What the Iranians can teach us about fructose

Aaah the old 'sorry I've not blogged for ages' blog post. I've been on limited internet for a while due to the whole packing-moving-unpacking thing. And to be honest, I've also felt like I don't have anything new to share. Maybe writing about going sugar-free isn't blog worthy. I mean, it seemed like such a big step, a topic which would keep me writing for ages. But turns out that, once past the initial withdrawal and so on, and after trying a few recipes and finding that glucose is nearly as easy to work with as sucrose, it's not such a big deal. It's actually really easy. I've lost nearly 8kg so far, and it keeps going slowly down.

But then again, I do love to write, and so I find myself back here. I was inspired tonight by a study which David Gillespie posted to the Sweet Poison Facebook group. The original study is here. In a nutshell this study showed that high levels of fructose in the diet of men and women in Tehran, Iran was associated with an increased risk of metabolic syndrome, including higher body mass index and abdominal obesity.

Yeah, so? you might be saying. Isn't that the point of this blog, that fructose is bad, bad, bad, and that there is research to prove it? Well, yes, of course. But remember that most of the previous published research in this field has been in rats. And it's easy to dismiss this- a rat is (by definition) not a human. And while there have been other studies on people which showed that the rats were on the right track, they were limited, and open to criticism, for example that they fed people an unrealistic amount of fructose. A 2010 review of research published in the same journal as the new one concluded that "No fully relevant data account for a direct link between moderate dietary fructose intake and health risk markers".

So what we have now is one of the first human (ie, non rat) studies to show strong links between dietary fructose (the fructose that actual humans actually ate as part of their actual normal everyday diet) and metabolic syndrome, independent of age, physical activity, energy intake, dietary intake of other nutrients (eg fat) and BMI (all of which the researchers controlled for in their analysis).

The levels of fructose that this study suggest leads to problems seem quite high: >50g per day. At first glance it may seem like most of us are ok- surely I don't eat more than 50g fructose (100g sucrose), you might say. That's a heck of a lot of sugar. Visualise 22 teaspoons if you can, because that's how much it is. But consider that the average intake of fructose in this study was around 50g. So around half those studied (normal, everyday people) were eating over 50g per day. In their usual diet. And in case you think this only applies to Tehranian Iranians, US figures suggest that on average, Americans eat 55g of fructose per day- again, meaning that around half eat more than this. The data for Aussies is sketchy. In 1995 an Australian Bureau of Statistics survey showed that 20% of Australian energy intake came from sugar (in processed foods, fruit and veg, honey and other sweeteners). 20% of energy intake for a male aged 31-50 is between 104g and 185g per day (in fructose terms, 52-92.5g per day). More current figures are sparse to nonexistent because the ABS no longer conducts this particular survey, but a study being conducted with staff at the Epworth hospital (the SWEET study) may provide more answers (if and when it is published- will be looking out for that one). Preliminary data collected from participants showed that they ate 17 teaspoons per day in added sugars alone. Add in your fruit and veg (these are counted in the fructose total, even if they are healthy!) and I'll bet we are close to averaging the magic (in a bad way) 22 teaspoons.

I can't help but feel that this new study means that David Gillespie and others sounding the warning on fructose like Dr Robert Lustig should take some time out this week to give themselves a little pat on the back and maybe just send a little 'told you so' email to the nay-sayers who have insisted that fructose is fine and dandy like sugar candy. Like the university professors interviewed for this article reassuring the public that sugar is no threat, and that the National Health and Medical Research Council draft nutrition guidelines are being ridiculous for daring to suggest that Australians limit added sugars.

The bottom line is that we (most of us) eat a LOT of sugar. And we can now be more confident that this sugar may be doing us, the humans, and not just the rats, a lot of harm. 

Off the [pesticide] grid? To organic or not to organic

This sugar-free thing is going pretty well. I can even report that I survived a child’s birthday party this week without eating anything sweet. The Allens Party Mix was calling to me- oh those honey bears- but I didn’t heed its call. So with that mostly under control for now, I wanted to turn my attention to other ways of being healthier in what my family and I eat.

So, time to face the organic question- should I start to buy organic food wherever possible? I already buy it in dribs and drabs. But I’ll be honest and say up front that I’m organically clueless. I’ve got very little idea about what it means in terms of the way food is grown or processed (beyond not including pesticides), let alone the potential added-value of organic in terms of health and nutrition. But I do know that it’s more expensive- and my husband and I have just had our mortgage approved on our first home, so our pockets are not exactly going to be lined with cash. So, cost and value for money are the two things I have to be convinced on.

When I started this post I thought I would be able to work this out and come up with a simple answer in a single post, but alas it turns out to be more complicated, and I turn out to be more long-winded in summarising it, than I would like. So it will be a mini-series instead. I’m starting with the costs today, and I’ll also look at the claims about organic food which I’ll then break down in more detail in future posts. Sound like a good plan? Ok then.

To costs. I know organic is more expensive, but how much are we talking about if I were to switch most of my normal shopping over to organic? I’ve done a direct cost comparison using things that I would normally buy. I’m using online prices, which should give me a reasonable estimate of the costs (and more importantly, the cost differences) to be going on with.

.

So here's a trolley's worth in terms of organic and non-organic (unorganic?) costs. I’ve tried to make these fair comparisons by shopping at the same store (mostly Coles online) for the organic vs the nonorganic item (so that price differences don't just reflect a difference across stores). I know there are other places to buy organic meat and veges but it's hard then to compare fairly to non-organic. For things like bread, yoghurt, cheese etc where there are lots of non organic brands available (with different prices), I’ve used the brand I usually buy as the non organic comparison, so that I get a good idea of the difference compared to my normal shopping.

	Organic price	Non organic price	Difference if I buy organic
Apples Royal Gala 1kg	$5.98	$4.48	+ 1.50
Avocado 1 whole	$2.98	$2.28	+ 0.70
Broccoli 500g	$5.98	$1.99	+ 3.99
Carrots- 1kg	$3.48	$2.28	+ 1.20
Potatoes- 2kg brushed	$5.98	$4.66	+ 1.32
Zucchini 500g	$4.98	$1.49	+ 3.49
Pumpkin 1kg	$2.98	$0.78	+ 2.20
Tomatoes- 400g tin	$1.57	$0.8	+ 0.77
Chickpeas  400g tin	$1.70	$1.07	+ 0.63
Lentils 400g tin	$1.87	$1.07	+ 0.80
Milk 2L	$5.19	$2.99	+ 2.20
Yogurt natural 1kg	$5.61	$5.07	+ 0.54
Cheese 250g	$8.01	$5.08	+ 2.93
Weetbix 750g	$5.07	$4.5	+ 0.57
Olive oil 500ml	$7.66	$6.15	+ 1.51
Bread 1 loaf	$5.49	$4.48	+ 1.01
Penne pasta 500g	$2.45	$1.00	+ 1.45
Instant coffee 250g	$20.72	$21.8	-1.08
Chicken breast fillets 500g	$15.00	$8.37	+ 6.63
Sausages 450g	$5.99	$5.99	0
Lamb loin chops 460g	$12.19	$11.49	+ 0.70
Beef mince 540g	$8.99	$6.96	+ 2.03
Rice cakes 1 pack	$1.81	$1.66	+ 0.15
Baby fruit jar 110g	$1.45	$1.24	+ 0.21
Total trolley cost	$143.13	$107.67	+ $35.45

So there you go. As expected, organic goods are nearly always more expensive. Except in the case of coffee where I must be buying an expensive brand of non organic. Anyway, the total cost is just over $35 more for this trolley’s worth, which doesn’t sound too horrendous. Although if I look at it another way, I’m actually paying about 33% more for my organic trolley. Hmm...Well, added cost is one thing, but it might be well worth it if it’s 33% healthier for me. I guess.

Here’s the low down for those (like me) who are not particularly au fait with what organic means. The three major claims about organic food that I want to investigate:

1. That foods that are sold as ‘organic’ are produced sans artificial pesticides (crops), and growth hormones or antibiotics (meats). 

2. That the pesticides et al used in producing non organic food can cause untold harm to our health because they remain in the food that we eat. 

3. That, because of the above and because of the more traditional and less mass produced way of making them, organic foods are more nutritious. Specifically that they contain more vitamins and minerals, and better flavour. For example, these guys specifically claim that:

The benefits of organic food are now well recognized with research findings that confirm that organic foods have far higher nutrient, vitamin and mineral content, as well as not having harmful pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and artificial fertilizer chemicals that are present in non-organic products. Organic food is especially higher in vitamin C, antioxidants, iron, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium.

There are also a bunch of claims about organic food being better for the environment, and although I don’t want to be dismissive of these which are very important, in the interests of keeping this blog focussed, I’m primarily concerned about the health and nutrition benefits. But stay tuned for my second blog ‘Off the griddle’ where I not only drop sugar but anything produced or cooked using electricity. Just kidding. (Although that does sound an intriguing idea. Feel free to use it.)

To round off this first part of the miniseries, let’s take just the first claim. There isn’t much that I can quibble about there, really. If organic means no pesticides, then by golly organic food won’t have pesticides in it. Whether this leads to any benefit for our bodies comes down to claims 2 and 3. 

But since I do love to quibble (and also the word quibble) I will point out that several countries, including Australia, have had organic scandals, with organic foods turning out to be just plain vanilla, or worse. For example in the USA in 2007 a not-so-organic milk was defrocked, similarly in the UK in 2009 a man was jailed for repackaging ordinary foods and selling them as organic. Then in Germany in 2002, organic chicken products were found to be laced with a cancer-causing pesticide after the chickens ate contaminated grain. So with both criminal falsification and accidental contamination to deal with, you may not always be getting what you paid 33% more for.

In Australia there is a national standard for organic certification, meaning that strict tests are applied to goods in order for them to earn the tick of organic approval shown on the product. But the certification process is voluntary meaning that you technically can sell something as organic when it is anything but- if it's not certified, then no one is checking. And companies that are certified obviously have to pay for the certification, meaning that you probably pay even more for certified organic goods. So you can either risk it with uncertified organic, or pay for certified, your choice.

It feels wrong to end here without any conclusion on the organic question but trust me, breaking down claims 2 and 3 is a mega-post all of it's own. So, here endeth part 1, and part 2 will be coming soon to a computer screen near you.

Oooh the regret

Today seems like a good day for an alcohol-themed post. 

Image by 'Clock' from Wikipedia. 

Clock and wikipedia don't necessarily endorse my work, although I endorse theirs :)

Why? Three words: Jo’s Hens Night. Last night, for the first time in at least two years (maybe longer, I honestly can’t remember) I went out to some trendy* nightspots† with a bunch of fabulous gals, all friends of the most fabulous Johanna who is getting married next Saturday. Much fun was had by all, particularly at the life drawing class.

A JG original. Completely self-taught!

Much drinking was had by all, particularly at...everywhere we went. I’m still recovering. So this post will be light on the research and possibly on the coherence. But I remembered that someone (Sharon**) asked me to do a post on alcohol in the off the grid world, and now seems as good a time as any to address it. If I’m not eating sugar, can I drink alcohol (fermented sugar)? The answer, clearly, yes. Why? Well, thanks to Wikipedia, here is a sugar molecule- fructose is on the right, and glucose is on the left:

Sugar as a scientist sees it

And thanks to me (copying what I found on Wikipedia but making it prettier), here is ethanol.

Alcohol minus the bottle

Notice the ever so slight difference. Basically fermentation changes the sugar. So alcohol both is and isn’t sugar. And mostly, isn’t. As long as the alcohol isn’t mixed with something sweet, it’s pretty much ok for a fructose-free-person like myself to drink. For example, a typical dry white wine has 0.3g of fructose per 100g and red wine even less. Apple cider, which is made of fermented apple juice,  has about 0.5g per 100g. Beer (which I don’t personally drink- blurg) is made from malt, and the sugar in beer is maltose and glucose, so beer is completely fine if I could bring myself to drink it. Shots of vodka are fine from a fructose perspective (from a morning after perspective, they are not fine). If you ever want to check out a particular type of drink, here's a great site which breaks down the specific sugars so you know what your body is facing.

One of the things I have learned about sugar (and part of my decision to quit eating it) is that the fructose part of the sugar is processed by the liver. The liver turns it into triglycerides (fats) which are sent into the bloodstream and do all kinds of harm. Alcohol is similar to fructose the sense that the liver also has to deal with it. But, the liver uses a specific enzyme to deal with the alcohol and turns it into carbon dioxide and water. In moderation, the body can deal with alcohol pretty well, and there is some evidence that there are health benefits to drinking alcohol such as an increase in HDL (good cholesterol) and an effect similar to aspirin in preventing the little platelets in your blood (teeny little cell parts in your blood which should, by rights, be shaped like little plates, but which are not) from sticking together or clotting, which can mean less risk of heart attack or stroke. (These benefits are mainly for older people.) And obviously the sugar question is a just side issue when thinking about the negative consequences of drinking in whatever the opposite of moderation is (ie, last night). Today's hangover is the obvious minus. And then there's the raft of health complications which can come from long-term drinking in large quantities... 

So, on that bright and cheery note, and with half a mind to personally never drinking again anyway after last night, that’s my summary of drinking fructose-free. If you want to stay away from sugar, alcohol is fine, just don’t drink sweet wines (e.g., dessert wines), spirits with sweet mixers or (unfortunately) cocktails (unless they are made with entirely non sweet ingredients- and if you find such a cocktail, please let me know!). 

*I assume they were trendy. What would I know? Do people even say trendy anymore?

†Maybe they were clubs? Or pubs? Does 'nightspot' cover it or is that something only old people say?
**Possibly a pseudonym

Ghost Stories

Well, I’m back from good old Tas, and Easter is approaching rapidly. Thanks to my recent discovery that it is possible to make my own chocolate, I’m not worried about feeling like I'm missing out on treats this Easter. And let’s be honest, commercial Easter egg chocolate is pretty awful: bland, sugary and gritty (unless you get the really expensive chocolates of course). Surely they are just re-using the same unsold eggs year after year?

Mmmm last year's chocolate...

Egg pic by luigi diamanti / FreeDigitalPhotos.net. I added the recycle symbol though. Wasn't that clever?

Anyway, I started thinking about the way I’ve handled Easter in other years, and from there, it was a natural step to musing about the Ghosts of Diets Past. When I think Diet (with a capital D ie, a structured diet program, as compared to just ‘trying to be good’ with what I eat), I think Weight Watchers. I specifically remember doing the old WW at Easter time one year because I had calculated that I could have two Red Tulip ‘bird eggs’ Easter eggs (candy coated with solid chocolate inner) for 2 (or maybe 3, I can’t remember) WW points. I would save up my points during the day so that I could savor a couple of bird eggs after dinner. 

With these and similar tactics, I’ve ‘succeeded’ with WW twice- both times I lost around 10kg. This is about the same amount I need to lose this time, so why am I not doing this again? The clue is that it worked for me twice. Twice. Meaning that I regained the weight. Meaning that it doesn’t really work, unless my definition of success is to be looking trim and feeling gorgeous for a month or two before slowly regaining what I worked so hard for. Unless I want to pay the WW monthly fee and count points for the rest of my life (I don’t), then I need another answer, and hence I'm trying the whole quitting sugar thing.

Is it just me, though? Am I just too greedy or just not motivated enough, or [insert shortcoming here]? There is evidence that Weight Watchers and similar calorie restricted programs work (for example, here and here. However, the research into these programs is usually very short term. The outcomes they measure are usually after 6 or at the most 12 months. What happens in the longer term? Well here’s a chart from this study which looked at weight loss maintenance up to 5 years after dieting:

Weight loss maintenance years 1-5 post diet. From: Anderson, Konz, Frederich & Wood, 2001

The bottom trend line shows the weight loss over time of people using calorie restricted diets which use normal foods (programs like Weight Watchers, although this program wasn't specifically studied). While they initially lost an average of around 9kg, just two years later they had regained more than half of this amount, and 5 years later they were only 2kg lighter than when they started. This is an average, remember, so for some the weight regained was more than this, for some it was less. The top line shows the trend for people using more extreme diets (very low energy diets usually involving meal replacement with a shake or similar and a very restricted calorie intake). For these guys the initial weight loss was much greater (around 24 kg) but two years later they had also regained more than half of what they lost, and 5 years on the average dieter had regained 13kg.

So, it seems that the diet success story is pretty short-lived for the average weight-loser, it’s not that long before they are in a position where they will probably need to diet again. While there is a lot of research into the reasons behind weight-regain after ‘successful’ dieting, there are few helpful answers. Some studies (here and here are examples) suggest psychological factors, such as satisfaction with the new weight, body/self-image and ability to handle stress as important. But there are also internal metabolic factors to take into account, for example these guys hypothesise that the body’s internal systems are more geared towards gaining weight than losing weight. Neither answer is all that encouraging, but it’s clear that we don’t know the full story, either way. There’s a lot more to learn about how to lose weight and keep it off.

I’m wondering if a key part of the secret (for me anyway) is not to Diet (with a capital D) at all. I’ve found that all this does is make me focus more on food. I spend all day (well, a lot of it anyway) thinking about my next meal, or snack, planning how many points I have, deciding whether I can sneak in a birds egg or not. Weight watching is all well and good, but food watching is counter-productive, in my experience. Then there’s the problem of what happens when the Diet stops.  

I really, really don’t want to say it because it’s so clichéd, but you know I’m leading up to the word lifestyle. As in 'this is a lifestyle, not a diet'. I can’t live with counting calories (or points), watching what I eat all the time, negotiating with myself to keep away from X so that I can have Y, but...turns out I can live without sugar. At least, so far. It may sound strange to anyone who feels that giving up sugar would be a major hassle, but the sugar free thing has been far, far easier to live with than WW or any other Diet I’ve tried. I’m past craving sugar now. I don’t find that I am looking for snacks between meals or after dinner. I’m not actively watching my portions but I’m sure I’m eating less. Even with the chocolate and coconut cake and the full fat milk and the cheese (oh, the cheese!), yada yada, I’ve lost a few kilos in a few weeks. I’m not dieting (sorry, Dieting), I’m just living sugar free.

Can I lay the Ghost of Diets Past to rest forever? I don’t know, but I’m hopeful.

It's food, Jim, but not as we know it

I’ve realised that part of going fructose free is going to mean drastically reducing my intake of processed foods. Many of them are laced with sugar, for a start, but I also feel like if I’m going to take this step- and it’s a pretty big one – then I can’t ignore the other crap I’ve been eating.

I don’t really know how this stuff crept into my life, to be honest. A diet yogurt here, a jar of pasta bake sauce there...a heady combination of easy availability, lack of time for cooking, and the perpetual search for the perfect ‘diet’ food.  It’s kind of embarrassing to me that I’ve made it to 32 without really evaluating the quality of what I eat.

The question is, where to stop.  Are tinned tomatoes ok? Do I go organic as much as I can? Do I want to make my own bread? (Answer: no). I’ve got some thinking to do, but not today. Today is daylight savings Sunday. I’m finding it hard enough to work out what time it is (every clock says something different- argh!), let alone work out whether paying an extra couple of bucks for organic meat is worth it.

Instead, I thought I would amuse myself and take a look at some of the buzz word laden manufactured foods which used to be in my cupboard. You know, the 99% fat free, low GI, added fibre, no added salt, all ‘natural’ ingredient, ‘healthy’ processed foods. Hopefully this exercise will make me think twice before going down this pointless road ever again.

There are so many to choose from that I thought I’d start with breakfast. Then, if I find trashing food in this way to be fun, I’ll keep going with other meals :)

Before I start, I think I need more photos in my blog.

Photo: Arvind Balaraman http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1058

Mmmm Fruity. No, that would be way too easy. I’ll stick to products that at least try to make us think they are healthy. 

Let’s start with one of my favourites. Special K. Keeps you looking good. I’ve eaten this often, and I believed the hype: low GI and high in protein which will keep me full for longer, so I won’t be needing that mid-morning biscuit. Great! And that’s why I’ll be able to keep wearing that mini skirt well after fashion and good sense tells me not to (YouTube let me down with the ad- anyone remember it?). What is so special about Special K? Well:

Cereals (62%)(rice, wheat), wheat gluten, sugar, wheat flour, minerals (calcium carbonate, iron, zinc oxide), salt, barley malt extract, vitamins (niacin, vitamin B6, riboflavin, thiamin, folate).

Not a ridiculously long list, especially if you ignore the vitamins and minerals which are obviously good. Hmm though, why are they adding vitamins and minerals? Wholegrains contain vitamins and minerals. Could it be that the 62% cereals are not wholegrain? Sure enough, a serving of Special K is only 10-20% wholegrain, which is pretty low. Cheerios are 70-80% wholegrain.  I’m not going to bang on about wholegrains because they frankly bore me, but the deal is that wholegrains include fibre, vitamins and minerals. If you are eating a non-wholegrain (part grain??) then it is pretty much just starch. As well as plenty of starch in your bowl of Special K, you also get a teaspoon of sugar courtesy of the manufacturers in every serve you eat. 

Up & Go (Vive)

Mmm Up & Go. All the goodness of drinking a Weetbix. If you can stomach the idea of a breakfast that you drink, here is the ‘Vive’ version of the Up & Go. I chose Vive because they are marketed as ‘light’, compared to the normal Up & Go. They are also marketed as low GI and high in fibre, with lots of vitamins and minerals including calcium. The ingredients list is below, from the Sanitarium website. 

Filtered water, breakfast cereal (6%) (wheat maltodextrin, hi-maize™ starch, inulin, corn syrup solids, barley beta glucan, oat flour), skim milk powder, soy protein, sunflower oil [contains antioxidant (tocopherols) (contain soy)], cane sugar, fructose, berry purees (0.7%) (strawberry, raspberry, blackberry, blueberry), apple puree, minerals (phosphates of calcium and sodium), acidity regulators (332, 300), flavours (contains wheat), vegetable gums (460, 466, 407), fermented red rice, vitamins (C, A, Niacin, B12, B2, B6, B1, folate), salt

Both the Vive and the Up & Go original are 98.5% fat free- but the ‘light’ aspect of Vive is that it has much less sugar (12 grams per serving- just a measly 4 teaspoons) than the regular Up & Go (27 grams- gah!). But all those ingredients- what are they for? Consider this alternative: Milk, berries. Blend. High in fibre, low GI. Lots of vitamins and minerals, including calcium. The light and satisfying way to help you get through your morning, without all the crap of the Up & Go Vive.

Finally, some healthy yogurt, a staple in my fridge for years. I chose Forme No Fat ‘Satisfy’ Yogurt which is not only low in fat (ok, no in fat), but is designed to keep you full for longer because it is a yogurt with added fibre. Mmm. The thought of the added fibre actually turned me off this product for ages, but I have tried it and it is ok. Not yum, but ok. It’s a diet yogurt, what more can I expect? In it you will find

skim milk, milk solids, water, dietary fibre (inulin), fructose, thickener (1442), halal gelatine, flavours, acidity regulators (330, 331), sweeteners (951, 950), live yogurt cultures: s.thermophilus and l.bulgaricus 

Ok, the fructose is a surprise, and not a nice one. There are also two artificial sweeteners. Inulin is the fibre. Unfortunately, research shows that inulin doesn't perform that well when it comes to keeping you feeling full.  Soluble fibre needs to be gummy in order to slow down digestion and add a feeling of fullness. Inulin is unfortunately not all that gummy. No wonder I wanted a real yoghurt after I ate this one. Just for comparison, here is the list of ingredients in normal, full fat plain yoghurt (Jalna Greek Style):

Whole milk, cream, live cultures (lactobacillus acidophilus, bifidobacterium, lactobacillus casei).  

I’m eating that one from now on. 

On the topic, here’s a little story from a research study that I came across (here). The researchers wanted to compare inulin to another fibre called lupin-kernel as a replacement for fat in a breakfast sausage. Participants tested the fibrous sausages, and gave feedback such as ‘Dry, fibrous, gristly, stringy, tough” (24% of participants) and ‘bland taste’ (14% of participants). Nevertheless, the researchers concluded: “Both inulin and lupin-kernel fibre appear to have potential as fat replacers in meat products”. Sure they do, if you don't care about taste or texture.

So, what have I learned? First, the goal in manufacturing 'healthy' foods seems to be to trick us into feeling full. Adding fibre and protein to things that don’t traditionally have fibre or protein is the tactic of choice. But if you think about it, it's weird that you can buy a cereal that contains protein and a dairy product that includes fibre. Second, the focus on being low in fat means that sugar sneaks by without a murmur. I would never add four teaspoons of sugar to my cereal, but that is what I get in the ‘light’ version of Up & Go. And third, this is a little subjective, but it doesn’t seem to matter whether the food is tasty or actually nutritious. The food and the experience of eating no longer matter, as long as the nutritional panel on the product looks something like ‘healthy’. I wonder how long it will be until they just stick actual cardboard pieces in a cereal box and sell it as the ultimate low fat, high fibre breakfast.

I know I can’t expect much more from manufactured, processed, convenience foods, and I should have known better, to be honest. And yeah, I'm not exactly leading a trend here in rejecting them- I'm sure most of you saw the light a long time ago. 

Anyway, there’s no shame in admitting I was wrong. So, goodbye Forme. As my dad might say, you are not the one for me (ha ha).

Keep on moving

Nature (plus or minus nurture) has not made me an exercise junkie. I don’t belong to a gym (paying all that money seems pointless since I don’t go), and most of my exercise at the moment comes from bursts of walking, pushing my son in his pram. (In case you think this is a wimpy form of exercise, I should add that my son weighs more than 10kg- it’s no picnic to push him up a hill). But I should add that this is not an everyday thing. Sure I push the pram around when we do errands, but what I consider real ‘exercise’ (specifically walking for say 40 minutes to an hour as aerobic exercise) is not my idea of fun. I easily avoid it. After all, I’m a busy full-time mum. Who has time to exercise?

Since I’m going to the extent of quitting sugar in the quest to lose weight, I may as well be thorough about this and work out the exercise question. I need to know whether I have to say, join a gym (and actually go), or make sure I’m out pounding the pavement pushing the pram every day, or something else in order to lose weight.

Well to start with, research has pretty consistently shown little or no effect of exercise alone on weight. That’s exercise like going to the gym, jogging, power-walking, cycling, or playing sports. These reviews (here and here) showed that on average, people who exercised didn’t lose weight when compared to those who did nothing. Plus, those who dieted AND exercised only lost (on average) a tiny amount more than those who just modified their diet. This seems a bit unfair. Surely exercise, as horrid as it is, should be rewarded? Why doesn't it work?

Turns out we burn very little energy through exercise. 40 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic exercise might feel like hard work (unless it is Zumba, then it will feel like a party!), but after all that sweating you have only burned the equivalent of one piece of chocolate cake, or 3 scoops of vanilla icecream, or a single piece of apple pie. Damn. And then there is the possibility that you will want to eat that pie more, because you went to the gym. Studies like this one show that some people compensate for the energy they lose by eating more. Oops.  These researchers showed that adolescents who increased their physical exercise also increased their energy intake by 100 calories more than they burned in the exercise (on average). And the more intense the exercise, the greater the compensation may be, according to this research. 

There is also research to show that when we do intensive exercise we may reduce our movement throughout the rest of the day to compensate. These UK researchers compared the overall physical movement of kids from a private school who had nearly 2 hours of PE per day to kids at schools with PE for about 2 hours per week. The children wore ActiGraphs which measured the amount and intensity of their movement. Guess what- the children in all three schools moved about the same amount and at about the same intensity. The organised PE did nothing to increase overall activity of the kids because those children simply moved less at other times. I knew there was a good reason that I didn’t like PE.

It seems exercise is not for everyone, because, to quote these guys, ‘some individuals do not experience the beneficial effects of exercise on body weight’. Some of us compensate (unconsciously, by the way), and this negates all the benefits in terms of energy loss. Well, well. Yep, that’s me. 

Of course our great-grandparents didn’t go to Curves. They may have pushed babies in prams but they didn’t do it for ‘exercise’. They did it as part of everyday movement. They moved more than we did and perhaps this simple ‘moving more’ is the answer to managing weight without accidentally tripping the switch that tells our bodies to compensate with more food or more rest. This great article in Time Magazine summarises some of the latest thinking in relation to exercise and weight loss and points out that many of the benefits from exercise like improved cognitive abilities and overall health are shown based on low-level, everyday movement (like hanging out the laundry, taking the stairs instead of the lift and carrying the groceries to the car) and not on vigorous or even moderately vigorous exercise.

So...it seems it is ok to say that going to the gym or even pushing myself to power walk with the pram for ‘exercise’ will not help me lose weight. Hurray! It’s really a freeing thought. I may one day find a sport or physical activity that I love, and if I do it for fun, health and maybe fitness, then I'll be fine. I probably shouldn't do it for weight loss though.  

For now, I think I need to concentrate on moving more in my daily life. This will (hopefully) help my body burn energy without triggering the need for compensation. It will also be healthier than couch-potato-ness. So, I’m going to try to increase the amount that I move around and to build this into daily life. Rather than trying to convince myself to exercise, rather than planning (and then avoiding) exercise, I’m just going to move. 

I'll keep you updated on how this goes!