What does Healthy Eating REALLY mean?

Health is the general condition of a living person's mind, body and spirit,
usually meaning to be free from illness, injury or pain (as in "good health" or "healthy").
So, to be in “good health”, or to be “healthy: simply means “not sick or injured” and “not dead”.

Human nutrition is the process by which substances in food are transformed into body tissues and provide energy for the full range of physical and mental activities that make up human life.

Nowadays, Marketing Interests attach the word “healthy” to just about every food sold.
.. and they are technically correct, because if it doesn’t make you sick or kill you, it IS healthy.

It is now fashionable for people to worry about whether or not they are “eating healthy”. However, here in modern society, an average person, who is not sick, doesn’t need to have state-of-the-art scientific expertise and technologies of the links between human nutrition and health. 

   Basically, it is still as it has always been, in every society and culture.

If other people eat it;
if it tastes good;
and if it doesn’t kill you, make you feel sick,
or make you get really fat;
your eating qualifies as "Healthy".

But, many of us are interested in learning more.

 The study of human nutrition involves physiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology, as well as psychology and anthropology, which explore the influence of attitudes, beliefs, preferences, and cultural traditions on food choices. Human nutrition further involves economics and political science as the world community recognizes and responds to the suffering and death caused by malnutrition.

What we eat obviously goes inside our bodies and therefore affects our internal organs and the chemical interactions that take place. What we eat can affect how we feel and ultimately influence our thoughts, our decisions and our behavior. What we eat also affects how our internal organs operate and therefore affects their healthiness and longevity.

“Healthy” eating, by definition, helps to ensure that one’s internal organs are being cared for, that they are processing foods effectively and efficiently, and ultimately, sustains one’s life.

 Dietitians are health professionals who specialize in human nutrition, meal planning, economics, and preparation. They are trained to provide dietary advice and management to individuals, as well as to institutions. Clinical nutritionists are health professionals who focus more specifically on the role of nutrition in chronic disease, including possible prevention by addressing nutritional deficiencies before resorting to drugs.

Nutritional science investigates the metabolic and physiological responses of the body to diet. the study of nutrition is increasingly concerned with metabolism and metabolic pathways: the sequences of biochemical steps through which substances in living things change from one form to another.

The human body contains chemical compounds, such as water, carbohydrates (sugar, starch, and fiber), amino acids (in proteins), fatty acids (in lipids), and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). These compounds in turn consist of elements such as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, iron, zinc, magnesium, manganese, and so on. All of these chemical compounds and elements occur in various forms and combinations (e.g. hormones, vitamins, phospholipids, hydroxyapatite), both in the human body and in the plant and animal organisms that humans eat.

The human body consists of elements and compounds ingested, digested, absorbed, and circulated through the bloodstream to feed the cells of the body. Digestive juices enter the lumen of the digestive tract. These digestive juices break chemical bonds in ingested molecules (food intake), and modify their conformations and energy states. Though some molecules are absorbed into the bloodstream unchanged, digestive processes release them from the matrix of foods. Unabsorbed matter, along with some waste products of metabolism, is eliminated from the body in the feces.

There are six major classes of nutrients: carbohydrates, fats, minerals, protein, vitamins, and water. These nutrient classes can be categorized as either macronutrients (needed in relatively large amounts) or micronutrients (needed in smaller quantities). The macronutrients include carbohydrates (including fiber), fats, protein, and water. The micronutrients are minerals and vitamins.

Chemicals can be formed during processing as a result of reactions between compounds that are natural components of the food. In some cases a chemical may be formed as a result of a food additive being intentionally added to food and reacting with another compound in the food.

  When foods are heat-processed (baked, deep-fried, etc.), there are reactions that occur between components of the food, resulting in the desired flavor, appearance and texture of the food. Similarly, certain storage or processing conditions may allow reactions to occur that otherwise would not. Such chemicals are collectively referred to as food-processing-induced chemicals. Some of these chemical reactions involve naturally-occurring components in the food, while other reactions may involve food additives, ingredients, or food packaging materials that were intentionally used.
People who oppose processed foods   feel these chemicals are risky,  in that they might be potentially harmful to the human body when used long-term. The term “clean” eating generally means avoiding processed foods and eating “whole” foods, which means foods as close to their natural state as one can get them. Like fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins instead of pre-packaged or fast food. “Clean” eating usually also involves replacing saturated fat with “healthy” fat, although many “experts” now believe that natural saturated fats are NOT “unhealthy”. “Clean” eating can often involve eating only “organic” food; and only “grass-fed” or “Free-Range” animals.

Nutritionists regularly contradict one another. So, Who to Believe? 



 There are nutritional “experts”, like Michael Pollan, author of "Food Rules" (2011), who believe that excessive reliance on food science and the study of nutrition can, paradoxically, lead to poor nutrition and to ill health. Since nutrients are invisible, national policy makers rely on nutrition experts to advise on food choices.

Pollan argues that because science has an incomplete understanding of how food affects the human body, nutritionism, itself, can be blamed for many of the health problems relating to diet in the Western World today.

 Here is a BASIC truth that just about every person in our modern culture knows and understands. If you don’t take in enough food to sustain life, you’ll have too few nutrients, and your body will get sick and die. If you take in more food than you need to sustain life, you’ll have enough nutrients, and your body will excrete some, and store the rest as fat.

Less commonly understood is that if your body gets really fat, your body might … or might not… get really sick (depending on your genetics), but just about everyone knows that a fat body has to work harder to function, which eventually will result in various types of pain. 

 I enjoyed the following article:

Are You Trying Too Hard to Eat Healthfully?
             By Yoni Freedhoff, M.D. October 25, 2012 USNews Health

I was always a very efficient student. What I mean is that whatever grade I needed to get me where I wanted to go, well, that was the grade that I got. In my early university years, that meant getting marks in and around the high 70s and low 80s, since my career plans at the time involved getting into graduate school and pursuing a career in medical genetics. But after what I found to be a deathly boring summer working in an actual genetics lab, I decided I wanted to go to medical school, and suddenly high 70s and low 80s weren't good enough. I needed 90s, and I needed them across the board. I learned quickly that the effort required to get in the 90s, for me anyway, was at least an order of magnitude more than what I'd been putting in. I truly had to spend at least twice as much time studying to get that measly extra 10 percent. But the fact was, without those 90s, I wouldn't be a physician today. There simply wasn't a choice.

So what does this have to do with healthy eating?

Quite a bit, actually. It seems that when it comes to health, we're fixated on trying to get 90s, when really, high 70s and low 80s would be pretty great grades.

Diet and health gurus—they've all got their formulas for you. This guy says you can't eat wheat and that dairy's deadly, while that gal says that meat is poison and raw is righteous. Newspapers and glossy magazines will happily regale you with stories that deify or demonize specific foods. Supplements are peddled. Repulsive green drinks are touted. "Superfoods" drain our wallets and rot in our refrigerators. And come January, you can bet there'll be a fresh crop of New Year, New You books on the shelves telling you that everything you thought you knew about healthy eating was backwards and wrong.

Ultimately I think we're trying too hard, and more importantly, I don't think we have to. Unlike when I was trying to get into medical school, that 10 percent grade point difference isn't likely to have any dramatic tangible impact on our longevity or quality of life. What's more, even if there were a clear path to getting an A-plus, the amount of effort required to get there might lead a person to decide it's too much, and to eventually abandon her healthy eating efforts in frustration.

I think we should be aiming for some solid B-pluses, which in my book, would mean:

• Including vegetables or fruits with pretty much every meal.
• Cooking the vast majority of meals from fresh, whole ingredients.
• Limiting restaurant meals, only eating out to celebrate or socialize—never for convenience.
• Avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages (including juice).

If you want an A, just make sure to exercise for at least 30 minutes per day, most days of the week. While it's not an eating behavior, the impact of exercise on health is profound, and gives you a few easily obtainable bonus grades.

Life's too short to be trying to get perfect grades, so keep up with your basic studies, don't spend too much time in the library, and enjoy the ride.

 The human body responds uniquely to food based on genetics, biochemical makeup, family history, and that body’s interaction with its own environment. One common belief is that one’s body knows instinctively what the right substances are for it to eat, and that if we pay attention, it will direct us toward our best eating choices.

The following quote from an “expert” with this viewpoint. is an example of this thinking:

“It’s time to listen to our bodies. To pay attention to our own rhythms and make them the priority. To wake up to the reality that the scientists and experts have no idea what they are talking about. The food pyramid is a game owned by large corporations. Fast food is just a way to get us to buy more and eat more of what our bodies don’t want. Dieting is a punishment for a body that just did what we asked it to do. The best health plan is to sleep when you’re tired and wake up when you’re ready. And stop worrying about what is ‘normal’ or ‘best’. Because you are unique as a snowflake and no one can actually know what is right for you except you.

And get the idea out of your head that ‘this is the way it’s always been and always will be.’ The only constant about any of us is that we change. Every minute of every day we are different. It’s the blessing of being alive. Your body knows this and seeks growth and changes the rhythms, actions and reactions, with everything around it in everything you do. Stop trying to make it into something it’s not. Get quiet and listen. Your body has untapped wisdom that can make your life a precious miracle full of joy. It’s not a car for your brain to ride in and it’s not some untamed wild beast that you can’t control. It’s you.”

As for me, I focus on working to eat only the amount of food that it takes maintain a normal weight. I don’t look at processed foods as “dirty”, and I don’t try to eat “clean”. I eat both “whole” and “processed” foods without discrimination, and use artificial sweetener whenever I want. I feel no need to get high grades in nutrition. However, even with that philosophy, during my past 8 years of tracking all my food every day in the computer software program: DietPower, that program has consistently graded my overall food intake as an “A+”

I’m over 60 years old and in excellent health with no need for medication or supplements, and am a “reduced obese” person who after years of yo-yo dieting has been maintaining a normal body weight for the past 7 years. 

 As part of my dieting hobby, and personal weight-loss maintenance, I experiment with lots of different Diets, or Ways of Eating. While doing this, my own personal consistent nutritional guidelines are to take a daily multi-vitamin pill, and heed the following advice when choosing food substances:

If other people around you eat it;  
if it tastes good to you;
if it doesn’t kill you; 
if it doesn’t make you feel sick,
or make you really fat; 
then eat it.

The Simple Diet - A Diet Review

In "The Simple Diet" (2011) Dr. James Anderson, a professor of medicine and clinical nutrition at the University of Kentucky, shares his scientifically based nutritional plan.  He says that he, himself has used it successfully, and that he has also used it to successfully treat many patients. Dr. Anderson considers his diet to be a budget-friendly weight-loss plan which he favorably compares with commercial diet plans like Nutri-system and Jenny Craig.

The Simple Diet is a replacement meal plan, in which one eats only shakes and packaged entrees of one’s choice, together with any type of fruit (except dried) and/or any type of vegetable prepared without butter or additional fat.

The diet relies on frozen entrees and diet shake mixes … plus fruits and vegetables … to meet one’s nutritional needs, and Dr. Anderson doesn’t take issue with processed foods or artificial sweeteners. The diet requires the purchase of diet shake mixes like SlimFast or various Protein powders (to be mixed with water or fruit, not skim or soy milk); frozen dinner entrees like Lean Cuisine or Smart Ones; high protein snack bars like Luna (optional); some soups (optional); and fresh, canned, or frozen vegetables and fruits. There are a large selection of "diet friendly" meal options offered in the plan, most widely available in American supermarkets, and the diet does not allow for any foods (except those existing within the frozen entrees) which are typical household staples, like breads, pastas, rice, cereals or dairy products (nonfat plain greek yogurt is considered an acceptable protein shake substitute).

The rules of Phase 1 are to eat only 3 protein shakes … either a ready-made brand like slim-fast or protein powder mixed with water (soup also qualifies as a shake), 2 packaged frozen entrees, and 5 or more fruits or vegetables a day. Ordinarily one would have a shake for Breakfast; a shake mid-morning; a shake mid-afternoon; a frozen entrée for Lunch; a frozen entrée for Dinner; and fruit and vegetables at any time. One is to also drink at least 8 glasses of water or other non-caloric beverage. Coffee, tea, and diet sodas are acceptable. 

If necessary or desired, one can also have up to 1 protein bar daily, but this is additional, not a replacement for the shake or entrée. If a person is still hungry, additional shakes and more fruits and vegetables are recommended instead of adding extra foods, or eating additional bars. Phase 2 gradually brings in other foods.

The plan is based on the premise that by exercising a bit more and eating pre-measured low calorie entrees, diet shakes, occasional protein bars, and fruits and veggies, one will lose weight. This is a calories-in/calories-out plan, and one’s total calories depend on the specific food items that one chooses. Dr. Anderson provides guidelines for choosing shakes, entrees, soups, and bars; and when followed, the plan will provide between 1100 and 1600 calories daily.

This is a prescriptive plan, but does offer plenty of variety (in shakes, entrees and produce). The cost depends on where one shops and what one is willing to spend. If one goes to Target or Wal-Mart, most entrees will cost $1-2.50, and Slimfast is about $6-8. If one goes to GNC for shake powder, one’s cost can be $30. Snacks and meals are quick to prepare with a minimum of cleanup. “Simple” is the point of the Simple Diet, and it definitely meets that requirement.

The premise of Dr. Anderson’s book, "The Simple Diet"(2011), is that it is possible to lose weight easily in a relatively short period of time using foods that are readily available in any supermarket if you are following the right plan. Dr. Anderson promises that very obese dieters can lose up to 50 pounds in the first 12 weeks of their diet, and that the weight loss can be permanent. In addition to shedding unwanted pounds Dr. Anderson claims that (through weight-loss) this diet will help lower high blood sugar, cholesterol, and blood pressure; that it can help reverse heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and a variety of other obesity induced conditions. The rules of the diet are fairly easy to follow and require little measuring or calorie counting, however, optional tracking of food and calorie counting will be helpful.

Since I am already normal weight with a total energy burn of less than 1200 calories (for details see my previous articles), I modified the diet to reduce it to a daily total of about 900 calories in order to make it a weight-loss possibility for me personally. I did this by being careful with my choices of fruits and vegetables, replacing the lunch entrée meal with vegetables only… having only one entrée daily, and by limiting protein bars.

My shakes were made from 1 scoop of Designer Whey protein powder at 100 calories per scoop. I made them with ice and 4 oz sugar-free Almond Milk which added 20 calories per shake. I occasionally added 1 fruit serving for additional calories. See my recipes for  Chocolate Milkshake, and Strawberry Banana Smoothie.  Fage 0% Greek Yogurt (6 oz container=100 calories); my homemade egg-white custards (50 calories);  my chocolate protein cookie (50 calories); and my protein cream cupcake (substituting sugar-free vanilla syrup for cream) (100 calories) also qualified as shake substitutes.

I enjoyed my bit of experimentation with The Simple Diet, and liked the food choices far better than with Nutri-System, or Jenny Craig. I’ve no personal objection to eating processed food, and found that eating on the plan actually provided me with a more balanced, low-fat diet, than my normal maintenance eating. I plan to do additional experimentation with this diet sometime in the future. 

Pain is an unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury, disease, or emotional disorder.

No Pain, No Gain is merely a false, catchy statement.
It isn’t true.
If you are working out, and you feel pain… then Stop doing it.

A great many “exerts” don’t understand that concept. I like to think of myself as a person with common sense, and I see a big difference between not enjoying an activity, and feeling pain during an activity.

Pain is to be avoided.
Pain is bad.
Pain is the body saying “something’s wrong here”.

Personally, I’ve never been interested in becoming an athletic person, and I totally missed out on the “herd instinct”. I have no desire to ever participate in a marathon of any sort, and if an activity, exercise, or workout isn’t enjoyable to me, then I’m not doing it.

Although a body is meant to move, many types of activities…which are not at all painful… can provide benefit to it. I believe that the modern philosophy that everyone should exercise or work-out ... even if it hurts ... is as ridiculous as the video below.

 "The Fast-5 Diet and the Fast-5 Lifestyle" (2005) by Bert Herring M.D. is a weight-loss and weight-maintenance plan based on the concept of intermittent fasting. It consists of a single rule: limit calorie intake to no more than five consecutive hours in each day. The Fast-5 Lifestyle is an indefinite continuation of that diet for weight maintenance after the weight loss goal has been reached.

Dieters using the Fast-5 diet fast for nineteen hours total each day. This nineteen hours includes sleep. After the nineteen hours of fasting is complete, dieters then have five hours in which they can eat whatever they choose.

The suggested eating window is from 5pm - 10pm, but Dr. Herring indicates that the nineteen continuous hours of fasting time is the key to the diet's effect, and that the five-hour eating window may be set whenever it is most personally convenient.

The Fast-5 approach does not stipulate a calorie intake level. It relies on the eating schedule's effect of correcting appetite to determine proper intake, but doesn’t discourage the addition of a calorie counting approach. The Fast-5 Diet also does not specify food content or forbid any foods, allowing the approach to be used with any dietary preference.

The Fast-5 diet was developed based on the personal results Dr. Herring experienced while working at the National Institutes of Health and incorporates estimates of the eating schedule of ancient hunter-gatherer humans who ate without benefit of food storage or refrigeration.

Dr. Herring distinguishes Limbic hunger, which comes from that part of the brain that connects primitive drives, emotion, and memory, from Somatic hunger, which is the sensation of discomfort in the stomach area that is commonly known as hunger, or hunger pangs. Somatic hunger is the result of the interaction of many hormonal and nerve signals and incorporates more information than just whether the stomach is empty.

He says that Limbic hunger is the reason why it is hard to eat only one potato chip. Eating one chip triggers more appetite because primitive limbic signals tell the brain we should eat as much as we can while food is available. This leads to more eating, connecting in a vicious circle that doesn’t stop until the bag of chips is empty. The ancient instinct takes control of behavior, ignoring higher thinking and preferences. Limbic hunger in a land of plenty causes one to eat too often and too much.

Two ways in which the Fast-5 plan is helpful, according to Dr. Herring, is that:

• Having a 19 hour short-term fasting period eliminates the potential…during that time period, for eating to-drive-more-eating, and keeps limbic hunger from taking over control.
  
  
• 19 hours of daily fasting enhances the body’s fat-burning capabilities by providing a long period every day when the body’s fat-burning machinery is switched on and stays on. Once the body is using energy from stored fat, rather than from fresh glucose absorbed from digesting food, continuous fat burning is more efficient than when the body flips back and forth from fat to glucose and back again. Also, changing back and forth causes fluctuations in the levels of hunger related hormones (insulin, ghrelin, leptin and more) resulting in the sensation of hunger.

I have had brief and limited experiments with the Fast-5 diet, usually in combination with alternate day eating. I am currently involved in another entirely different Fast-5 experiment.

My normal pattern is to wake up about 4am. and go to sleep about 8pm.

During my past experiments, I chose an eating window of 2pm until 7pm, which in my lifestyle is the equivalent of a 5pm to 10 pm window. This did not work well for me because during the entire Fast-5 dieting experiment I found myself simply killing time every day until 2pm, totally focused on wanting to eat, while I did everything possible to distract myself from food until the time finally came for me to eat.

I am a morning person, and normally prefer my breakfast and lunch over my dinner, so with a late-in-the-day window, my preferred mealtimes were not available to me.

I had difficulty in getting myself to set a morning 5 hour window because of the idea of how hard I might find it to go without food during the long afternoon and evening period.

Recently, I decided to try Fast-5 with a morning window from 9am to 2pm and found that this suits my body and personality a great deal better. A five hour window from 9am to 2pm allows me to eat at my preferred mealtimes. It also seems that so far…..I, personally, feel less physical hunger and less desire to eat after 2pm between lunch and bedtime, than I do in the mornings before 2pm. Whether this will continue to be the case over time, is something that I just don’t know.

My present Fast-5 experiment is in the early stages, and is combined with calorie counting and other dietary preferences. I haven’t set a time-period for how long I’ll continue on with it. Right now, it’s day-by-day, and I’m deciding each morning whether or not to go forward with it.

I know that there are times when I find eating zero food easier than eating a tiny amount of food, and other times when this isn’t true for me. I’m interested in learning more information about that difference. I’m also curious as to whether this way of eating will cause me to eat less overall, for more than just a few days, and if that behavior will provide me with any weight-loss results. I mention this just as another example of how I treat Dieting as a Hobby.

"We never repent of having eaten too little.”
Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)

When Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, he was around 33 years old, and he lived until age 83 during a time when food was not as easily obtainable. Even though he did not experience our modern readily-available-highly-processed-food world he seemed to understand the value of eating less.

How little is "too little"?

I’ve noticed that people who eat far too much, seem to spend a lot of time worrying about eating too little. Why do people who are obese, or even merely overweight, fear eating too little, and just how little is too little anyway?

Many overweight and obese people appear to have an irrational fear of starvation mode.
However, one really can't eat too little for weight loss - Starvation Mode (the way most dieters define it) is a Myth.

"Starvation mode" is a phrase that gets thrown about loosely. Many people think that eating below 1000 to 1200 calories a day, will cause their metabolism to slow down so much that their body will stop losing weight. The reality is that until a male has only 5% excess body fat, or a female has only 10% excess body fat, it is very unusual for a person to go into “starvation mode”.

When it seems impossible for a dieter nearing goal to lose weight, they assume their metabolic process is slowing down, and think that they are “in starvation mode”. However, people with extra weight obtainable to oxidize, can oxidize extra body fat per second. The less human body fat one has, the less fat oxidized for each moment. So as one gets closer to the body’s individual reduction limit of human body weight, the slower one will burn up what body fat one has. This is why taking off the final 10 pounds happens very slowly, NOT because one is wrecking one’s metabolic process with an aggressive diet regimen.

By the way, I’m using the term…”excess fat”… to define the entire genetic make-up of an individual body, not “troublesome” fat on specific body areas that one wishes were leaner… like stomach or thighs, etc. It is not uncommon for someone who is “normal weight” or even “underweight” to be unhappy with the way their own body’s necessary fat is genetically distributed.

The article quoted below makes a number of good points:

Are You In The Starvation Mode or Starving For Truth?

Recently we discussed the myth that dieting can lead to an eating disorder and saw this common dieting myth was inaccurate.  Another common dieting myth held by people is that they may not be losing weight because they are in the "starvation mode" from eating too few calories. And, in response to the intake of this low calorie level, their body has gone into "starvation mode" and slowed down their metabolism and is holding on to the weight. The usual recommendation to get out of starvation mode and allow the body to lose more weight, is to consume more calories. Eat more calories, to lose more weight.

Really?

Well, for anyone struggling to lose weight, this may sound sensible, but as you will see, it, like most other dieting myths, it is inaccurate. A few things to consider before we get to the "starvation mode."

First, the human body, as is our world, is governed by the laws of physics. Body weight is a product of energy balance. We can not violate the laws of physics and thermodynamics. The energy we consume must go somewhere, and to maintain a certain level of weight, an equivalent amount of energy must be consumed and an equilibrium must be achieved.

Second, in regard to metabolism, about >70% of our base metabolism is driven by our brain and other vital organs and is not really effected by food consumption as I discussed in the metabolism blog. We have little impact on this basal metabolic rate.

Third, most attempts to accurately track food consumption under report (intentionally and/or not intentionally) by about 30% and attempts to track exercise and activity levels over report by up to 50%. Even professionals can be as much as 30% off or more. This is usually part of the problem. Fat people are not accurately able to determine their caloric intake and output.

Now, in regard to the "starvation" mode, someone who has extra body weight and body fat is not in any "starvation mode" where they need to 'kick start" their metabolism by eating more calories. You can not "eat more" calories to force your body to "lose weight".

In regard to metabolism, if you are overweight/overfat, you can not cause your metabolism to decrease below a level needed to lose weight while you have extra weight/fat on you, and you can not "lose more weight by eating more calories/food." This is a misunderstanding of the principles of metabolism that does not apply to overweight people trying to lose weight.

Let's say we look at someone who says they are only eating only 800 calories and not losing weight. A well meaning and good intentioned friend (or professional) has told them they are in starvation mode and in order to lose weight and/or kick-start their metabolism, they need to eat more. But, what if instead of eating more, what do you think would happen if instead they just stopped eating altogether? Would they go further into starvation mode and continue to stay at the same weight or maybe even "gain" weight?

Clearly, they would lose more weight if they stopped eating altogether.

We all know (especially those who are familiar with fasting) that if you were to stop eating completely and just live on pure water, you would start to lose weight almost instantly and would continue to do so.

But according to this theory of the "starvation mode," if you were really in it and you fasted, by its own rational you would lose less weight ... if any at all, not more. We know this is not accurate.

So, where did this myth come from?

There is a true phenomenon known as the starvation response and it is well documented in the Minnesota Starvation experiments and the Hunger Fasts that have been studied. However, it only happens in humans when they lose enough body fat that they fall below the level of essential fat. In a man, this would be below around 5% fat and in women just above that, about 10%.

Most humans will look like holocaust survivors at that time. Here is a picture of some of the subjects from the famous Minnesota Starvation experiments from the 1940s.

Even at this point, after months of a low calorie diet with heavy exercise, they were not yet in the so-called "starvation mode" where they experienced significant metabolic changes. If you have more weight/fat on you than them, then neither are you

In addition, when this point is truly reached, the body does make several metabolic shifts to preserve itself, and if it is not fed more calories, can cease to exist. It is a matter of life and death. Hence the name.

This is not the same thing that happens when someone who is overweight and has a high percentage of body fat, is not losing weight. Usually this is due to an inaccurate assessment of their energy balance.

Now, it is possible that a medical condition, like hypothyroid could contribute to a slowed metabolism. However, if someone was to have a thyroid problem, it can be diagnosed and treated. But, then we are right back to my points above and dealing with an energy balance issue.

So, if you are overweight and/or overfat and not losing weight, the most important thing to do is re-evaluate your energy balance. And the best way to do this is to focus on foods that are low in calorie density (and high in nutrient density) and maintain a healthy level of activity.

The above-article was written by Jeffrey S. Novick, MS, RD, LD, LN, in January 2009 at www.healthscience.org

MS = master of science,

RD = registered dietitian

LD = Licensed dietitian

LN = Licensed nutritionist