protein for convenience. I consume about 130 -140 grams of protein each day when training.
I'm now starting a caffeine study of one on myself. I'll be following researched caffeine loading protocols that reported the greatest effect. I will be taking caffeine pills since the research shows the pills have a better effect (if any) compared to consuming coffee or caffeinated beverages.
I don't drink coffee or anything caffeinated. I don't agree with caffeine supplementation for sports performance. As with creatine I want to report on my personal experience. Caffeine and creatine are the two most popular, legal supplements that people use to improve their performance. I want to see if they make a difference in me. Maybe yes, maybe no. No for creatine.
Creatine did nothing for me. Stay tuned for my report on caffeine.
Did I take the wrong creatine? What about other types? How about buffered creatine? There are no studies that show conclusively that creatine other than creatine monohydrate work any better than creatine monohydrate.
Should anyone use creatine? I'm not sold on the idea. I say train healthy with the right work to recovery ratio, sleep healthy, and eat healthy. Stay consistant, and expect small gains over long periods that add up to large gains. That strategy will take you where you want to go, whatever level you're at.
Avoid dependancy on pills and promises, train healthy, eat healthy.
Here's some phone camera pics of me.. Sorry.. Some day I'll get some good high res pics. I expect to put on a few pounds over the next year.. I'll post those pics at that time.
I'm not a strength athlete so I'm not a huge guy, but I'm doing not so bad for an endurance athlete. I'm 46 old.
International Center for Sports Nutrition PDF on creatine
Wikipedia creatine
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Donuts vs apples: which make you happier?
Study shows eating fruits and veggies every day makes you happier..
It's one of my favorite questions. For most people given the choice of a plate of glazed donuts or a plate of veggies; most will reach for the donuts with a smile and anticipated gratification.
A plate of fruit tends to fair a little better than its veggie friends against the donuts, but donuts or similar confectionaries typically win. Interestingly many may even treat the plate full of fruits and veggies as a joke, speaking and thinking disparagingly about it while at the same time showing an almost religious preference for the junk food.
Research shows us that the flavours and associated reward stimulating effects of high fat, sugar, and salt foods habituates us to such foods. Our brains remember how good the instant gratification was the last time we ate this stuff so the next time the chance comes along the brains reward seeking chemistry kicks in and we feel compeled to eat the fatty, sugary, salty food, and when we do the reward centres in our brains have a bit of a freak out.
That's why we say, "OMG, I can't believe how good this tastes", we don't say that when we eat broccoli, even when we really like broccoli. Fruits and veggies don't have the concentration of fat, sugars, and salt to stimulate our brains reward centres to that degree. We get a delivery of feel good dopamine more quickly and more profoundly from junk foods than from healthier choices.
Instant gratification; powerful instant gratification. If you've ever wondered why these foods make us feel this way, that's why.
Studies also show a negative after affect; when high calorie foods are over consumed feelings of regret or even guilt will develop as the person reflects on what we also know about these foods: they're not the best choice where our health and well being are concerned.
A cycle ensues where to help placate negative emotions, or to repeat the reward, seeking out rewarding foods is done. So, during the moment you're eating crap your rational thinking is distracted by the food stimulating your reward centres. Later the negative feelings return because eating didn't do anything to address the underlying causes of feeling bad, and also because once the "high" from eating junk has passed, you realize that you've just done yourself more harm through overeating. To deal with this, many will feel compelled to overeat again, feeling like they're caught in a helpless trap.
What if healthy food choices could also feel rewarding; but not have the guilt afterwards?
In the Jan 2013 issue of the British Journal of Health Psychology, Authors Bonnie White et al found that on days people reported feeling good they had also consumed greater amounts of fruit and veggies, or had consumed more f's and v's the day prior.
7-8 servings of fruits and veggies daily predicted study subjects reporting greater emotional well being the next day. The study was modeled in such a way that researchers were able to show that it wasn't that feeling good lead to eating more fruits and veggies, but rather that eating more fruits and veggies lead to feeling good.
My own experience is that when I eat healthy I feel more deeply gratified because not only does the food taste good, but I know I've done myself good instead of harm.
It took me a while to figure out that if I avoided the overdoing it with junk food, I no longer had to contend with the negative emotional after affect, or the weight gain that went with it.
It was in realizing that this intense reward association from crap food was really more of a narcotic effect that anything else that allowed me to realize, "Ok, I get why this junk food makes me feel this way, but I don't need to feel this way in order to be satisfied or happy with eating."
It was the same as realizing that at the moment smoking a cigarette provided a sense of reward, but that I didn't need the smoking reward in order to feel good, and that the long term negative effects of smoking crushed any fleeting moments of satisfaction it would bring.
Overal healthy eating makes us feel better not only because we will factually become physically healthier because of it, but because healthy eating doesn't have emotional baggage that comes with it.
Eating fruits and veggies daily and avoiding overeating doesn't appear to have the ability to contribute to feeling bad, it can only make you feel good.
Scientific proof that eating apples makes you feel good. Gotta love that!
I've always felt better when I'm fit, at a healthy weight, and active. This makes sense because exercise and fitness have been shown to positively affect mood, ability to cope with stress, have fewer colds, provide better sleep, and many other positive benefits.
Changing to healthy habits can be daunting for many though because it seems like such a diversion from living with unhealthy choices, and because of habituation, the unhealthy choices, ironically, are perceived as feeling more familiar and more comfortable. Adding to the challenge to change are all the myths out there about how hard exercise has to be (it doesn't), and how "strict" so called "dieting" has to be. None of this is true, but when these myths are believed, most people feel like changing is going to be unrewarding and difficult.
The rewards are great though, especially dropping the ball and chain of being tied to relentless overeating and lack of physical activity.
Eating fruits and veggies, reducing calories, being active, and maintaining a healthy weight really do make you truly happy.
You have nothing to lose, so go for it.
Many apples a day keep the blues away – Daily experiences of negative and positive affect and food consumption in young adults - PsychSource
It's one of my favorite questions. For most people given the choice of a plate of glazed donuts or a plate of veggies; most will reach for the donuts with a smile and anticipated gratification.
Research shows us that the flavours and associated reward stimulating effects of high fat, sugar, and salt foods habituates us to such foods. Our brains remember how good the instant gratification was the last time we ate this stuff so the next time the chance comes along the brains reward seeking chemistry kicks in and we feel compeled to eat the fatty, sugary, salty food, and when we do the reward centres in our brains have a bit of a freak out.
That's why we say, "OMG, I can't believe how good this tastes", we don't say that when we eat broccoli, even when we really like broccoli. Fruits and veggies don't have the concentration of fat, sugars, and salt to stimulate our brains reward centres to that degree. We get a delivery of feel good dopamine more quickly and more profoundly from junk foods than from healthier choices.
Instant gratification; powerful instant gratification. If you've ever wondered why these foods make us feel this way, that's why.
Studies also show a negative after affect; when high calorie foods are over consumed feelings of regret or even guilt will develop as the person reflects on what we also know about these foods: they're not the best choice where our health and well being are concerned.
A cycle ensues where to help placate negative emotions, or to repeat the reward, seeking out rewarding foods is done. So, during the moment you're eating crap your rational thinking is distracted by the food stimulating your reward centres. Later the negative feelings return because eating didn't do anything to address the underlying causes of feeling bad, and also because once the "high" from eating junk has passed, you realize that you've just done yourself more harm through overeating. To deal with this, many will feel compelled to overeat again, feeling like they're caught in a helpless trap.
What if healthy food choices could also feel rewarding; but not have the guilt afterwards?
In the Jan 2013 issue of the British Journal of Health Psychology, Authors Bonnie White et al found that on days people reported feeling good they had also consumed greater amounts of fruit and veggies, or had consumed more f's and v's the day prior.
7-8 servings of fruits and veggies daily predicted study subjects reporting greater emotional well being the next day. The study was modeled in such a way that researchers were able to show that it wasn't that feeling good lead to eating more fruits and veggies, but rather that eating more fruits and veggies lead to feeling good.
My own experience is that when I eat healthy I feel more deeply gratified because not only does the food taste good, but I know I've done myself good instead of harm.
It took me a while to figure out that if I avoided the overdoing it with junk food, I no longer had to contend with the negative emotional after affect, or the weight gain that went with it.
It was in realizing that this intense reward association from crap food was really more of a narcotic effect that anything else that allowed me to realize, "Ok, I get why this junk food makes me feel this way, but I don't need to feel this way in order to be satisfied or happy with eating."
It was the same as realizing that at the moment smoking a cigarette provided a sense of reward, but that I didn't need the smoking reward in order to feel good, and that the long term negative effects of smoking crushed any fleeting moments of satisfaction it would bring.
Overal healthy eating makes us feel better not only because we will factually become physically healthier because of it, but because healthy eating doesn't have emotional baggage that comes with it.
Eating fruits and veggies daily and avoiding overeating doesn't appear to have the ability to contribute to feeling bad, it can only make you feel good.
Scientific proof that eating apples makes you feel good. Gotta love that!
I've always felt better when I'm fit, at a healthy weight, and active. This makes sense because exercise and fitness have been shown to positively affect mood, ability to cope with stress, have fewer colds, provide better sleep, and many other positive benefits.
Changing to healthy habits can be daunting for many though because it seems like such a diversion from living with unhealthy choices, and because of habituation, the unhealthy choices, ironically, are perceived as feeling more familiar and more comfortable. Adding to the challenge to change are all the myths out there about how hard exercise has to be (it doesn't), and how "strict" so called "dieting" has to be. None of this is true, but when these myths are believed, most people feel like changing is going to be unrewarding and difficult.
The rewards are great though, especially dropping the ball and chain of being tied to relentless overeating and lack of physical activity.
Eating fruits and veggies, reducing calories, being active, and maintaining a healthy weight really do make you truly happy.
You have nothing to lose, so go for it.
Many apples a day keep the blues away – Daily experiences of negative and positive affect and food consumption in young adults - PsychSource
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)