Author: Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Is Fasting a Good Way to Lose Weight?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

People fast for many reasons: as a religious observance or spiritual ritual, as a political protest, in preparation for medical procedures, or as an occasional health practice.   And studies have confirmed that short-term fasting can have a number of health benefits. Yet fasting for the purposes of losing weight is not generally seen as a good idea.

Fasting Doesn’t Teach You How to Eat Better

One argument is that you need to learn healthy eating habits in order to achieve long-term weight control. Fasting is by necessity a short-term strategy. Sooner or later, you have to begin eating again. And skills such as exercising portion control, choosing more nutritious foods and fewer empty calories, eating more vegetables and whole grains are not developed by fasting.

And we’ve all heard the argument that people who skip meals (whether one or a whole day’s worth) tend to eat more calories later to compensate. (More on that in a moment.) But a series of new studies, summarized in the U.S. News and World Report, suggest that there may be a legitimate role for modified fasting as a weight loss tool.

Fasting as a Dieting Strategy

A group of researchers in Louisiana conducted a small study in which overweight subjects ate just 20% of their normal caloric intake every other day. On the days in between, they ate as much as they wanted. On average, they lost about 8% of their body weight over the next two months.

Inspired by these results, Kenneth Webb decided to try his own version of the program. Webb calculated his daily calorie requirements (you can calculate yours with this Daily Needs Calculator) and ate just 30% that many calories every other day. On the alternate days, he ate 130%.  Over the course of about seven months, he lost 30 pounds. Not surprising, because he reduced his overall calorie intake by about 20%. But Webb says his one-day-on, one-day-off routine has a psychological advantage: He claims that it’s easy to be disciplined for a single day, knowing that the next day he’ll be eating as much as he wants–with no guilt.

Health and Anti-Aging Benefits of Fasting

There appear to be health benefits to fasting as well. Short-term fasting has been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease, improve insulin sensitivity, and slow the cellular aging process.   Some research suggests that fasting every other day may be almost as effective (and far less difficult) than the practice of calorie restriction.

Still, fasting isn’t for everyone.  For some, going an entire day on just a few hundred calories is simply too uncomfortable. For others–especially anyone who has struggled with eating disorders–the alternating sequence of fasting and feasting may lead to out-of-control binging.  You’ll have to be the judge of whether this strategy is a good fit for your lifestyle, disposition, and relationship to food.

And if you do decide to try it, remember that when calories are limited, the quality of them matters even more.  On your fasting days, be sure to concentrate on nutritious foods like fruits, vegetables, and lean protein.

A final thought: We’ve all been led to believe that skipping meals is an ineffective way to lose weight. But research from Cornell University suggests that restricting calories for one meal per day may be an effective weight loss strategy.

In a small, 2-week study, one group was given a 200 calorie (kcal) lunch (such as a cup of yogurt or bowl of soup) and another was given a 600 calorie (kcal) buffet lunch.  Both groups were allowed to eat as much as they wanted the rest of the day.  Surprisingly, those who ate only 200 calories for lunch didn’t seem to compensate by eating more the rest of the day. In fact, their daily calorie intake was, on average, precisely 400 calories less than those who ate the larger lunch, leading to weight loss.

Time for you to weigh in (so to speak!) on this interesting topic:

Have you ever tried modified fasting as a weight control strategy? How did it work for you?

Do you think every other day fasting would be a workable lifestyle? Easier than dieting every day?  Or do you think its just a gimmick?

Would the possible health benefits of fasting, aside from weight control, motivate you to try this approach?

I look forward to your comments and discussion!

Modified Fasting: a good weight control strategy?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Mpj042253000001 People fast for many reasons: as a religious observance or spiritual ritual, as a political protest, in preparation for medical procedures, or as an occasional health practice.   And studies have confirmed that short-term fasting can have a number of health benefits.

Yet fasting for the purposes of losing weight is not generally seen as a good idea.

One argument is that you need to learn healthy eating habits in order to achieve long-term weight control. Fasting is by necessity a short-term strategy. Sooner or later, you have to begin eating again. And skills such as exercising portion control, choosing more nutritious foods and fewer empty calories, eating more vegetables and whole grains are not developed by fasting.

And we’ve all heard the argument that people who skip meals (whether one or a whole day’s worth) tend to eat more calories later to compensate. (More on that in a moment)

But a series of new studies, summarized in the U.S. News and World Report, suggest that there may be a legitimate role for modified fasting as a weight loss tool. Continue reading “Modified Fasting: a good weight control strategy?” >

On lard, pie crusts, and whether all saturated fats are the same

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Two related questions posted on the blog recently:cherry pie

Q. I’ve been reading that lard is now considered a good fat, as long as it’s not hydrogenated. I realize that lard is still saturated fat, so it’s not ‘good’ like olive oil. And like all fats, it must be eaten in moderation.  But I’m wondering what you think about going back to Gramma’s pie crust recipe. Crisco/butter just never did make the same good crust …

Crust-y Curious

Q. Like Crusty Curious, I’ve also been wondering about lard and pie crusts, as well as other saturated fats. If we limit our intake of saturated fats to recommended amounts, does it matter what TYPE of saturated fat we use? Are palm oil, coconut oil, butter, lard, and beef drippings (for homemade gravy) all equivalent, nutritionally? Or is there some good reason to avoid certain of these? 

Judy

A. Pie crusts are a matter near and dear to my heart and I’ve been collecting pie crust recipes for years. My current favorite uses a mixture of butter (for flavor) and lard (for flakiness).  But you will find equally ardent advocates for all-butter crusts and even some die-hard shortening devotees.

Epicurious.com’s Food Editor Sarah Kagen has long been a fan of this recipe, which uses part butter and part shortening. “But lately,” she says, “I’ve had several crusts made with part butter and part lard, and I have to say, I think I’ve been converted. The lard creates flakiness like shortening, but it adds a wonderful golden toastiness.”

Epicurious.com’s Associate Editor Lauren Salkeld (who is a graduate of the French Culinary Institute’s Classic Pastry Arts Program) says, “We made all butter dough in school, so that’s what I’m used to. I find it flaky and I prefer the flavor.”

Aside from the culinary debate, is there any difference nutritionally between butter, lard, and the naturally saturated fats found in palm kernel and coconut oil (used to make trans-fat free shortening)?

Here are a few facts that might surprise you :

1. Butter contains about 20% less fat and calories per ounce than lard or saturated vegetable fat, because it contains some water. (When substituting butter for other fats, adjust quantities accordingly.)

2. All of these products contain a mixure of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats. Lard actually contains the least amount of saturated fat (11g per ounce) while coconut oil contains the most (24g per ounce).

3. Animal fats (lard and butter) contain more monounsaturated fat than palm kernel and coconut oil. In fact, lard contains more monounsaturated fats (13mg per ounce) than saturated fats (11g per ounce).

4. Butter contains twice as much cholesterol (60mg per ounce) as lard (27mg per ounce). Vegetable shortenings contain no cholesterol.

5. Lard contains 280mg of omega-3 fatty acids per ounce; butter has 88mg per ounce. (Palm kernel and coconut oil contain little or no omega-3s).

6. Butter contains a fair amount of vitamin A (700mg per ounce) whereas palm kernel oil contains a good helping of vitamin K (7mcg per ounce).

7. Both palm kernel and coconut oils contain natural phytosterols, which can help to reduce cholesterol levels by blocking the cellular uptake of cholesterol.

Regardless of what form of fat you’re trying to build a case for, you can find some support for it here. And of course there’s the argument that saturated fat isn’t really bad for you, anyway; it’s the carbs you eat with it that do the damage. (More comforting for bacon eaters than pie lovers.)

The only fat I can advise you to avoid completely are shortenings made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (old-style Crisco) or a mixture of fully hydrogenated and unhydrogenated vegetable oils (new-style Crisco). The former is full of trans fats and the latter, although it claims to be nearly trans fat free, is full of “interesterified fats,” which appear to be no better for you. (Also take care to select lard that has not been hydrogenated.)

No matter what form of fat you use, of course, pie crust is not a low-fat item.  One slice of a double-crust pie will use up about a quarter of your daily allowance of fat and around 80% of your allowance for saturated fat (not counting the filling).

So, in answer to the questions above, as long as your overal intake of fat, calories, and saturated fat is not excessive, and you are avoiding all hydrogenated products, use whatever you like to make your pie crust. (And send me your recipe!)

Living Well to 100

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

What would it take to live to 100—in good health? An international consortium of researchers recently gathered at Tufts University in Boston to debate the answer. This meeting brought together heavy-hitters from every corner of medical research—cardiovascular medicine, endocrinology, nutrition, obesity management, experimental genetics, sleep research, and more.

After two days of research presentations on every aspect of the aging process, the panelists were asked to consider:

What are the top five things we should do if we want to live well to 100?

You might be surprised at the answers. It’s not about expensive medical interventions, drugs, or futuristic technology. According to the best available research, it all comes down to a few simple habits—things we all can do.

Continue reading “Living Well to 100” >

Calorie Restriction: Life extension or eating disorder?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Cutting calories isn’t just for dieters anymore.  A growing number of people are embracing extreme, calorie-restricted diets in the hopes that it will drastically extend their lifespan…to 120 or beyond. (See also “Extreme Calorie Restriction for Long Life”  on MSNBC.com).

Proponents of Calorie Restriction (or CR) typically eat 30-40% fewer calories than it would take to maintain what is generally considered to be a “healthy” weight.  They generally lose quite a bit of weight before stabilizing at a much lower body weight.  The motivation for such extreme deprivation? Animal studies in everything from fruit flies to primates indicate that CR can extend the maximum lifespan of the animal in question as much as 20 or 25%.  There are no human studies verifying that CR will have the same effect on humans, but short-term studies show that CR does reduce biomarkers for aging along with lowering the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes.  For many, that’s evidence enough. Continue reading “Calorie Restriction: Life extension or eating disorder?” >

Calorie Restriction: Life Extension or Self-Starvation?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Cutting calories isn’t just for dieters anymore.  A growing number of people are embracing extreme, calorie-restricted diets in the hopes that it will drastically extend their lifespan…to 120 or beyond. (See also “Extreme Calorie Restriction for Long Life”  on MSNBC.com).

What is Calorie Restriction?

Proponents of Calorie Restriction (or CR) typically eat 30-40% fewer calories than it would take to maintain what is generally considered to be a “healthy” weight.  They generally lose quite a bit of weight before stabilizing at a much lower body weight.  The motivation for such extreme deprivation? Animal studies in everything from fruit flies to primates indicate that CR can extend the maximum lifespan of the animal in question as much as 20 or 25%.  There are no human studies verifying that CR will have the same effect on humans, but short-term studies show that CR does reduce biomarkers for aging along with lowering the risk of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes.  For many, that’s evidence enough. Continue reading “Calorie Restriction: Life Extension or Self-Starvation?” >

Obese America: Is Corn Syrup to Blame?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

In a recent discussion about fructose and heart disease risk, a reader brought up the issue of high fructose corn syrup and I promised to address this hot topic in a new post.  Let me just say up front that a lot of people are likely to disagree with my view on this subject. But what’s a blog without a little controversy once in a while?

For those who haven’t been following along, there has been a lot of heat around the widespread use of high fructose corn syrup in processed foods.  Manufacturers can save big bucks by using HFCS in place of more expensive table sugar, or sucrose. (One reason that HFCS is so much cheaper than sugar is that corn is heavily subsidized by our government via the Farm Bill, but that’s another story!)

Many products (most notably soft drinks) that used to be sweetened with regular sugar now use HFCS instead. It’s also true that the increased use of HFCS in the food supply roughly corresponds to rising obesity rates.  And there is research suggesting that fructose may be more readily stored as fat than glucose, which is metabolized differently.

These facts have led many to conclude that the rise of HFCS in industrial food production has led to our current national health crisis of obesity and related disorders (such as diabetes and heart disease).  Not surprisingly, some savvy marketers have even managed to position sugar as healthy, touting virtuous HFCS-free soft drinks that are sweetened with good old fashioned sugar. But hang on a second.

High fructose corn syrup sounds like it would be high in fructose, right? The truth is that it contains roughly the same amount of fructose as…regular sugar.

Sucrose is about 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Regular corn syrup almost entirely made up of glucose. In order to make it a more appropriate substitute for sucrose, raw corn syrup is enzymatically treated to convert some of the glucose into fructose, bringing fructose/glucose ratio up to that of regular sugar.

Look, I’m not saying HFCS is good for you.  All I’m saying is that HFCS is not higher in fructose than sugar…it’s just higher in fructose than regular corn syrup.  Personally, I think the rise in obesity rates has less to do with the influx of HFCS into the food supply and more to do with our increased consumption of soft drinks and other calorie-dense foods.  As portion sizes (of everything) get bigger, our calorie intake increases and we gain weight.

Local vs. organic: the environmental debate

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Yesterday, I wrote about new research showing that organically-grown produce contains more disease-fighting nutrients than conventionally-grown vegetables.  Yet another reason to choose organic whenever circumstances and budget allow. After all, as any eco-conscious eater knows, organic farming is also better for the environment–or is it?

What if your organic produce is flown in from Chile? Do the fossil fuels burned transporting your organic food cancel out the environmental benefit of using fewer petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides?  Obviously, local and organic would be ideal. But if you can’t have both, which is the better choice?

Eating “right” has gotten a lot more complicated

With the local food movement gathering steam, I’ve heard many people argue that local, conventionally grown food is more environmentally friendly than organic food from far away.  But a recent post on the Terrablog cites new research from the University of Wales, finding that:

“In general, the food miles are actually a minor portion of the total ecological footprint of food. In the study of a basket of foods in Cardiff, transport amounted to only 2% of the total environmental cost. Growing conditions, packaging and processing made up the bulk of the impact. In fact, a separate article in the same journal shows that local food systems actually have slightly higher carbon emissions!”

What’s the “Ethicurian” to do? (I can’t take credit for that clever term, by the way. It’s the title of a great new blog devoted to helping people “chew the right thing.”)  For what it’s worth, the readers of the Terrablog pretty much dismissed this new research as bogus.  What do you think? What are your priorities in choosing the foods you buy?