Start counting your calories boys and girls!

Should they start weighing and measuring
everything they eat?

This scares me. Really it does. The US government, the FDA more specifically, has decided to encourage kids and their educators and families—i.e. everyone—to start tracking their calories, because, you know, doesn’t that solve the ‘obesity epidemic’? Well, no, it doesn’t—and it may cause more harm than good.

Their stated goal is to get kids and families to start reading labels and think more about what and how much they eat. Innocent enough, right? Well I don’t think so. Maybe I’m biased because I see far too many kids and adults, stuck in their heads with too much information; they spend time calorie counting, and limit their choices to single portions of foods because that’s what the label says is the ‘right’ amount. They allow the label to define their personal need, as if serving size was one-size-fits-all, when really it’s designed to provide information about nutritional value per serving, based on “usual” portions. They’ve lost their intuitive sense of how to regulate their intake.

What’s wrong with this campaign?

Let’s start with the messages in this campaign, and then you decide how helpful the guidance is. Here are a few highlights, shown indented.

The end of childhood.

Keep track of the calories you eat throughout the day. To find out what your “target” calories per day are, visit www.choosemyplate.gov .

Should kids really be tracking their calories, as if simply knowing their magic number would make everything all right? Calorie calculators are far from accurate, and don’t take into account a fair assessment of muscle mass which increases calorie requirement. They fail to adjust for individual variation in caloric need, aside for activity level. Larger sized body? You’ll get prompted with a CDC message that you’re at a high BMI and can choose to move to a ‘healthier’ weight—with no assessment of risk factors, and without regard to whether this has historically been a healthy place for you (based on your growth curves, if you’re a child, or your weight history, if you’re an adult).

I tried it out, for the sake of this piece. Where are the fats, I wondered? The sweets? Where’s the healthy, balanced diet? Exchanges from all food groups are included except for the oils and fats (fats may be components of foods in each category, but there was no place for added fats like healthy oils)—despite acknowledging separately that they provide essential nutrients. 

They do identify a calorie level for what’s called empty calories—which I was pleased to see—but they don't include it as part of my daily meal plan! Surely they need to be included—because forbidding them will only lead to deprivation and preoccupation with getting them. Omitting them surely sends a message—that they are bad, and kids and adults will feel bad including them.

The impact on real kids

This might be just what Dan needs to meet his nutritional needs.

Dan decided to become a vegetarian last year, along with a family member because he cares about animals. Fine enough, as far as I’m concerned. But then his high school health teacher (using the FDA curriculum) directed him and his classmates—regardless of their size—to reduce their fat and sugar intake and choose foods lower in calories. You know, because of the ‘obesity epidemic’.

Problem is, Dan was thin from the start. And his intake was limited enough. And being tall, and active, resulted in inappropriate weight loss, during a time that weight gain is appropriate and necessary to support growth and development. Guidance from a respected figure like your high school teacher seems like a logical thing to follow—especially when it’s coming from the US government’s program.  Yet Dan is one of many, many kids I’ve seen negatively impacted by the direction of their health or science teacher.

Are you eating  just for calories?

Kids, like adults, eat for all kinds of reasons—because they’re stressed or anxious, because they’re tired, because they’re procrastinating getting their work done and because their friends are snacking, to name a few. Just telling them ‘here’s how much to eat’ fails to acknowledge the many obstacles to ‘Just doing it’. What if we taught them how to moderate portions and how to manage stress, arming them with alternative coping skills?

If you consume more calories than you burn, you gain weight.

I’m tired of weight gain being framed as a negative. Yes, they’ll gain weight! Isn’t that what growing kids are supposed to be doing?

400 calories or more per serving is high; 100 calories per serving is moderate

Yes, so what? The teenage athletes or kids in super growth modes might need closer to the high end than the low for calories per snack.

Consider stuffing a pita or wrapping a low-fat whole grain tortilla as a lower-fat alternative to some breads.

Why lower fat alternative? And how many breads are high fat anyway—unless we’re talking about croissants, which we don’t typically refer to as bread! And why pull out fat as a problem nutrient to be watched? There’s no shortage of evidence that low fat diets  have failed us in our attempt to control weight.

Read the Label to see which foods are lower in nutrients to get less of — then replace one high-fat or high-calorie item you would have ordered with one that has lower calories or fat.

Again, why villainize fats? Maybe portions to meet individual’s needs would be more appropriate to address.

Choose foods with less sugar.

For the record, you should know that a glass of milk—plain, unsweetened milk (yes, even organic and even more so fat free) contains a decent amount of sugar. Natural sugar, called lactose, that hasn’t been linked to disease development nor to obesity. And dried fruit? And fresh—if it had a label?  All are also high in sugar and need not be avoided. Perhaps this needs to be clarified in their materials.

Nuts and dried fruits can make great snacks because they often contain nutrients to get more of – as long as you follow the serving size!

Does that mean kids need to limit their portion to ¼ cup—even of their calorie needs are high?

Why this needs to change

I worry about the impact on our kids.

Dieting is one precipitator of eating disorders; a significant percentage of those struggling with an eating disorder started off with what seemed like an innocent diet. And we surely don’t need to increase this population.

Kids need enough calories to support growth. Weight loss is generally not indicated in kids.

General educators are not skilled enough to nuance the recommendations individually, and may have their own nutrition and diet baggage, so to speak. The teacher educating kids to calorie count who perhaps is also on Atkins is not the person I’d want influencing my children’s eating.

I certainly support nutrition education in schools. But I’d like to see a different type of education.

Imagine this

What if we taught this in schools instead? (adapted from Drop the Diet, Lieberman and Sangster link):

• Eat breakfast within a half hour of waking.
• Include 3 meals and 2-3 snacks daily, at a minimum. Avoid going more than 3 ½ - 4 hours without eating (during waking hours, of course).
• Avoid compensating for a less-than-stellar day of eating; consider a clean slate, forgiving yourself for less-than-ideal eating.
• Shut the TV and the electronics when eating, and work on eating mindfully. 
• Keep all food in the kitchen—not the TV room, not the bedroom.
• Use your senses; smell, see, feel, hear and taste your food, and truly enjoy eating.
• Beware of false fullness from drinking lots of water or non-caloric beverages, or eating large volume of low calorie foods.
• Ask yourself  “Am I hungry?” Consider other means to satisfy those other eating triggers when you aren’t hungry.
• Clean up the environment. Keep foods off the counter to prevent them from calling to you. But eat foods you enjoy when you do need to eat. Then use the strategies above to manage portions.

As for the adults impacted by this campaign, be aware that at best, approximately 1 in 5 people who intentionally lose weight successfully keep it off for more than a year—and few studies track outcomes beyond this point. But maintaining lost weight should not be the sole measure of success. Weight suppression data identifies the risks that maintaining a weight below one’s highest weight creates.

Let’s not be short sighted and worsen one problem in an attempt to improve the health of our kids. There really is a better way.

The consequences of weight bias: beyond making you feel bad.

Debra came to me frustrated about her climbing weight, now about 20 pounds out of her normal range. This is nothing unusual for me—plenty of women and many men reach this point, desperate for answers and guidance to help them take charge of their weight. Others present for help managing symptoms or medical outcomes—like high blood pressure or cholesterol or GERD that have more to do with the quality of their diet than with their weight.

Debra was an active woman in her 50s, a non-emotional eater—yes, they do exist—who felt like she was doing most things right. She ate regular meals and snacks; she had to, as she started to feel really low energy, and fuzzy headed if she didn’t. And she’d start to get the sweats, too. She had a history of very high cholesterol, and a family history of Type 2 diabetes as well. And the weight she had previously maintained, her normal weight, was nothing crazy, nor did it require heroic measures to achieve it. Her goals were quite realistic.

After reviewing Debra’s intake and activity, I made modest recommendations to ensure she was doing whatever was reasonable in terms of change. Was she still getting the workout that she thought she was, or does she need to evaluate her intensity or duration? Perhaps with better conditioning she could prevent further weight gain. Was she inadvertently influenced by the halo effect—having more of those foods she believed to be healthy, such as lean protein sources or nuts—without an awareness of just how much was enough? (http://dropitandeat.blogspot.com/2011/05/halo-effect-your-thoughts-about-healthy.html) Fullness was challenging to observe, she had stated. Perhaps she needed to evaluate just how much she needed as opposed to portioning her food on autopilot, without much attention to her need http://dropitandeat.blogspot.com/2010/08/size-matters-but-not-how-you-think.html or http://dropitandeat.blogspot.com/2011/02/who-or-what-decides-how-much-you-eat.html While these recommendations were helpful—and prevented further weight gain—it was clear to me that another explanation was responsible. She had many markers for polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) or hyperinsulinemia, a condition where high circulating levels of insulin result in symptoms of low blood sugar (including the sweats, fuzzy headedness, irritability and immediate need for food). (For more on hyperinsulinemia http://www.diabetes.co.uk/hyperinsulinemia.html)

At my suggestion, she went to see an endocrinologist—an MD appropriate for evaluating such conditions. From Debra’s report she shared her sense of despair about her climbing weight and belly fat, yet the doctor began to dismiss her, like all the overweight women who presented before her, with a simplistic, patronizing “Eat less and exercise more”. Yes, judgment was decreed without even listening to how high her activity already was and how appropriate her eating has consistently been. 

But once she added the comment about the symptoms between eating—those low blood sugar-type symptoms—he got it. He finally recognized that it was unfair to put the blame on her—to simply tell her she needs to exercise more or eat less because after all, weight management is about energy balance. He put her on metformin, which addresses the underlying issue—it’s an insulin sensitizer, so it helps prevent excess levels of circulating insulin.

The outcome? Most importantly, her symptoms stopped and she felt so much better. No more shakiness in between meals, and the sweats ceased, too. And, her weight dropped about 9 pounds over the past year, in contrast to the weight climb the preceding year that felt so out of her hands.

Weight bias in reverse

Another active woman—at a normal and stable weight, recently had a physical. She’s a 51 year old who enjoys food and eats a healthy diet. By healthy, I mean rich in healthy fats, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, with a reasonable intake of desserts and chocolate and wine. She’s not vegetarian—but her intake of meat is minimal—nor gluten free, nor dairy free, nor carb free. She’s a reliable reporter.  I know, because she is me! For the first time in her/my history, my cholesterol was high! The good cholesterol was high too—likely the result of my activity (I’d attribute it to genetics except neither parent had a high HDL)—but the bad, the LDL was out of any lab’s range of acceptable. Add that to my high blood pressure and that places me at further risk.

And what did my doctor do? Nothing. Other than telling me to continue to ‘watch my diet’ and maintain my activity (about which he knew little), that is. Yet the variables that I can control are already in order. My diet and exercise aren’t going to change for better so I don’t suspect there will be any astounding improvement. Most likely, my hormone status was likely the greatest factor increasing my levels—LDL can increase 15-25% with menopause! But heart disease risk similarly increases with postmenopausal elevations in cholesterol. 

Me (in Robin's hand-me-downs) and my slim father who had type 2 DM,
high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

In spite of my high cholesterol, my doctor didn’t suggest that I have it rechecked in 3 months or that I start a statin to lower the levels. He didn't explore my exercise frequency, intensity or duration. While the updated 2014 cardiac risk calculator concludes statins for cholesterol lowering aren't necessary for me, (and doesn't include weight in the assessment) he didn't plug the numbers into this risk analyzer (I did later though.) No, I did not look like a high cholesterol patient so my cardiac risk was minimized.

I share this for those of you still blaming yourself—for your health, and for your weight. That is not to say that there aren’t things you can do to take charge of your health. Physical activity in moderate levels can improve insulin sensitivity, lower cholesterol, improve blood sugar and assist in energy balance. Oh, and it certainly may help mood and sleep, too. And eating portions appropriate for your need can help everything from reflux to fatigue to your weight climbing out of your normal, healthy range. Eating more home prepped meals can give you more control of portions and meal content. Even for you non-cooks, there are plenty of easy-to-prepare, yummy dishes you can make, with practical strategies for pulling it all together. And avoiding long periods without food certainly will improve your energy level and your control of eating when you finally take the time to eat.

But if you’re already doing what’s in your hands to do, don’t let others burden you with blame. And start to advocate for the care you deserve.

When I see my new doctor, you can bet I’ll be discussing my labs and inquiring about any treatments that might lower my risk. Because truly, my high cholesterol is not my fault.

thanks for reading!

Speak Up, or You Will Be the Biggest Loser. And That’s Not a Good Thing.

Rapid weight loss is incompatible with mental and physical health. Period.

I beg to differ with Daily Beast columnist Tricia Romano, who believes Rachel Frederickson’s extreme weight loss on the Biggest Loser is none of our business. And I disagree that her weight is just a tad lower than a healthy BMI. And Rachel’s BL trainer Bob Harper is simply wrong when he assumes that “…when contestants leave home ... they are in charge of themselves.” 

Admittedly, I’ve never watched more than a few minutes of TBL—I found it intolerable. Yet the show is unfortunately quite popular. Many of my plus size patients report being inspired, identifying with the desperate contestants, tolerant of the verbal abuse and crazy diet and activity demands. They're smitten by the fairy tale that rapid weight loss through extreme measures works. And that extreme weight loss equals extreme happiness. Let me inform you otherwise; I yearn to protect you from the damage, both visible and hidden, from this diet mentality.

But first, about Rachel—the latest victim 

My summary of The Biggest Loser.

It was a media frenzy as Biggest Loser Rachel Frederickson returned to the show, 45 lbs below her “healthy” weight of 150 pounds when departing TBL. She weighed in at 105 pounds, a 155 pound total weight loss. And the $250,000 reward money was likely the least of the motivators. If you’ve ever known anyone who’s lived with an eating disorder, you know the situation well. It may start with a seemingly reasonable weight loss goal, typically with a common diet. And then once that goal is met, their goal gets reset. “Just five more pounds”, they think. “Then I’ll be happy/ satisfied/thin enough.” Yet for some, no amount of weight is ever quite enough, and the struggle continues. It moves from perhaps a sincere interest in losing some weight—perhaps at the recommendation of their doctor, even—to something completely different. 

And while it is frequently said that eating disorders are about control, the experience of the eating disorder sufferer hardly feels like being in control. Rumination about food and weight and eating consumes thoughts, and normal life comes to a halt. Social activities are put on hold to accommodate diet rules, and isolation becomes the norm. They may be visibly underweight, or appear to be of average or even over weight. Starvation can occur at any size. Really.

As for the Daily Beast writer’s comment “at 5 foot 5 inches and 105 pounds, Frederickson’s is slightly below the recommended BMI. But she’s also small-boned and lithe”, allow me to respond. For her height, midpoint of a healthy range may be 125 pounds by the charts, but at less than 90% of that weight (under 112 pounds), most women lose their periods. As for athletes (she was apparently a world class swimmer prior to her weight gain) a higher weight range is generally expected as healthy, with increased muscle mass. 

Of course there are small boned, women who were always petite, for whom a lower weight certainly may be okay. Weight, as I mentioned, is not the best measure of health. But a significant weight drop below one’s highest weight, referred to by researchers as weight suppression, may have undesirable effects, including precipitating eating disorders. 

Rachel reports feeling fine, but the evidence tells us otherwise. Exercising 3-4 hours per day strikes me as a big red flag for preoccupation with her weight. It’s not her fault, though. The Biggest Loser promotes rapid weight loss and unrealistic goals. We know from a classic starvation study by Dr. Ancel Keys in 1944 that starvation resulting in even a 25% weight loss—much less than her almost 60% drop in body weight—impacts thoughts, moods, sexual desire, and eating behaviors. All that, in addition to the slowed heart rate (no, it is not an athlete’s low pulse), low body temperature, and abnormal menses. 

Three, maybe four exercise classes a day, is her reported activity, while consuming under 1600 calories from a 'healthy' diet. Excuse me? 'Healthy diet' is a term that simply doesn’t apply to this intake relative to activity. I don’t care how healthy the individual foods are, whether they are organic, whole grain, whatever—there’s nothing healthy here. This is a severely restrictive intake for this level of activity.

It’s none of my business, Tricia? On the contrary. I can’t simply sit and watch and not shout out how outrageous and unhealthy this is. I am not, however, faulting Rachel. The Biggest Loser took a vulnerable contestant—perhaps no different than other contestants—a woman who reports emotional overeating resulting in a 100 pound weight gain following a breakup. They turn out an excessive exerciser, who’s restricting her calories and likely quite unhealthy by many measures. 

Call it the flip side of the same coin—first likely struggling with binge eating now struggling to trust her body and her signals and eat to meet her needs. Are we to view this as success? Not in the least. Were her eating behaviors addressed? Was she given strategies for coping versus using food or food restriction or compulsive exercise? Was she guided to learn to trust her hunger and her fullness again, or simply instructed to count calories? 

A former contestant, Ms. Hibbard acknowledges the unhealthy behavior she and others practiced on the ranch, particularly preceding weigh-ins (similar to what Weight Watchers report). Contestants, she claims, “dehydrated themselves through excessive workouts in warm layers of clothing, drank only coffee because it acts as a diuretic and ate little to nothing.” She adds: “I feel I did a vulnerable disservice by not saying on television the night of my finale. ‘I’m sad, and I’m sick from being on this show’”. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/fashion/Biggest-Loser-Rachel-Frederickson.html?_r=0)

Hibbard might have been late to speak up. But we don’t have to be silent. The impact of a show like The Biggest Loser is dangerous—to its contestants, and to its viewers. It promises health, while causing harm; and it delays and potentially complicates contestants’ preexisting eating disorders. It shames participants through their weight loss struggle, and turns viewers to criticizing the Loser, like Rachel, for whom continued weight loss may feel out of her hands. 



Don’t accept the promise of rapid weight loss, or believe that extremes of eating or exercising will work. Because they never do.

Essential Weight Loss Tips? There Has to be a Better Way.

A winter storm has its risks. The biggest? It keeps me home with time on my hands trolling the Twitter feeds and Facebook messages. I read, filter my thoughts, read, filter, read—and then I can’t take it any more and feel the need to speak out. Earlier, I tweeted: ‘The only #cleanse you should be doing is a facial one. You know, soap & water or alternative. GI cleanses are disordered’, after reading an MD’s unintelligent praise of ‘cleanses’ (in quotations, because there’s nothing cleansing except your perception that you are removing those treacherous toxins.)

Then I came upon my professional organization’s tweet, “If you're hoping to lose weight before winter's end, these tips can help!” with this link. http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6847

It’s hard for me to say just why it annoyed me, but I’ll try my best to explain.

Is this the best message we as RDs can offer? It’s a message of calories in/ calories out. Pick from all food groups! Exercise! Eat smart (as opposed to stupid, I suppose). Personally, I’d run the other way if I were looking for weight management guidance. It feels insulting to intelligent, well-informed readers. And it fails to acknowledge a couple of major points.

1) Actively dieting is not the answer and 2) eating and activity are not simply information-based decisions.

Were the authors thinking readers would respond with “Wow, I had no idea calories and activity were involved?” or “So simple! I’ll just choose from all the healthy food groups! That should work.” Or “Ohhh, it’s about moderation!”

As for BMI

For some, self-acceptance of a weight higher than the population-based weight and BMI charts is in order. A high BMI based on the population charts may be perfectly acceptable for you, if you maintain a healthy lifestyle. Similarly, a normal BMI hardly defines you as healthy (or normal) if your behaviors aren’t so healthy—if you engage in restricting and overeating, use purge behaviors, including compulsive exercise, have a rather restrictive diet, or poor quality intake.

Perhaps instead of having a “Calculate your BMI” ad on their page, they could include a ‘plot your personal BMI’, to help you evaluate whether you’ve been maintaining a healthy pattern over the years; a high BMI at the earliest ages suggests that genetics may play a role in your weight and size. Just as you wouldn’t expect that your shoulders would become narrower or your eyes would change shape, you shouldn’t believe that your BMI percentile should be changing much. Acceptance of this not-so-minor-point may be the best medicine for many!

But if your weight or BMI have been climbing inappropriately, you could use much better guidance than my national organization provided.

So in an effort to redeem them from the pitiful piece, I’m pulling a few thoughts together. Ask yourself:

Is it legitimate to be concerned about your weight? Has it changed inappropriately? Or are you focusing unnecessarily on your weight, the New Year’s phenomena, when really you are a reasonably healthy and fit person? I caught an episode of Sex and the City today at the gym, and Carrie said a most fitting line: “the problem isn’t with your thighs, the problem is with your head.” (This, in response to her friend kvetching about the size of her thighs and her body image.)

If it is legitimate, explore what’s in place, and what needs to change.

Are you aware of your hunger? Do you allow yourself to respond to it, or are you living inside your head, counting calories, or points, or carbs, for instance?

Do you let yourself get to the point of famished, only to overeat, then regret it, then set more rules again, perpetuating this cycle?

Do you eat beyond a comfortable level of fullness? Do you let your black and white thinking get in the way, suggesting that you’ve already blown it, resulting in you throwing in the towel, so to speak? Some CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) may be in order.

Yes, there are other ways to self-soothe.

Or do you eat for comfort—because you’ve had a hard day—or as punishment, because you feel you don’t deserve any better? Maybe you’ve simply given up, feeling that nothing you do can even make a difference.

Are you overeating as a rebound to years or months of restrictive, rules-driven eating? Are you overeating only on ‘forbidden foods’? Time to learn how to work those in with permission to eat all foods that you enjoy—not just those foods that fit ever-so-nicely into the food pyramid! “Eat desserts less often”, the Academy for Nutrition and Dietetics recommendation, is hardly the advice you need. Setting more rules is not the answer.

Must we view desserts as forbidden?

Is your eating chaotic? Do you have balanced meals and snacks? Perhaps some help with planning is in order.

And have I mentioned patience? You've been living with your eating behaviors for a very long time, many years, no doubt. Let's not expect that they will consistently change after just a week or two.

Do you set realistic goals? You’re not stupid—of course you know exercise might help if your activity is low (and your intake is adequate). But maybe the obstacle is your belief that if you don’t have 60 minutes to spend, or can’t sustain exercise at 85% of your target heart rate range that it’s not worth doing any activity! 

Perhaps it's time you acknowledge your frustration—with messages from the media and the medical community, with false promises of quick fixes for your weight, with conflicting messages about what’s the right way to eat, and with insulting guidance from those who should know better. Yes, there is another way, which includes self acceptance and insight about the limits of what you can change. And, a shift to understanding how your thoughts and behaviors play a critical role in your eating.

Your thoughts? Thanks for reading (and in advance for commenting and spreading this advice!)