We now have enormous access to miscellaneous information via the internet. This means that a relatively intelligent, ordinary person, with a bit of formal education (such as myself), can be exposed to a myriad of possibilities…   together with little or no personal ability to determine the accuracy of the information provided.

Online time exposes us to ideas that are relatively new to us, and leads us to discover data and publications… including books and videos … that would have been otherwise unavailable to us.
Such exposure and discoveries make me think about things in ways I’ve not previously considered.  There are many great Theories in the world which modern Societies in general consider to be true…but .. chances are, some of them probably are not.

Along with many other people living in the “civilized” societies of the present, I am interested in my own eating and digestive process. Yes, eating is necessary for sustaining life, but I want to know more about how I can enjoy food  without getting fat.  In a way, eating is like sex. If there was no enjoyment in the process, people would be doing a whole lot less of it.

  So, what if the details we THINK we know about Food and the Digestive system are inaccurate?

I find it interesting to consider the possibility that much of the knowledge which we take for absolute truth about diet and nutritional information (which is often referred to as “conventional wisdom”), might be WACKED. When I say “wacked”, I mean “out of order, crazy, not in proper condition, screwed up, incorrect, so messed up it could be broken.”

What if?  

What if the state of our current knowledge regarding nutrition and the body is similar to that previous accepted Truth = “the world is flat”? Societies of the past functioned for long periods of history with what we consider now to be only minimal knowledge. Back in time, people did a great deal of traveling before they discovered that “the world is round”. We now tend to think of them as ignorant, but they were as knowledgeable and forward thinking as was possible at the time. People in the future might consider those of us who live here in the present, to be ignorant and backward.

   I recently read the following about how “calories” were discovered:

Up until March 16, 1896 at 10:30 am, food was just that – something we ate to stave off hunger and to grow. Food was nourishment and a source of “protein” (back then this meant even rice, potatoes and wheat), typically, about 12-15% protein was recommended. All foods were assessed for “protein.” There was “cheap protein” and “expensive protein,” but people didn’t equate meat with protein any more than gluten in wheat. It was a time of affordable nourishment as a priority. People were starving.

On that day in March, Wilbur O. Atwater began his now famous calorimetry experiments and fundamentally changed how we look at food forever. After locking a Dr. Olin Freeman Tower up in a small chamber for 5 days Atwater took measurements of Dr. Tower’s metabolism. Four days earlier Dr. Tower began eating a fixed “breakfast, dinner, and supper” and continued throughout the 5 days. He exited on March 21 having gained 2 lbs.

Atwater’s measurements included both the change in temperature and the oxygen consumed/carbon dioxide produced. For the first time – food, mostly meals, had a number.

They went on to perform many experiments on how the body digests and absorbs the energy and then assigned “caloric content” of these foods based on experimentally measured averages. Remember, we didn’t know about vitamins and minerals yet – that begins 30 years later. Atwater was simply ascribing a caloric content to protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol. The question answered: How did the body react to food when input, waste, heat and composition were precisely measured? Did the laws of thermodynamics apply to people and food?

Eat, swallow, and poop. Now, we have a quantification of energy.

Atwater changed everything we knew about food. He made some groups angry, like the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, for suggesting alcohol actually had calories, but he defined the notion of digestibility of food based on protein, carbohydrate fat, and alcohol energy content. He had good goals and unbelievable attention to detail, but he warned that these numbers shouldn’t be used too much outside the bounds of the food combinations that were studied.

On the not-so-helpful side of things, Atwater inadvertently launched the now common “macronutrient wars.” With this new data, the beef and wheat industry could go head-to-head on “affordable protein.” These battles have raged on for a century and soon food was being ubiquitously labeled with “proteins, carbs and fats” and today, diet dogma abounds on the mythical ratios for health.

When Atwater began these investigations, we were still trying to validate Lavoisier’s work a century earlier that equated the chemistry of a burning candle and the Human body’s digestion of food.

Atwater wasn’t a fan of bread and simple sugars and advocated that more legumes and vegetables be incorporated into the diet. People thought of food very differently then – remember, nourishment. After Atwater died, we learned so much more about the role of vitamins and minerals, but at that time it was much more simple and in some ways, easier to make decisions. When the first food pamphlet (after his death) was published in 1916 – Food For Young Children by Caroline L. Hunt, I’m sure it wouldn’t have met his approval had he been alive. In it, you can see the beginnings of what would be a century dominated by special interest and food political agendas.

In the little over a century between 1796 and 1900 Lavosier and Atwater made HUGE progress on energy and in the last century we’ve made progress on vitamins and minerals.

We have taken Wilbur Olin Atwater’s life work and reduced it to … pervasive, unintelligible, and misguided recommendations for people.

The key to weight loss AND health is to start talking about food, and not label it with macronutrient names based on a fictional notion that the most significant factor of a food is the majority of the macronutrient present within it.

 The above-article comes from the personal blog of Ray Cronis, which is known as Thermogenex, located at www.hypothermics.com. It says that

Ray Cronis studied chemistry in undergraduate and graduate school and began his career as a Material Scientist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. During his 15 years at NASA, he worked on a microgravity material science, physical & analytical chemistry, and space station environmental control an life support systems. Ray co-founded Zero Gravity Corporation with Peter Diamandis and Byron Lichtenberg - creating the world's first private parabolic flight operation. He is not a medical doctor, but is informally currently exploring the issue of weight loss by way of basic thermodynamic principles.

  Click the link if you’rd like to see “Food For Young Children” (1916) by Caroline L. Hunt, which is the pamphlet referred to in the article above.

As part of my Dieting Hobby, I often consider things such as these,  simply because I find them interesting and/or inspiring.  I don’t feel it necessary to make a personal decision as to whether the ideas are truly “correct” or “incorrect”. Here at DietHobby my philosophy is: 
 Take what you like and leave the rest. 

We all have dreams.
Some are for tomorrow, some are for next week, and some are for years from now.

 Dreams and hopes live in the heart.
They are uniquely us, and have the potential to result in who we become.
It is within our ability to realize many of them by listening to our heart and completing some necessary steps. Reality today was a dream or hope sometime in the past.

A dream and a goal are two different terms that help in our task.
The dream is the final destination and the goal is the path leading to it.

One dream can have many goals or directions and strategies that help us accomplish it.
Each goal is a small step toward the finalization of the dream.

Maintaining our focus on the dream   
instead of the short-term goals will enable fulfillment and satisfaction.
While achieving goals offers a sense of satisfaction, it doesn’t provide ongoing motivation.
The real power of each goal comes from its connection to the appropriate dream.

We have the ability to take many of our dreams out of fantasy and convert them into eventual reality by setting realistic goals and constantly reviewing our process to stay on track.

 
One of my dreams is
to maintain my body in the "normal" weight-range
for the rest of my life.

We all have dreams.
But in order to make dreams come into reality,
it takes an awful lot of determination, dedication, self-discipline, and effort.

We can choose to Hold on Tight to our Dreams.

Review of the 5 Bite Diet

The thin, large-print, paperback book “Why Weight Around” (2007) by Alwin Lewis, M.D., encourages readers to follow the five-bite diet for weight-loss. This is a self-published book through Lulu "vanity" press and it retails for around $25.

Dr Lewis recommends the 5 Bite approach to eating:

• Drink as much as you want as long as the drinks are free of calories.
• Skip breakfast
• Have 5 bites of any food for lunch.
• Have 5 bites of any food for dinner.
• Eat at least one bite of protein each day.
• Take a multi-vitamin supplement every day

Dr. Lewis assures the reader that after three days on this diet, that you will stop feeling hungry because your body will learn to feel full on this smaller amount of food. This is commonly known to be a valid statement, as hunger ordinarily leaves one’s body after approximately 3 days of starvation such as during a water fast.  He says the the body continually recycles amino acids so very little daily protein is actually necessary when on a weight-loss program.

The five-bite diet involves voluntarily eating the way people are forced to eat after a gastric bypass, in order to give a dieter the benefits of stomach stapling without the surgery. As with many diet plans, the principle of the five-bite diet is to exercise portion control in order to limit your calorie intake. The program allows you to choose to eat any food you want, which can help prevent the feelings of deprivation that often lead people to quit their diets. The five-bite diet is not designed to be a permanent plan. Once you've reached your weight goal, you're advised to resume your normal eating habits.

Dr. Lewis says the volume of 5 bites is about the same as a regular size Snickers candy bar, and recommends that people on the diet eat two Snickers bars a day in order to familiarize themselves with how much 5 bites is.

Dr. Lewis, …just like almost all diet book authors … claims to have successfully followed his diet himself, and at 6 ft tall, he says that he lost from his high of around 190 lbs down to 137 lbs. He recommends that, for good health and a more attractive appearance, everyone should achieve an 18.5 BMI, which is at the bottom border between underweight and normal weight.

Dr. Lewis practices Internal medicine in Burbank, California where he apparently treats obese, overweight, and normal weight patients who have a BMI above 18.5, by putting them on the 5 bite diet. His website, theslimmingstation.com offers an online membership, for $50 per year, but at times this membership fee is $50 per month. It also offers 3 months of weekly one-on-one telephone coaching with Dr. Lewis for a $2,000 fee.

As part of my dieting hobby, I have experimented with the 5 bite diet. Twenty years ago, after my own gastric bypass, I personally experienced what post-gastric-bypass surgery eating is like, and was interested in running a comparison between that experience and the 5 bite diet.

My experimentation with the 5 bite diet occurred while my weight was in the middle of the normal weight BMI range. I successfully completed two weeks of 5 bite diet, and left it in the third week. The first week my weight dropped 7 pounds. While continuing to successfully follow the 5 bite diet rules, during the second week on the 5 bite diet, my body re-gained 5 of those pounds. I left the diet during the my third week, and upon returning to my normal 1,000 calorie diet, the remaining 2 pounds immediately returned, giving me a zero net loss. During a three year period, I repeated this experiment on several occasions, and each time I received similar personal results.

The calories in two 2 oz Snickers candy bars is a total of about 550 calories.   Therefore successfully following the diet would cause weight loss for almost everyone, especially if that person is obese. Normally, I maintain my current weight on about a 1,000 calorie daily average. My personal results were due to my normal-weight as a short, inactive, reduced-obese female over 60 years of age, with a very low calorie burn, and probably... during the diet, my body's metabolism shifted downward to compensate for the very-low-calorie-intake.  if I had chosen to follow the 5 Bite diet for a longer period, over time, it might have caused a net fat-loss. However, the 5 Bite Diet hasn't provided enough appeal to me personally to motivate me to follow through with testing that hypothesis.

My first experiment with this diet was several years ago, and as a part of that process, I purchased a year’s online membership for $50, and for a time, actively posted on Dr. Lewis’ site. As part of that membership I participated in several of the weekly chat sessions with Dr. Lewis himself.   Dr. Lewis was very committed to the 5-bite diet and enthusiasttic. He appeared, however, to be rather insensitive, very egocentric, and sometimes quite rude. When people achieved only modest weight-loss results, he was prone to imply they were lying about their compliance. He ignored some very basic dieting realities, and while "coaching" members, he was prone to state his opinion as fact, and make grandiose claims which (similar to marketing puffery) were backed up by little or no verifiable evidence.

My above-stated opinion was formed due to what I witnessed during my online participation,  As one personal example: I took exception to Dr. Lewis' blanket statements about HOW FAST EVERYONE ALWAYS loses weight after a Gastric Bypass, and advised him that this was not my own experience nor the experiences of many other women that I have personally witnessed. 

To explain my objection to his claims of fast weight-loss for EVERYONE, I told Dr. Lewis that after reviewing my own detailed  records (which I kept current during the first year after my own Gastric  Bypass), my personal weight loss during the first year after surgery ... while eating only about 500 calories per day ... averaged around 2 pounds per week... From 271 lbs down to a low of 159 (which for me was still "obese", because that number is 6 pounds above the bottom BMI border of my "Obese"  weight-range).  Providing him with this information and detailed records, did not cause any adjustment or alteration in his position, and in fact Dr. Lewis indicated to me that he believed that my statements were either inaccurate or less than truthful.

For those here who are interested, I'll add that following the 1st year after my Gastric Bypass, I had an almost immediate  regain into the mid 160s, as my ability to eat more calories increased. After about three years, while eating approximately an average of not more than 1,500 to 1,600 calories a day ... together with a great deal of active dieting to maintain my weight-loss,...  my weight crept back up into the 190s.

I believe that every diet works for someone. The 5-bite diet is an interesting concept, and I can see how it could be an effective weight-loss tactic for an obese person with an extremely busy schedule, especially if that person has latent anorexic tendencies and lacks a genuine interest in food.  At this point, I am not totally opposed to the 5-Bite Diet. It has many things which appeal to me, and there may be a future time when I will choose to try it again.

Below are two videos about the 5 Bite Diet.

The FIRST video is an interesting and positive interview of Dr. Lewis.

The SECOND video is an rather amusing negative diet review.

 
Dr. Siegel’s Cookie Diet is a meal-replacement plan. One eats six of his cookies throughout the day in addition to one meal at the end of the day. That meal should include approximately six ounces of lean white meat protein and one cup of vegetables. Also drink at least 8 to 10 glasses of a non-caloric beverage, such as water, each day.

Dr Seigal advises his patients to eat six cookies throughout the day whenever hungry. The cookies are the only foods eaten all day and then the patients are ‘rewarded’ with dinner.

Depending on one’s individual food choices, the diet is between 800 and 1200 calories a day. Each cookie contains 90 calories and each dinner meal should contain no more than 500 calories. In addition, one is to drink eight glasses of liquid a day (ideally water). Coffee and tea are allowed on this diet. There are five varieties of Dr. Siegal's cookies that you can choose from: chocolate, oatmeal raisin, coconut, banana, and blueberry. Each week’s box of cookies contains a bottle containing a 7 day supply of generic type multi-vitamin pills, which are to be taken daily.

The cookie’s ingredient label is full of things you'd recognize or be able to pronounce. The first ingredient is sugar, with 9 grams of sugar in each serving. The cookies have less than a gram of fiber per serving. Dr. Seigal states that the cookies contain a "particular mix of proteins" as being key to keeping users feeling full. The cookies are relatively low in sodium, with no more than 200 milligrams per serving. The ingredients appear to be nutritionally similar to most of the popular meal replacement shakes that provide a quantity-controlled diet product.

Dr. Siegal states that his cookies are scientifically designed to help to control appetite and reduce hunger. Each cookie contains 90 calories and contains ingredients such as whole wheat flour, bran and oats. However the main reason he says they work is due to a secret blend of amino acid proteins. 

 The cookies are edible but not the tastiest. Even Dr. Seigel’s website states that ‘we wouldn’t call them delicious’. They say delicious cookies make people fat and there certainly is some logic to this as dieters are less likely to overindulge in really good tasting cookies. Cookies are packed in boxes containing 42 cookies packed in 7 daily bags which will last for one week if the diet is followed according to the instructions above. The price is approximately $56 US plus shipping and handling. 

 As a part of my own dieting hobby, I personally experimented with this diet for a couple of weeks, and thereafter occasionally for a few days at a time. I enjoyed the novelty of the idea, and the cookies were acceptable to me, however, NOTE: that a Dr. Siegal’s cooke tastes better after sprinkling a packet of Splenda on top and placing it in the microwave for 10 seconds just before eating.

Since I was already normal weight and used to small portions when I did my experimentation, I didn’t find myself hungry on the diet, but the lack of food variety was a problem for me. Also, I kept comparing my own homemade recipes for portion-controlled foods to the purchased cookies … such as my microwave cookies made from protein powder which have more grams of protein and less calories. After comparison, I felt that if I really wanted to only eat cookies all day, I would be better served to eat 6 of my own homemade portion-controlled protein cookies. 

 I found “Dr Siegel’s Cookie Diet Book” (2009) to be rather an interesting book, and I’ve read it a few times. I enjoyed the chapters dedicated to weight loss history, and found Dr. Siegal’s attitude about weight-loss to be refreshing. In his opinion, speed of weight loss is a critical success factor because when people don't get results right away, they're more likely to get demotivated and quit.

Dr. Siegal's positon is that weight loss and weight maintenance should be recognized as two different tasks and two different skills, like fixing a car when it's broken and then taking ongoing care of your car so it doesn't break again.

I was especially interested in that part of the book in which Dr. Siegel refers to the scientific principle of 3500 calories equaling one fat pound as “The Great Calorie Theory and in his discussion as to why, although he accepts that principle as a working model, he considers it to be an unproven Theory. 

  I found Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet to be a reasonable diet for anyone who wants to eat pre-packaged meal-replacements during the daytime and other foods only at dinner-time, and who has a body with an average personal calorie burn which consistently falls within the number averages of the Harris Benedict and Mifflin formulas.

Since I am a short, normal-weight, older, sedentary, reduced-obese, female ... one of my own problems with the plan is that the daily cookie total was 540 calories. Adding another 500 calories for dinner brings the plan up to 1040 calories… which my 8 years of careful food records show is actually very close to my present daily calorie burn for maintenance of my current weight. At 1,200 calories, my body gains weight, so this plan was actually NOT calorie-restrictive ENOUGH to cause weight-loss for me personally, and I didn't enoy the plan enough to use it long-term for my ongoing maintenance.

Dr. Siegel’s official website is: www.cookiediet.com

Below are two videos about the Cookie Diet.

The FIRST video is an ABC news broadcast about the Cookie Diet. 
Click inside the video twice to see it on YouTube.
 

Yesterday, my article was about the

Difference between Correlation and Causation.

Below are two examples of media
handling the same recent health research study.

 

 

7 Daily Servings of Fruits, Veggies Best for Happiness,
Study Finds 'Strive for 5' might need an update. 
        Oct. 12 (HealthDay News) 

"People who eat seven servings of fruit and vegetables a day have the highest levels of happiness and mental health, according to a new study.

In a joint effort with Dartmouth University, researchers at the University of Warwick examined the eating habits of 80,000 people in England and found that mental well-being rose with the number of daily servings of fruits and vegetables, peaking at seven servings a day.

The study, which appears in the journal Social Indicators Research, defied a serving as about 80 grams (2.8 ounces).

"The statistical power of fruit and vegetables was a surprise. Diet has traditionally been ignored by well-being researchers," study co-author Sarah Stewart-Brown, a professor of public health, said in a university news release.

Further research is needed to learn more about the reasons behind the findings, she added.

"This study has shown surprising results, and I have decided it is prudent to eat more fruit and vegetables. I am keen to stay cheery," study co-author Andrew Oswald, a professor in the economics department, said in the news release.

Currently, many Western governments recommend that people eat five servings of fruit and vegetables a day to protect against heart disease and cancer, the release noted.

While the study found an association between fruit and vegetable servings and well-being, it did not prove a cause-and-effect relationship."

 

 Here’s another take on the same Research.

Study: If You're 'Keen to Stay Cheery,'
7 Fruits and Vegetables a Day
        By Lindsay Abrams 
        Oct 14, 2012 (the Atlantic)

"On the psychological side of dietary recommendations

PROBLEM: We go on about eating for health, but we're usually talking about the physical side. The World Health Organization recommends five servings of fruits and vegetables a day for your body, but not much is known about how much is best for psychological well-being.

METHODOLOGY: Economists and public health researchers from the University of Warwick, in conjunction with Dartmouth College, used data from several randomized, cross-sectional surveys that accounted for the eating habits of about 80,000 people living in the U.K. The fruits and vegetables typically consumed by each person were compared with their life satisfaction, mental well-being, presence of mental disorders, self-reported health, happiness, nervousness, and how often they "feel low."

They factored in as many variables as they could think of, including other the rest of their diets, alcohol, and lots of demographic, social and economic factors.

RESULTS: A "remarkably robust" pattern was found, in which "happiness and mental health rise in an approximately dose-response way with the number of daily portions of fruit and vegetables." While in some cases it rounds out at the recommended five per day, well-being appears to peak at seven.

In many cases, the improvements associated with fruit and vegetable consumption were substantial. For example, the authors explain that "When comparing small and large levels of fruit and vegetable consumption per day, the effect corresponds to between 0.25 and 0.33 life-satisfaction points. To put that in perspective, the known (huge) effect of being unemployed corresponds to a loss of 0.90 of a life-satisfaction point."

CONCLUSION: The findings are "consistent with the need for high levels of fruit-and-vegetable consumption for mental health and not merely for physical health."

IMPLICATIONS: This isn't a definitive randomized trial, but it's an interesting correlation that warrants more research. Economist Andrew Oswald in the Department of Economics at the University of Warwick seems pretty convinced, though. As he put it, "This study has shown surprising results and I have decided it is prudent to eat more fruit and vegetables. I am keen to stay cheery."

Aren't we all, Professor Oswald. Aren't we all.

The full study, "Is Psychological Well-being Linked to the Consumption of Fruit and Vegetables?" will be published in the journal Social Indicators Research. "

 At the end, both of these articles specifically admit that this study involves only a correlation, not causation.

However, do you join me in thinking that a typical reader of these articles will come away believing that new research says that they would probably be happier if they ate more fruits and veggies? And… that one of the reasons they now feel unhappy, could be because they don’t eat ENOUGH fruits and vegetables?