The Biggest Weight Loss Myth in History

By Anthony Colpo

I'm about to reveal the biggest and most counterproductive weight loss myth ever told. Pay close attention. What you are about to read could literally mean the difference between successfully losing weight and getting fatter than ever.

The myth in question is perpetrated by diet "experts" of all stripes. It is a cause of untold frustration and misery among dieters. It distracts people from doing what they really need in order to lose weight, and instead causes them to focus on the irrelevant.

So what is this myth?

It is the widely held belief that calories do not count or are of only minor importance when it comes to weight loss. Make no mistake: If you wish to lose weight, calories are everything! To successfully lose weight, you must burn more calories in a given time period than you take in, no matter what diet you are following.

Despite this, diet authors commonly advise us to forget about counting calories! No wonder most people fail dismally in their weight loss efforts!

The flippant disregard for calories began with the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet campaign. Millions were led to believe by health authorities that dietary fat was the true cause of obesity. Cutting fat and replacing it with carbohydrate was the key to getting slim, it was claimed. Ironically, the original reasoning given for this claim was the fact that a gram of dietary fat contained over twice as many calories as a gram of protein or carbohydrate.

Unfortunately, the anti-fat campaign backfired -- big time!

Folks all around the world became convinced that, so long as they kept their fat intake low, they could eat as many carbohydrate-rich foods as they wished and not gain weight. The result of this madness can now be observed all around us. Three decades of low-fat mania has helped produce the fattest and most diabetic population the world has ever seen.

As people began to realize the low-fat diet was a failure, they increasingly turned towards its polar opposite: the low-carbohydrate diet. Beginning in the late 1990s, a string of best-selling low-carbohydrate diet books began hitting the shelves. A common theme among these authors was that a high-protein, high-fat diet allowed you to eat all you wanted without putting on weight. The true culprits of weight gain, claimed these authors, were carbohydrates and insulin. They enthusiastically urged their readers to forget about counting calories and instead focus on cutting carbohydrates.

The most influential of these low-carbohydrate "gurus" was undoubtedly the late Dr. Atkins. In his best-selling Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, he claimed that on a low-carbohydrate diet "you could eat, say, 2,000 calories and still begin losing pounds and inches," but "if you were consuming 2,000 calories on a low-fat diet, you might not lose weight, and you might actually gain weight. The metabolic advantage is that burning fat takes more energy so you expend more calories."

According to Atkins, this means that, "There is no need to count calories. The Atkins Nutritional Approach counts grams of carbohydrates instead of calories."

Atkins' claim that you can lose weight on a low-carbohydrate diet but gain weight on a high-carbohydrate diet containing the exact same amount of calories is utterly wrong. Time and time again, tightly controlled metabolic ward studies have shown no difference in the rate of weight loss on high- or low-carbohydrate diets of identical caloric content. Nor do these diets have differing effects on the subjects' metabolic rates.

In these studies, the subjects were confined to a research facility and under the constant supervision of researchers. They had access only to the food provided by researchers, which was carefully prepared to ensure equal calorie intake during both the high- and low-carbohydrate diets. These studies repeatedly demonstrate that, at identical calorie intakes, there is no difference in weight loss on different diets. Perhaps not surprisingly, these studies are largely ignored by those who promote the fallacious "metabolic advantage" theory.

Some of you reading this may strongly protest what I have just written, insisting that you were never able to lose weight on a high-carbohydrate diet but did indeed lose weight on a low-carbohydrate diet.

I don't doubt you.

But you need to know that you did not lose weight because of any "metabolic advantage" of low-carbohydrate diets, you lost weight because increased fat and protein intakes, and reduced carbohydrate intakes, can all exert appetite-suppressing effects. In clinical studies, protein has repeatedly been shown to be the most satiating macronutrient of all. Fat, meanwhile, causes the release of a satiating hormone known as cholecystekinin, while low-carbohydrate intakes help alleviate the roller coaster blood sugar swings that play havoc on your appetite.

Because you are eating previously "forbidden" foods, like steak and eggs, that do such a great job of filling you up, you may feel like you are eating more than before. However, if you have lost weight since you began eating this way, then the reality is that you are eating fewer calories.

Unfortunately, not everyone who adopts a low-carbohydrate diet will experience this unintentional reduction in caloric intake. This is especially the case among those who have been convinced to only count "grams of carbohydrates instead of calories."

Even the folks from Atkins and the office of Dr. Agatston (author of The South Beach Diet) had to admit there was a problem when their staff started getting calls and questions online from disappointed dieters who couldn't understand why they weren't losing weight. The problem? According to a USA Today report, "Dieters are eating too many of these new low-carb protein bars, muffins and brownie mixes, which are low in carbohydrates but often high in calories."

If you want to lose weight, then you must consume fewer calories than what you expend. You must create a calorie deficit, either by reducing your caloric intake, increasing your physical activity level or both. All the fancy diet plans in the world won't change this inescapable requirement.

[Ed. Note: Anthony Colpo is an independent researcher, physical conditioning specialist and author.]

Healthy Healing: Glucosamine -- Your Best Bet for Osteoarthritis By Dr. Ray Sahelian

Every seven years I take a test prepared by the American Board of Family Medicine to maintain my medical board certification. The last time I took the test I clearly remember a multiple-choice question regarding osteoarthritis. The choice of answers disturbed me.

The question basically asked the ideal long-term treatment for osteoarthritis. The choices were:

1. Aspirin.
2. NSAIDs such as naproxen or ibuprofen (Motrin).
3. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) up to 4 grams a day.
4. Combination of aspirin and other NSAIDs.

What disturbed me was that there was no option for glucosamine and chondroitin or other natural methods. (In fact, throughout the whole test, I hardly remember any questions regarding the use of nutrition or nutritional supplements in the treatment of common medical conditions.) Later I found out their "correct" answer was c) Acetaminophen. But is there an alternative?

Researchers from Madrid, Spain, compared the benefit of glucosamine sulfate versus acetaminophen (Tylenol) on the symptoms of knee osteoarthritis during a six-month treatment course. Patients were randomly assigned to receive1500 mg of oral glucosamine sulfate once daily, 3 g acetaminophen a day or a placebo.

The findings of this study indicate that, in the long run, glucosamine sulfate is more effective than a placebo and as or more effective than acetaminophen in treating knee osteoarthritis symptoms.

Acetaminophen reduces joint pain quicker than glucosamine, but it can cause harm to the liver, even at doses of 1 gram a day. I do not think it is a good drug to be taken long term for a chronic condition such as osteoarthritis.

I wonder how many years it will take for the American Board of Family Medicine to include natural supplements as options in their questions and answers.

[Ed. Note: Ray Sahelian, M.D., is a practicing physician and best-selling author. He is a leading authority on natural supplements and nutrition. For the latest research on organic ways to improve your health and well-being, click here.]

Healthy Aging: I Read the News Today – Oh, Boy By James B. LaValle

Diet headlines sell newspapers and magazines. Because of that, diet and nutrition articles are everywhere. The American public needs this information. But BEWARE! You can't always believe what you read in the mainstream media.

Because health information is so good at selling publications, reporters grab any new study for material but very frequently do not report the results accurately or put the study results in proper context. This is such an insidious problem that groups like the American Dietetic Association have developed programs to foster more responsible health reporting.

Here's a recent example. A study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, among breast cancer survivors, a diet high in fruits and vegetables and low in fat did not reduce cancer re-occurrence in the next seven years. One headline based on this study in a regional online newsletter was "Fruit Does Not Reduce Cancer Risk."

What???

First, the study wasn't just on fruit, it was on total fruit and vegetable intake combined with low-fat diet. But the most important factor to realize in this study was that it was done on cancer survivors, people who have already had cancer. Because these study subjects already had cancer, we know they probably have had serious factors in their life that led to their high-risk status to begin with. For instance, they may have used hormone replacement therapy or have very dense breast tissue, both of which greatly increase breast cancer risk.

In addition, cancer treatment itself raises risk of future cancers. So when we are studying a group of women who already had breast cancer we are studying an already high-risk group.

So, the proper reporting should state that in a very high-risk group of people, fruits and vegetables and low-fat diet don't seem to be enough to prevent cancer re-occurrence. The problem with the previously mentioned headline is that a healthy person who still stands a chance of preventing cancer might misinterpret it and think that eating fruit doesn't help anything. Yet study after study has shown that eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables not only can help lower cancer risk, it can also reduce risk of stroke and heart disease.

What's the bottom line? Fruits and vegetables contain a wonderful array of disease-preventing nutrients in a low-calorie package. Eating lots of them, especially when combined with other good habits like exercise, greatly reduces your risk of disease - period! Keep eating them, and don't let any headline tell you any differently.

[Ed. Note: Jim LaValle is an educator, clinician and industry consultant in the field of integrative healthcare. He is a licensed pharmacist, board certified clinical nutritionist and doctor of naturopathic medicine with more than 20 years clinical practice experience in the field of natural therapeutics and functional medicine. Named one of the "50 Most Influential Druggists" by American Druggist for his work in natural medicine, LaValle has authored 13 books, including his latest, Cracking the Metabolic Code. For more information, click here.]

Recipes & Nutrition: Dill Salmon Salad By Kelley Herring

Reel in the fat-fighting benefits of omega-3's with this quick and simple recipe. Recent research published in the journal Diabetologia found diets rich in omega-3's from fish -- including eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) -- protect against obesity and insulin resistance by boosting one of the body's own insulin sensitizers called adiponectin. One serving of our Dill Salmon Salad provides an excellent source of these slimming fats. Spread it on whole-grain toast or spoon over mixed greens for a light and satisfying meal.

Serves: 4

Time to Table: 15 minutes

Healing Nutrient Spotlight
• Omega-3 fatty acids
• Excellent source of calcium, vitamin B12
• Good source of niacin, selenium

Ingredients
1 tsp freshly ground black pepper
2 tsp organic dill weed, dried
1 Tbsp organic tofu or canola mayonnaise
7 ounces wild salmon, canned (drained)
2 Tbsp lemon juice
2 Tbsp chopped organic onion

Preparation
Drain salmon well and add to a mixing bowl. Add mayonnaise, dill weed, onion, black pepper and lemon juice. Mix well and refrigerate covered until ready to serve.

Nutritional Information per Serving
84 calories, 3.5 g total fat, 0.5 g saturated fat, 0 g trans fat, 0.6 g monounsaturated fat, 1.3 g polyunsaturated fat, 40 mg cholesterol, 226 mg sodium, 1 g carbohydrate, 1 g fiber, 0 g sugars, 12 g protein

[Ed. Note: Kelley Herring is the Founder & CEO of Healing Gourmet, a multimedia company that educates on how foods promote health and protect against disease. She is also the creator of Healing Gourmet's Personalized Nutrition Software and Editor-in-Chief of the Healing Gourmet book series published by McGraw-Hill, including Eat to Fight Cancer, Eat to Beat Diabetes, Eat to Lower Cholesterol and Eat to Boost Fertility. For more information, click here.] __________________________________________________

These articles appear courtesy of Early to Rise’s Total Health Breakthroughs [Issue 10-26-07] which offers alternative solutions for mind, body and soul. For a complimentary subscription, visit http://www.totalhealthbreakthroughs.com/

__________________________________________________
For all your Real Estate Interests look at The New Real Estate Source here.