Obesity Treatment

Obesity Treatment

The method of treatment depends on your level of obesity, overall health condition, and motivation to lose weight.

Treatment includes a combination of diet, exercise, behavior modification, and sometimes weightloss drugs. In some cases of severe obesity, gastrointestinal surgery may be recommended.

If you are overweight, losing as little as 7-10 percent of your body weight may improve many of the problems linked to being overweight, such as high blood pressure and diabetes.

Slow and steady weight loss of no more than 1-2 pounds per week is the safest way to lose weight. Too rapid weight loss can cause you to lose muscle rather than fat. It also increases your chances of developing other problems, such as gallstones and nutrient deficiencies. Making long-term changes in your eating and physical activity habits is the only way to lose weight and keep it off!

Whether you are trying to lose weight or maintain your weight, you must improve your eating habits. Eat a variety of foods, especially pasta, rice, wholemeal bread, and other whole-grain foods. Reduce your fat-intake. You should also eat lots of fruits and vegetables.

Making physical activity a part of your daily life is an important way to help control your weight. Try to do at least 30 minutes of physical activity a day on most days of the week. The activity does not have to be done all at once. It can be done in stages: 10 minutes here, 20 minutes there, providing it adds up to 30 minutes a day.

Advertisements

How Safe Is Quick Weight Loss?

How Safe Is Quick Weight Loss?

You might want to drop extra weight as fast as possible, but the most long-lasting loss often comes at a slow, and safe, pace.

Tempted by the fad diet that promises 15 or even 30 pounds of weight loss in the first month? While it would be lovely if excess weight could safely melt away (ideally before bikini season), quick weight loss is unlikely, and prolonged extreme weight loss is not safe.

Weight Loss: Understanding That First Drop

“We usually recommend about a half a pound to two pounds a week, which is a lot less than what these fad diets promise,” says Emily Banes, RD, clinical dietitian at the Houston Northwest Medical Center.

Banes acknowledges that some people may experience quick weight loss in the early stages of a new diet, but says it is important to be realistic about what to expect over the long haul. “If you have a lot to lose and you start on a diet and lose more than two pounds a week, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but know it’s going to slow down,” warns Banes, adding that some of the initial weight loss probably is water weight.

Even Banes’ patients who have had lap-band or gastric bypass surgery and lose weight dramatically at first will eventually slow down to what feels like a crawl, but is actually a healthy rate of weight loss. Banes says she would worry about a person’s rate of weight loss if they continued to lose five to 10 pounds (or more) a week.

Weight Loss: Safe Strategies, Best Strategies

While not everyone, including Banes, focuses on counting calories, doing the math can help guide you to a safer weight loss. Generally, experts recommend trimming 500 to 1,000 calories from your daily intake by eating less and exercising more.

A pound is the equivalent of 3,500 calories, so if you can cut 500 calories each day for a week, you should lose one pound. Researchers who analyzed data from 1,801 Minnesota dieters over a two-year period found that the more strategies dieters used, the more likely they were to be successful in losing weight at this pace. Strategies that lead to success include:

Counting calories
Increasing daily exercise (aim for 150 minutes a week or more)
Cutting out sweets and snacks
Reducing fat intake to less than 30 percent
Increasing fruit and vegetables
Decreasing portion sizes
The researchers noted that one crucial piece of information lacking from many diet strategies: persistence. Their conclusions support the fact that even though it will take a long time at the pound-per-week pace — longer than many people would like — with a slower approach you are more likely to develop the long-term healthy habits that will help keep the lost weight off.

Weight Loss: When the Rate Becomes Dangerous

If extreme weight loss means you are not getting enough nutrients — the fats, carbohydrates, and proteins needed for your body to function properly — you have entered the territory of unsafe weight loss. You may also be developing an eating disorder focused on your obsession with weight. Some of the warning signs that you may be losing too much weight are:

Thinning hair
Frequently becoming sick
Feeling cold more often than usual
Having fewer or no menstrual cycles
Disappointing though it may be, the reality is that slow and steady wins the weight-loss race. Take it easy and be patient — you will achieve your goal and, more importantly, maintain it.

DO EGGS CAUSE HEART DISEASE?

DO EGGS CAUSE HEART DISEASE?

August 22, 2012

It takes a lot to get me to react to any health headline. I’m used to them. I’m immune to the sensationalism, over-stated conclusions, and twisted information that comes with almost any new study abstract.

So I won’t downplay my reaction when I read the following:

“Eggs Are Nearly As Bad For Your Arteries As Cigarettes.”

I thought it was a joke. Only I wasn’t laughing. In fact, if you hear rumors that I was crying in my office, I won’t deny them. After all, it’s no secret that I’m one of the biggest supporters of eggs. If you’re not aware, I did my own “eggsperiment” where I ate three eggs per day for two months just to see what would happen to my health. Type in “eggsperiment” and you’ll find all my posts, but here was the conclusion. (Spoiler: My cholesterol improved and I even lost some fat.)

So if I was wrong–and I’m always open to that possibility–I was going to have to do a lot of damage control and follow up research.

But my bigger concern was that after 15 years of trying to debunk the “yolks are bad” myth, a new–potentially more dangerous and careless–conclusion could cause people to unnecessarily avoid one of the world’s greatest health foods. (Note: If you’re allergic to eggs, obviously they are not good for you.)

So I read the study. And found what I expected: Erroneous conclusions, a flawed methodology, and some questionable data.

But that wasn’t enough. I went to three prominent nutritionists–Alan Aragon, Mike Roussell, and Chris Mohr–and had them provide their take on the latest research.

Their reactions? Disbelief and frustration.

“The problem, unfortunately, is that this study has more holes in it than Swiss cheese,” says Mohr. But he wasn’t alone. “We shouldn’t look at research in a black box,” says Roussell. “Just because a study is new doesn’t mean everything published before it was wrong. The data looking at the associations between egg consumption and coronary events is inconsistent at best.”

But the issues with this research go deeper than just ignoring years of data that has suggested eggs are healthy. The flaws within this specific study include:

The observational nature: Correlation does not necessarily mean causation, says Aragon. This is perhaps the biggest limitation of observational studies. There are uncontrolled variables that can render a suspect–in this case eggs–guilty by association rather than by their own actual effect. For example, they didn’t look at exercise, saturated fat or cholesterol intake (other than eggs), sugar or any other dietary intake, or waist circumference, adds Mohr. This is why observational designs can, at best provide food for thought but not cause for action, says Aragon. Studies such as this are mere starting points for further investigation. They can serve to generate hypotheses which can be tested in randomized controlled trials, where causation can be demonstrated.
The Test Group: The people in this study were not healthy people, says Rousell. It’s clearly stated in the methods of the study: “Our referrals were scheduled on an urgent basis soon after transient ischeamic attacks or strokes.” These were people with vascular disease. Making a generalization from the unhealthy to the healthy is dangerous and inaccurate. What’s more, the way that the data was gathered makes it more susceptible to inaccuracies, says Aragon. Food frequency questionnaires (FFQs), although the most commonly used means of dietary data collection, are a necessary evil since they are inexpensive and convenient to administer.
Lack of data on exercise: We already mentioned that exercise was not controlled for in the study. This is important because exercise is a well-established protective factor against atherosclerosis. And yet in this study, there was no measure to assess whether the participants were active. Missing data on formal exercise and physical activity can greatly weaken the possibility to draw firm conclusions about the outcomes of this study, says Aragon. “It’s highly unlikely that a moderate intake of eggs would significantly impact heart disease risk in physically active individuals with otherwise sound lifestyle and dietary habits.”
Questionable Data: “Individuals who ate the highest amount of egg yolks had the lowest total (and LDL) cholesterol levels. They also had the lowest BMI,” says Aragon. “Are we to conclude from this data that lowering your BMI and cholesterol levels leads to arterial plaque build-up?”
Just think about that. These are indications of healthy people. So the link is questionable–at best. This is yet another example of how self-reported data within observational study designs is sometimes virtually worthless, says Aragon. Even the researchers admit this possibility, adds Roussell. Within the study, they state the following:

“The study weakness includes its observational nature, the lack of data on exercise, waist circumference and dietary intake of saturated fat and sources of cholesterol other than eggs, and the dependence on self-reporting of egg consumption and smoking history, common to many dietary studies.”

Lack of uniformity of data collection: Aragon discovered another very significant flaw: “The patient histories examined span back to 1995, and in the early years of data collection, smoking and egg consumption were recorded on a different lifestyle questionnaire compared to 2000 and onward, where data was collected on an urgent basis soon after patients had heart attacks or strokes.” Lack of consistency in any study is a reason to have a lack of faith. This introduces further error on top of the error inherent with self-reported data.
Lack of support from controlled research: “When there is consistent agreement between the outcomes of controlled research and observational research, it lends strength to any given claim about the relationship between any given dietary factor and its effect on health and/or disease,” says Aragon. But this does not apply to eggs. “While observational studies have admittedly been a mixed-bag of outcomes, controlled studies on the effects of eggs have for the most part been neutral-to-positive.”
The Verdict

As always, the foods you eat are your choice. If you don’t want to consume a particular food, then don’t. It’s your life and your body and you should feel empowered to make the choices that are both sustainable and create a sense of dietary comfort. But for a scientific perspective, there’s no reason to fear omelets, scrambles, or frittatas until controlled research can provide a cause-and-effect relationship between eggs and disease. If you suffer from vascular disease, it might be wise to watch your egg consumption, suggests Roussell. Otherwise, there’s a lack of scientific support that should make you fear the incredible edible egg. Not to mention, eggs–and especially their yolks–are still loaded with valuable nutrients, protein, and healthy fat, says Mohr.

Still not convinced? I’m giving eggs my personal stamp of approval by heading straight to the kitchen to enjoy the Born scramble.