Posted by on April 16, 2014 - 8:12am
A surprising new strategy for managing your weight? Bright morning light!!  A new Northwestern Medicine® study reports the timing, intensity and duration of your light exposure during the day is linked to your weight -- the first time this has been shown.

People who had most of their daily exposure to even moderately bright light in the morning had a significantly lower body mass index (BMI) than those who had most of their light exposure later in the day, the study found.   “The earlier this light exposure occurred during the day, the lower individuals’ body mass index,” said co-lead author Kathryn Reid, research associate professor of neurology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “The later the hour of moderately bright light exposure, the higher a person’s BMI.”

The influence of morning light exposure on body weight was independent of an individual’s physical activity level, caloric intake, sleep timing, age or season. It accounted for about 20 percent of a person’s BMI.

“Light is the most potent agent to synchronize your internal body clock that regulates circadian rhythms, which in turn also regulate energy balance,” said study senior author Phyllis C. Zee, M.D. “The message is that you should get more bright light between 8 a.m. and noon.” About 20 to 30 minutes of morning light is enough to affect BMI.

Zee is the Benjamin and Virginia T. Boshes Professor of Neurology and director of the Northwestern Medicine Sleep and Circadian Rhythms Research Program at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. She also is a neurologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

“If a person doesn’t get sufficient light at the appropriate time of day, it could de-synchronize your internal body clock, which is known to alter metabolism and can lead to weight gain,” Zee said. The exact mechanism of how light affects body fat requires further research, she noted.

The study was published April 2 in the journal PLOS ONE. Giovanni Santostasi, a research fellow in neurology at Feinberg, also is a co-lead author.

What’s the Magic Number for Low BMI?

Many people do not get enough natural light in the morning, Zee said, because the American lifestyle is predominantly indoors. We also work in poorly lit environments, usually about 200 to 300 lux. In the study, 500 lux was “the magic number” or minimum threshold for having a lower BMI. Even on a cloudy day, outdoor light is more than 1,000 lux of brightness. It is difficult to achieve this light level with usual indoor lighting, the scientists noted.

Light May Be Next Frontier for Weight Loss  

“Light is a modifiable factor with the potential to be used in weight management programs,” Reid said. “Just like people are trying to get more sleep to help them lose weight, perhaps manipulating light is another way to lose weight.”

The study included 54 participants (26 males, 28 females), an average age of 30. They wore a wrist actigraphy monitor that measured their light exposure and sleep parameters for seven days in normal-living conditions. Their caloric intake was determined from seven days of food logs.

Source:  Northwestern News Service, author Marla Paul

Posted by on February 14, 2014 - 2:04pm

With the recent controversy surrounding Rachel Frederickson’s extreme weight loss on The Biggest Loser, it’s time to shed light on the proper (and safe) way to lose weight. For those unfamiliar with reality television, The Biggest Loser centers around overweight contestants attempting to lose weight to win a cash prize. The winner, whoever loses the highest percentage of weight, is given the title “the Biggest Loser,” along with a cool cash prize of a quarter million dollars. This past season’s winner, Rachel Frederickson, has stirred up much press when she dropped 60% of her bodyweight, going from an original weight of 260 lbs. down to a meager 105 in roughly 7 months—a new record for the show.

Rachel reportedly exercised for at least six hours a day and ate a diet of only 1,600 calories per day. Despite her claims that this workout/diet routine mimicked that of an athlete—did she go too far? Perhaps. This extreme decrease in weight certainly points to unhealthy habits. Each body is unique and it’s important to be aware of what you can and cannot handle when trying to lose some pounds. WebMD advises aiming to lose 1-2 pounds per week—if you’re looking to shed weight—anything extremely more can be too much, too fast. Fad diets are inadvisable, as they can often be unhealthy and don’t usually last. Burning 500 more calories than you eat every day for a week should be sufficient to help you lose 1-2 pounds safely. Doing slightly more to lose weight, such as eating 1,200 calories a day and exercising for one hour each day could help you lose 3 or more pounds a week—but this can be inadvisable for many people, depending on their unique health conditions.

Eating healthily is a key component to losing weight properly. Focusing on fruits, vegetables, egg whites, soy products, poultry, fish, nonfat dairy, and 95% lean meat is a great start. Drinking plenty of water, eradicating tempting foods from your home, not skipping meals, and staying busy are all other tips to help you reach your goal. While it is unclear if Rachel Frederickson lost weight healthily, it is important to monitor the limits of your body closely. Consulting with your doctor and devising a healthy weight loss or weight management plan will help ensure you’re losing the weight in a proper and safe way.

Sources: CBS News and WebMD

Posted by on September 3, 2013 - 1:30pm

A recent study published by researchers at Duke University highlighted the fact that some populations of women are more receptive to weight-management interventions than programs advertising weight loss. Weight loss is difficult across all populations and many programs aimed at reducing the pounds may end up providing only a temporary reprieve.  As weight gain and obesity are ever-increasing concerns, some researchers have tried to tackle this problem from another angle.  Instead of designing weight loss programs, health enthusiasts should focus on weight management initiatives for certain populations.

Duke University researcher Gary Bennett, PhD, who headed this study, found that African-American women responded more favorably to a weight control program than the traditional weight loss regime. On average, premenopausal African-American women have more weight gain per year than women of other racial and ethnic groups.  Furthermore, by the time African-American women are 59, twice as many “have class 2 obesity as do white women and three times have the prevalence of class 3 obesity.”  Current obesity treatments are not as effective for this population of women, and their underrepresentation in clinical trials studying weight loss interventions points to a dire need for understanding and implementing positive approaches to fight obesity. Re-angling the strategy towards prevention of weight gain requires a less-intensive intervention strategy, which many women are more responsive to.

The clinical trial involved overweight and class 1 obese women between the ages of 25 to 44.  The women were randomly placed in either a health clinic’s usual care cohort or the experimental “Shape Program.” The intervention program had five primary components: tailored behavior modification goals, weekly self-monitoring by interactive voice response, 12 monthly counseling calls by a registered dietitian, tailored skills training, and a 12-month YMCA membership. After the 18 month trial, patients in the “Shape Program” had a “mean weight loss of more than 2 pounds versus continued weight gain” in the control group. These positive results have inspired Duke researchers to continue unlocking the motivations behind weight management and weight loss in women. Furthermore, this research provides an opportunity for clinicians to breach the subject of weight management with their patients through a new lens.

To read more about this study, please click here.

 

Posted by on August 15, 2012 - 8:40am

It is no wonder why the weight-loss industry is a $20 billion per year industry.  Dieters spend money on diet books, diet drugs and weight-loss surgery.  108 million people in the United States are on diets and typically attempt four or five diets a year.  85% of dieters are women.

Some diets preach low-calorie, some are low-carbohydrate.  Some allow for only eating grapefruit or cabbage soup.  Some say it’s only about how much you eat and the amount of time spent exercising, while others say not all calories are created equal and it is about what we eat as well as how much of it.  We are constantly bombarded by different information and different diets.  No wonder we cannot keep the weight off.

A promising study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association may finally set the record straight.  It found that a specific mix of carbohydrate, fat and protein might be ideal.  It also suggested that not all calories are created equal, meaning that calories can have different effects on the body.

The study followed 21 adults ages 18 through 40 for four years to determine the effects of various diets on the ability to burn calories following weight loss. At the start of the study, the participants had a BMI over 27, which is considered overweight or obese.  The participants were originally placed on a diet to lose 10%-15% of their body weight.  After the initial weight loss, researchers placed the participants on three different diets in a random order each for four weeks at a time.  All diets maintained the same total number of calories.  However, they did differ in their carbohydrate, fat and protein content.

The low-fat diet required that 60% of calories came from carbohydrates, 20% from fat and 20% from protein.  The low-glycemic diet required that 40% of calories be derived from carbohydrates, 40% from fat and 20% from protein in order to prevent spikes in blood sugar.  The very low-carbohydrate diet (“Atkins”) required that 10% of calories came from carbohydrate, 60% from fat and 30% from protein.

Researchers measured participants’ energy expenditure as well as other aspects of metabolism and concluded that the total number of calories burned daily differed with each diet.  Researchers also studied hormone levels and metabolic measures concluding that they too varied by diet.

On average the very-low carbohydrate diet burned calories most efficiently with participants burning 3,137 calories daily.  The low-glycemic diet burned 2,937 calories per day, 200 less than the very-low carbohydrate.  The low-fat diet burned 2,812 calories daily.

While researchers did conclude that it improved metabolism the best, don’t switch to the very-low carbohydrate diet just yet.  The participants showed higher levels of risk factors for diabetes and heart disease, including the stress hormone cortisol.

The low-glycemic diet resulted in only a 200 calorie difference and showed similar benefits to the very-low carbohydrate diet, with less negative effects.  A low-glycemic diet consists of less-processed grains, vegetables and legumes.  According to researchers, this may be the best diet for both long-term weight loss and heart disease prevention when coupled with exercise.

A low-glycemic index diet emphasizes foods based on how they affect blood sugar levels.  Foods, specifically carbohydrates since they have the most effect on blood sugar, are given a score between 0 and 100.  High scores of 70 and up include white and brown rice, white bread, white skinless baked potato, boiled red potatoes and watermelon.  Medium scores between 56-69 include sweet corn, bananas, raw pineapple, raisins and some ice creams.  Examples of low scoring foods of 55 and under include raw carrots, peanuts, raw apple, grapefruit, peas, skim milk, kidney beans and lentils.

The diet does not require counting carbs, counting calories or reducing portion sizes.  It only directs dieters to the right kind of carbohydrates in order to keep blood sugar levels balanced.  Specifically, lower glycemic diets are digested less rapidly by the body, which raises the blood sugar in a regulated, balanced way; whereas higher glycemic foods and beverages are digested more rapidly causing a blood sugar spike followed by a drastic decline.  Since low-glycemic index foods are digested more slowly, they remain in the digestive tract longer, potentially controlling appetite and hunger.  This can also reduce the risk of insulin resistance.

The study shows that a low-glycemic diet can work for long-term weight-loss, as it is easily sustainable because whole food groups are not removed.  Furthermore, it may reduce the risk of serious diseases such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Sources:

Weight-Loss Stats: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/100-million-dieters-20-billion-weight-loss-industry/story?id=16297197#.UBBfZo7p7ao

NIH: http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/july2012/07162012weight.htm

Mayo Clinic on the Low-Glycemic Diet: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/glycemic-index-diet/MY00770

 

Posted by on July 25, 2012 - 2:30pm

The FDA recently approved the first weight-loss drug, Belviq (lorcaserin hydrochloride), in 13 years.  Arena Pharmaceuticals of San Diego developed the pill to help people lose 3-4% of their body weight when coupled with exercise and a healthy diet.  The FDA approved the pill for obese people (BMI over 30) and some overweight people (BMI over 27) who suffer from high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes.

Potential weight-loss drugs face increased scrutiny tod
ay by the FDA for efficacy and safety as many recent ones (fenfluramine, for example) have been recalled due to heart-valve complications.  In March, the FDA’s advisory committee introduced mandatory tests for cardiovascular risks for all obesity drugs, which makes the current clinical trials even longer.

In 2010, Arena applied for approval of the drug. The FDA denied approval because it was deemed responsible for causing tumors in rats and because it could not definitively rule out an increase in heart-valve defects.  The pharmaceutical company conducted echocardiograms for 8,000 patients to determine heart-valve function.  This trial could not verify an increase in heart-valve defects in the users of the drug, convincing the FDA to approve it.  The company committed to perform six post-marketing studies with a long-term cardiovascular trial that will search for heart attack and stroke risks.

The drug works to suppress food cravings by mimicking the effects of serotonin in the brain.  Along with many other vital functions, the neurotransmitter serotonin plays a role in controlling appetite.  Within the brain, neurons pass messages back and forth using chemical messengers (neurotransmitters).  The messages may involve information concerning emotions, body temperature, behavior and appetite.  The specific kind of information delivered varies with which neurons become activated and where the brain becomes stimulated.  The neurotransmitter leaves the neuron and enters the synapse (the space between the two “communicating” neurons).  The neurotransmitter links with the receptor on the other neuron, which sends the message.  This can then be repeated through a process called reuptake.  Serotonin qualifies as a neurotransmitter.  The drug Belviq mimics serotonin by activating the 2C receptor, which increases the amount of serotonin to carry messages and increases the probability that the message is received.  Thus, the drug causes people to eat less and feel full.

Non-diabetic patients reported headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, dry mouth and constipation as side effects.  Other side effects include serotonin syndrome especially in combination with depression or headache medication that increase serotonin levels or that activate serotonin receptors.  The drug may also affect attention or memory.  In diabetics, side effects include low blood sugar, pain, cough and fatigue.

On average, a 198-pound patient taking Belviq will lose six to seven pounds in a year.  20% of patients lose at least 10% of their body weight.  Comparatively, 47% of patients without type 2 diabetes taking the drug and 23% of those taking a placebo each lost at least 5% of their total body weight.  38% of patients with type 2 diabetes taking the drug and 16% of those taking a placebo each lost at least 5% of their total body weight.  Type 2 diabetics who toke Belviq proved to be twice as likely to regulate their blood sugars compared to those who toke the placebo.

While it may help those suffering from diabetes, it may cause heart complications.  The company advises patients with congestive heart failure or pregnant patients to not take the drug.  CNN’s Dr. Melina Jampolis, a physician nutrition specialist and diet and fitness expert, calls the results modest and says, “But most experts agree that even a 5% weight loss has significant implications in terms of reducing the risk of obesity associated diseases including heart disease and diabetes.”

The drug may be risky, but risks also come with the rising obesity rate such as diabetes and heart disease.  With more than 1/3 of the adult population being obese, the drug may prove worthwhile.

Sources

Nature

CNN

 

 

Posted by on June 6, 2012 - 6:36am

Simply ejecting your rear from the couch means your hand will spend less time digging into a bag of chocolate chip cookies.

That is the simple but profound finding of a new Northwestern Medicine study, which reports simply changing one bad habit has a domino effect on others. Knock down your sedentary leisure time and you’ll reduce junk food and saturated fats because you’re no longer glued to the TV and noshing. It’s a two-for-one benefit because the behaviors are closely related.

The study also found the most effective way to rehab a delinquent lifestyle requires two key behavior changes:  cutting time spent in front of a TV or computer screen and eating more fruits and vegetables.

“Just making two lifestyle changes has a big overall effect and people don’t get overwhelmed,” said Bonnie Spring, a professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and lead author of the study published in Archives of Internal Medicine.

“Americans have all these unhealthy behaviors that put them at high risk for heart disease and cancer, but it is hard for them and their doctors to know where to begin to change those unhealthy habits,” said Spring. “This approach simplifies it.”

With this simplified strategy, people are capable of making big lifestyle changes in a short period of time and maintaining them, according to the study.

Spring wanted to figure out the most effective way to spur people to change common bad health habits: eating too much saturated fat and not enough fruits and vegetables, spending too much sedentary leisure time and not getting enough physical activity.

She and colleagues randomly assigned 204 adult patients, ages 21 to 60 years old, with all those unhealthy habits into one of four treatments. The treatments were: increase fruit/vegetable intake and physical activity, decrease fat and sedentary leisure, decrease fat and increase physical activity, and increase fruit/vegetable intake and decrease sedentary leisure.

During the three weeks of treatment, patients entered their daily data into a personal digital assistant and uploaded it to a coach who communicated as needed by telephone or email.

Participants could earn $175 for meeting goals during the three-week treatment phase. But when that phase was completed, patients no longer had to maintain the lifestyle changes in order to be paid. They were simply asked to send data three days a month for six months and received $30 to $80 per month.

“We said we hope you’ll continue to keep up these healthy changes, but you no longer have to keep them up to be compensated,” Spring said.

The results over the next six months amazed Spring. “We thought they’d do it while we were paying them, but the minute we stopped they’d go back to their bad habits,” she said. “But they continued to maintain a large improvement in their health behaviors.”

About 86 percent of participants said once they made the change, they tried to maintain it. There was something about increasing fruits and vegetables that made them feel like they were capable of any of these changes,” Spring said. “It really enhanced their confidence.”

“We found people can make very large changes in a very short amount of time and maintain them pretty darn well,” Spring said. “It’s a lot more feasible than we thought.”

The research is supported by  National Institutes of Health grants.

Source:  Marla Paul, NU health sciences editor

Posted by on April 25, 2012 - 8:30am

Recently Miley Cyrus has been touting a gluten free diet as a way to lose weight.   Is this true or just another celebrity fad? Gluten is a protein present in foods including wheat, rye, oats, and barley  but may also be found in everyday products such as medicines, vitamins, and even lip balms.    There's absolutely nothing wrong with eating gluten unless you have celiac disease, or gluten sensitive enteropathy (GSE), an autoimmune disease that damages the small intestine and interferes with absorption of nutrients from food. If you are sensitive to gluten, the body produces an abnormal immune response to it, attacking the lining of small intestine where digestion takes place. This leads to the symptoms of celiac disease: • abdominal bloating and pain • chronic diarrhea • vomiting • constipation • pale, foul-smelling, or fatty stool • weight loss About 1% of the population has GSE. But there may be another 9% or so who have what is called gluten sensitivity or gluten intolerance. These people may have similar symptoms to those with GSE but do not show the same damage to the bowel as those with GSE. The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong, gluten-free diet.  But can it cause you to lose weight?  The answer is complicated.  Studies have shown that patients with GSE who were underweight gained  weight on a gluten-free diet. Those with GSE and obesity tended to lose weight after starting a gluten-free diet. What about people who don't have GSE? Celebrities have touted a gluten-free diet as a way to lose weight. Proponents hype it as a healthier way to eat. They claim it improves sleep, increases energy, and clears skin. Some go so far as to say it helps those with autism and rheumatoid arthritis. But Dee Sandquist, MS, RD, a spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, who also happens to have celiac disease, says:   There is nothing magical about eliminating gluten that will improve your health or enhance weight loss unless you are intolerant to gluten.   The academy points out that "Research on individuals with celiac disease reports that long-term compliance with a gluten-free dietary pattern improves outcomes related to bone density, iron deficiency anemia, villous atrophy, gastrointestinal and neurological symptoms, pregnancy outcomes and quality of life." One problem is the fact that many people with GSE don't even know that they have the disease, and those with gluten intolerance are less likely to be diagnosed.  Researchers conclude that there is no scientific evidence supporting the alleged benefit that a gluten-free diet will promote weight loss and  that adherence to the gluten-free dietary pattern may actually result in a diet that is low in carbohydrates, fiber  and important vitamins. Many confuse a gluten-free diet with a low-carb diet (which can promote weight loss).     A gluten-free diet eliminates foods such as bread and pasta, it doesn't eliminate other high-carb foods such as rice, beans and corn.    The popularity of gluten-free diets has lead to an explosion of gluten-free food availability and a financially growing industry that  is expected to exceed $5 billion by 2015! This is great if you need to be on the diet. However, people need to be aware that these are not low-calorie foods! Some prepared foods have additional fat and sugar added and mixed into substitute flours such as white rice flour or potato starch to make them more palatable. A gluten-free diet is not a panacea for weight loss. It is, however, an important diet for those who suffer from GSE or intolerance.

Posted by on January 21, 2012 - 7:54am

Women typically find it harder to lose weight and inches than men.  This, in part, is due to the fact that  men have more lean muscle mass and a higher resting metabolic rate. Another issue that makes weigh loss challenging for females:   women store fat differently from men--more of it goes to their thighs, buttocks, and hips, where it can be harder to shed.  Finally, female hormones promote the storage of calories as fat, and fat takes up more space than muscle.

As the obesity rate keeps rising, especially among teenage girls, we need to press for more sex based research on exercise, diet, hormones and metabolism!

 

Posted by on December 6, 2011 - 12:17pm

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  and the Federal Trade Commission said over-the-counter weight loss products containing human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) are fraudulent and illegal, and the agencies have told seven manufacturers to stop selling them.  They have become a popular but fraudulent fad.

"There is no substantial evidence HCG increases weight loss beyond that resulting from the recommended caloric restriction," said Elizabeth Miller, acting director of the FDA's fraud unit for OTC products.

The manufacturers' recommended diet while taking HCG is as low as 500 calories, low enough to create a risk of malnutrition, electrolyte imbalance, cardiac arrhythmias, and gallstone formation, Miller said.   Almost anyone who limits their diet to 500 calories will loose weight without ANY supplements, making the supplement useless.

The warning letters sent to manufacturers of the products note that HCG has not received FDA approval for any weight loss indication. The substance is approved as an injectable drug for certain forms of female infertility and is therefore clearly subject to FDA regulation.

HCG weight-loss products are typically sold over the Internet, often promoted with unsolicited "spam" emails, with such claims as "Lose 26 pounds in 26 days" and "Resets your metabolism."

The companies have 15 days to inform the FDA of the steps they have taken to correct the violations. Theoretically, the firms could seek FDA approval for the weight-loss claims, but the agencies expect that they will simply stop selling the products.  If not, the FDA will take action.   Many of these products are labeled as homeopathic remedies, but they are illegal whether the word "homeopathic" is used or not, said Richard Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division.   If the product is marketed or meets federal standards to qualify as a drug, but is not FDA-approved, it cannot be sold legally, Cleland said.

The seven companies receiving the warning letters, in addition to HCG Diet Direct, included Nutri Fusion Systems, Natural Medical Supply (doing business as HCG Complete Diet), HCG Platinum, Theoriginalhcgdrops.com, and HCG-miracleweightloss.com.

Posted by on November 27, 2011 - 1:12pm

The Old--remember these?

Remember those weight loss machines that consisted of a vibrating belt you put around your waist?   They were often part of a comedy routine on early TV.  Well,  they are back in the form of a whole body vibration machine.

With the new whole body vibration, you stand, sit or lie on a machine with a vibrating platform. As the machine vibrates, it transmits energy to your body, forcing your muscles to contract and relax dozens of times each second. (The old version only shook the belt)  You may feel as if you're exerting yourself when you do whole body vibration. You can find a whole body vibration machine at a local gym, or you can even buy one for home use.

The New --Whole Body Vibration Machine

Advocates say that as little as 15 minutes a day of whole body vibration three times a week can aid weight loss, burn fat, improve flexibility, enhance blood flow, build strength and decrease the stress hormone cortisol.   But comprehensive research about whole body vibration is lacking. It's not yet clear if whole body vibration provides the same range of health benefits as exercise you actively engage in, such as walking, biking or swimming. Some research does show that whole body vibration may help improve muscle strength and that it may help with weight loss when you also cut back on calories.

One of the selling points of this machine is the belief that it may increase bone mineral density and thus help prevent osteoporosis.  But a new study does not support this hypothesis.

A year of whole-body vibration (WBV) did not alter bone mineral density (BMD) or bone structure in postmenopausal women taking vitamin D and calcium supplements, Canadian researcher Angela Cheung, MD, and colleagues from the University Health Network in Toronto reported.

"Whole body vibration has been introduced in the past decade as a promising new anti-osteoporotic therapy, because significant improvements in bone formation, BMD, and cortical thickness were found in animal models," wrote the authors.   "Although commercially available WBV devices are marketed to and used by patients," they continued, "the beneficial effects of WBV on fracture risk and BMD have not been established, and recent randomized, controlled trials in postmenopausal women have shown conflicting results."

To clarify the issue, the researchers studied healthy postmenopausal women with BMD T-scores between -1.0 and -2.5 who were not prescribed bone medications. (A T-score between +1 and −1 is considered normal or healthy. A T-score between −1 and −2.5 indicates that you have low bone mass, although not low enough to be diagnosed with osteoporosis. A T-score of −2.5 or lower indicates that you have osteoporosis. The greater the negative number, the more severe the osteoporosis). Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: two groups were asked to stand on a low-magnitude WBV platform for 20 minutes daily, and the third group served as the control group.

The groups did not differ in the number of clinical fractures during the period.  None of these fractures that did occur were  related to frailty because they were caused by car, household, or sporting accidents or involved only the small bones of the foot.

"[Twelve] months of low-magnitude WBV at either 90- or 30-Hz had no effect on BMD or bone structure in healthy, community-dwelling, postmenopausal women who received calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and thus is not recommended for preventing age-related bone loss in this population," wrote the researchers.

 

Pages