|
SPECIAL FITNESS TRAINING
Our first 10 minute fitness training was a huge success! We have had
many requests for another class, so here it is:
Date: Saturday, March 20, 2004
Location: Silver Spring Office: 12200 Tech Road (please drive around to the back
of the building. You will see our sign on our back door. Please enter
this way because the front doors lock at 12:00 noon).
Time: 1:00pm - 2:00pm
Cost: $55.00 per person
CALL TODAY TO SCHEDULE FOR THIS SPECIAL CLASS!
301-622-9000
"DO NET CARBS ADD UP"
The following is an article written in the Washington Post Food Section
(2/25/04) by Katherine Tallmadge. It does an excellent job of explaining
this RIDICULOUS gimmick called Net Carbs.
"A client was explaining to me why the low-carbohydrate energy bars
she was eating hardly counted in her daily low-carb diet tally. Each bar,
you see, contained only two net carbs, she said."
"The nutrition facts panel on the product said it contained 17 grams
of total carbohydrates. But on that same label the manufacturer of
the energy bar claimed there were only 2 grams of carbohydrates that
raise blood sugar levels while the remaining 15 grams had a "minimal
impact" and shouldn't be counted in the carbohydrate total."
"Other products use the term "effective" or "impact" carbohydrates.
Whatever the term, these net carbs apparently are the carbohydrates
left once you subtract those that the label says have a "negligible
effect" (such as fiber, sugar alcohols and glycerin). I was baffled by
the net-carb concept. Could it really be true that
some of the carbohydrates in a food didn't count. Is the labeling
based on science or just wishful thinking?"
"It's true that the type of carbohydrate in a food affects how quickly
it will be converted to glucose in your bloodstream, where it is
transported to your body's cells and used for energy. And it's
true that sugar and white flour are converted more quickly and
raise blood sugar more than do fiber, sugar alcohols and glycerin.
But the story is a little more complicated than the net-carb advocates
allow."
"Carbohydrates describe a huge category of foods. Chemically, they're
sugars and starches. But in terms of the real food people eat, yes, they
include sugary and starchy foods, which most people easily identify as
carbohydrates. But they also include fruits, which are pure carbohydrate,
along with vegetables and whole grains, which are mostly carbohydrate."
"Then there are complex carbohydrates (starches found in whole grains,
refined grains, legumes and vegetables) and simple carbohydrates (sugars
found in fruit, milk and refined sugar). There are good carbohydrates
(whole foods) and bad carbohydrates (refined foods). There are
carbohydrates with a low glycemic effect and carbohydrates with a high
glycemic effect. "
"Decades ago, researcher David Jenkins, a professor in the department of
nutritional science at the University of Toronto, coined the term
glycemic index, which has been a very useful tool for people with
diabetes. The glycemic index describes how quickly a food is
converted to glucose in your blood stream. Foods with a high glycemic
index raise your blood glucose more quickly and include refined sugars
and refined grains, such as white flour and rice. Foods with a low
glycemic index raise your blood glucose more slowly and include higher
fiber and non-carbohydrate foods such as whole grains, legumes, meat
and fat."
"But the theory isn't perfect. And this is why the concept of net carbs
isn't as clear-cut as the manufacturers of low-carb products would lead
you to believe. Net carbs are based on the assumption that you can
predict the blood sugar response, or the glycemic index, of certain
food substances and that it will have the same effect on everyone."
"One problem with using the glycemic index in this way is it's based
on foods eaten alone, and we usually eat foods together with other foods.
For instance, if you eat a high-glycemic-index food, such as white bread,
together with a low-glycemic-index food, such as peanut butter, the
peanut butter will lower your glycemic response. Thus, the "glycemic
load" of your meal is lowered. A famous example is ice cream. Mix all
that high-glycemic sugar with dairy fat and you get a surprisingly
low-glycemic-index food, with a score similar to that of whole oats.
And many glycemic scores don't seem to make much sense from a
nutritional standpoint. For instance, rice has a higher glycemic
index than table sugar. Frosted flakes have a higher glycemic index
than corn flakes. Does that mean that frosted flakes and table sugar
are better for you than corn flakes and rice?"
"It's very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify blood glucose
responses in individuals. If you exercise regularly, your body clears
glucose from your blood stream more quickly and efficiently, no matter
what you eat. If you eat your meal more slowly, if it contains protein
or fat, or if it is even cooked differently (undercooked pasta, for
instance), it can produce a lower glycemic response."
"On the other hand, if you're overweight, sedentary, sick, have diabetes
or insulin resistance, your body will be more sensitive to foods with a
high glycemic index."
"This brings us back to the "net carbs" debate. Are manufacturers
justified in excluding fiber, sugar alcohols and glycerin from the
carbohydrate total of a food? Will eating more foods with these
additives help you lose weight? Yes and no."
"Most experts agree that fiber need not be included in the carbohydrate
total. So, if you're looking at the nutrition facts panel, you can
probably feel comfortable subtracting the fiber grams from the
carbohydrate total."
"What is the consensus about sugar alcohols and glycerin? The answer
is not as clear cut. "There haven't been adequate studies of sugar
alcohols or glycerin when they're consumed in the large amounts
contained in the new low-carb processed foods," says Walter Willett,
professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard. "Glycerin and
sugar alcohol should probably not be counted out of the carbohydrate
totals."
"So, should the term net carbs be emblazoned on packaged foods?
"The net-carb labeling is totally misleading, confusing and
unhelpful," (bold and italics added) says Joanne Slavin, a
professor in the department of food science and nutrition at the
University of Minnesota in St. Paul. "It's irrelevant, it doesn't
help people eat a better diet and it won't help them lose weight."
(bold and italics added)
"Take a look at all of the information on the nutrition label of these
net-carb products. For one, have you noticed that they often contain the
same calories as their regular counterparts? Low-carb chips and regular
chips both contain about 150 calories per one- ounce serving. Low-carb
bars and candy bars alike contain about 250 calories. None of us can
afford to eat these snacks with impunity."
"In 1992, consumers flocked to the fat-free SnackWell's, but at some
point, they noticed the low-fat and fat-free processed foods were high
in sugar and calories, and they stopped buying them," says Lynn
Dornblaser, director of consulting services at Mintel International, a
Chicago-based product research company. "The same will happen with the
low-carb products. Carbohydrates are today's dietary scapegoat. Consumers
will notice that the low-carb products are very unbalanced. They're high
in fat, saturated fat and calories, and they'll stop buying them."
"Hopefully."
KIDS' AND RESTAURANTS:
WHAT ARE YOUR CHILDREN EATING?
Nutrition Action Newsletter, March 2004, pp. 12-15.
Have you ever noticed that the restaurant's view of kids' food is really
fast food? Kids' menus rarely offer anything beyond burgers, pizza,
fried chicken fingers and fries. In almost half of the chain restaurants,
fries were the ONLY side dish on the menu. These foods are familiar and
cheap (for the restaurant). The real cost is the increased risk of
obesity, diabetes, heart disease (clogging of the arteries is showing
up in 10 year olds!) and cancer.
What can you do about this? Don't take the easy way out. Substitute
fresh fruit and/or veggies for fries and water for soda. Ask for
nutrition information. For example, Applebee's Grilled Cheese sandwich
has 520 calories, 14 grams of saturated fat and if you order fries the
total calories becomes 900 plus 2050mg of sodium and 21 grams of bad
fat - OUCH! And those numbers don't include the complimentary
beverage … or the high priced weight loss camp you'll be sending
your child to this summer!
WHY WE EAT MORE THAN WE THINK
Nutrition Action Newsletter, March 2004, pp. 3-6.
Brian Wansink, a professor of Marketing, Nutritional Science and
Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois
was interviewed for this article.
Portion Size
Most people have a good understanding about what they eat
(they will realize that certain foods are bad for them), but don't
accurately access how much they eat.
"We went to movie theaters in Chicago and randomly gave people
either medium or large buckets of popcorn. We found out that the
people who were given big buckets ate roughly 50 percent more than
the people who were given smaller buckets. But if you asked them
to estimate how many ounces or calories they had eaten, there was
no difference between what the two groups reported." The bottom
line is that people end up eating more from a bigger box or plate.
Shapes
"The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget found that if you show very
young kids something tall and skinny, they think it holds more than
something that's short and wide. They look at the height of an object
and under-account for the width."
"We asked 48 Philadelphia bartenders to pour a gin and tonic into either
a highball glass or a short, wide tumbler. They were supposed to pour a
shot - 1-˝ ounces - but we didn't let them use shot glasses."
"And even though they had an average of five years of experience, the
bartenders poured an average of 26 percent more alcohol into the wide
tumbler than the highball glass. So if somebody's job is pouring the
right amount and even they can't do it, what about the rest of us?"
Proximity
"We asked some university secretaries if they wanted to fill out a
questionnaire for a study on candy consumption…. We asked some of the
secretaries to put the dish on the desk and others to put it about six
feet away from the desk…. We put 30 Hersey's Kisses in either a clear or
opaque bowl with a lid. And every night for four weeks, we secretly went
to the secretaries' offices, counted how many Kisses they had eaten, and
filled the bowl back up to 30. We found that if you put candy on
somebody's desk, they ate about nine chocolates a day…. But if all
you had to do was put it six feet away and the number dropped down to
four Kisses a day…."
So what's the big deal? Five more chocolates equals 125 more calories
per day. Over a month of weekdays, that's 2500 calories or 2/3's of a
pound. Over the course of a year that's 8 pounds!
What this shows is that will power alone is not enough. Changing our
environment is essential for success.
Nourishing Traditions,
by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, PhD
Great cookbook and nutrition text.
SPECIAL PRODUCTS WE OFFER
· Custom Orthotics
· Carolla's Bees Wax: the best foot and hand ointment we've found
· The Stick: the ultimate warm-up and cool-down tool
·
Interhealth Massage Chair
· Stetch-Out Strap: flexibility strap
· Biofreeze: pain relief rub
· Traumeel: homeopathic analgesic rub
· Citricidal: grapefruit seed extract
· Fitness balls
· Heel lifts
· Foam rollers
|
Maryland Sports Injury Center