This article came about after I had discussions with so many overweight people who thought that there was some magic way to lose weight. You loaded up on protein, or drank liquid diet preparations, ate only rice, or ran 5 miles a day, and on and on. After being overweight most of my adult life, I finally got a grip on the simple equation that calorie intake versus calories burned determines your weight - plain and simple. This revelation came home during a class at Dr. Ken Cooper's Aerobics Center in Dallas about 15 years ago. From that day forward I have kept of a list of my calorie intake and my exercise - and entered it into my computer in recent years.
Many advocates of eating a strictly vegetarian diet (no animal byproducts, not even an egg or a glass of skim milk) say that you can ignore calories and eat what you want and probably will lose weight if you are overweight. True in part, but you can overdo it. If you eat too many bananas, or whole wheat muffins, or beans and rice, you will gain weight. After all, the domestic Pig is mostly a vegetarian! Over the years I have had my ups and downs, but when I religiously kept my calorie count in the computer, I either maintained my weight or lost weight - whichever I was intent upon doing at the time.
The portion substitution method used by Weight Watchers, the American Heart Association, and by many diabetics, works as well as calorie counting. Behind each of those "portions" is a finite number of calories. I have tried both ways and still prefer counting calories. Those who are habitually overweight are normally compulsive eaters. It is a form of disease. Just an a reformed alcoholic must attend AA or similar meetings the rest of his or her life, the compulsive eater must keep close track of what he or she eats.
So, here are some thoughts and suggestions gathered over the last 20 odd years.
A person can determine how many calories he or she needs to maintain their present weight by the following calculation:
Present weight x 15 if very active
Present weight X 12 if moderately active
Present weight X 10 if sedentary
Even though I exercise nearly every day, I always use X 12, since I never get a surprise in the wrong direction.
For example, if a person weighs 135 pounds and is moderately active (excluding for the moment any exercise program), the calculation is:
135 X 12 = 1620 calories intake per day to maintain present weight
If the person is very active in daily life, such as a person who does a lot of walking, lifting, etc., in their job, and/or works out a lot, then the calculation is:
135 X 15 = 2025 calories intake per day to maintain present weight
A pound of body weight is equivalent to 3500 calories.
Eat 3500 calories more than you need to maintain your weight, and you will gain a pound. A striking example came to me the other day. I eat a banana almost every morning. If I eat a large banana (about 100 calories) every day, instead of a small banana (about 65 calories), and the 65-calorie banana would have put me right at my proper calorie intake per day, I will gain 3.65 pounds that year! From eating about 3 bites more of banana a day!
Eat 3500 calories less than you need to maintain your weight and you will lose a pound.
So, if you normally need 1800 calories a day to maintain your weight, if you eat 500 calories less each day, you will lose a pound in a week (7 days X 500 =3500), without any consideration for your exercise program.
That means that a person who needs 1800 calories a day to maintain their weight, needs to reduce to 1300 calories a day to loose a pound a week (7 X 500 = 3500).
Conversely, suppose that 1800 calories person ate a candy bar more than their 1800-a- day - rate -- every day for a year. The calculation is 280 cals (small candy bar) X 365=102,200 calories divided by 3500 = a weight gain in a year of 29 pounds - from just that one snack per day! Eeeek! Nobody ever explained the program.
Now, if a person who needs 1800 calories a day to maintain weight walks three miles at about a 15-minute-per-mile pace (-300 cals + or -), that person could eat 2100 calories that day and stay at the same weight. The problem is that we don't exercise 7 days a week, yet we tend to eat more than we require each day because we say "Well, I'm burning it off with exercise." Burning it off 3 days a week, maybe. Laying in fat the other 4 days.
After you lose some weight, you need to recalculate the number of calories to maintain your new weight. Then, adjust your daily intake according to number of pounds you want to lose, remembering that for each pound a week you want to lose you must eat 500 calories less a day (500 x 7=3500).
This immutable law of calorie consumption per pound of body weight causes problems for many women. If a 130 pound wife eats the same portions as her 200 pound husband, she will gain a bunch of weight. And if a man is constantly asked if he wants to eat the unused portion on his wife's plate, he will gain. Kids burn more calories, and I do not know the average calorie burn per body weight. Obviously, as one looks around at today's kids, a large percentage are eating too much. Many need to cut back about 500 calories a day to lose 4 pounds a month, regardless of how much they now eat. A fat kid is begging to be a fat adult.
With no aberration due to abnormal thyroid, etc., over the long haul a person will show this kind of weight gain or weight loss, regardless of whether they eat those calories in pasta, steak, cake, apples, or whatever - diet gurus and wackos notwithstanding. I have proven this over a 45-year period of being on every diet that came along. If you eat too many apples, you will gain weight. If you eat too much rice, you will gain weight. There is no magic bullet. Some people make claims about certain foods that accelerate metabolism. Looking beyond the claims, it is clear that if one eats equal portions of veggies and complex carbohydrates in comparison to eating fats, the fats have many more calories per ounce.
One of the bonuses about weight loss on a low-fat diet is that a gram of fat has many more calories than a gram of carbohydrate. A potato or a small steak will fill you up. But, the potato has far fewer calories and no fat. So, if you cut down on the portions of fat, you dramatically reduce calories. Thus vegetarians have the best of both ideals, low-fat for reduction in cardiovascular risks and low-calorie for weight control. But it is still calories in versus calories out, no matter how you slice the ribeye or the fruit salad.
Exercise is good news in many ways, as related to weight.
If you maintain a regular exercise program, and do not need to lose weight, you can eat more each day and still maintain your correct weight. Pro basketball players, for example, can eat huge amounts of food and not gain weight. Pro football players do a lot of standing around, so when they overeat, they quickly gain weight. Look at some of the slobs on the Cowboys and other NFL teams.
I have often used the example that you can have a Snickers bar a day if you walk a brisk mile and a half to and from the store where you buy the candy!
However, those who think they can continue to eat at their present level and lose substantial amounts of weight by moderate exercise alone are in for a shock. Suppose that you walk a mile and burn 100 calories, which is about average. Remember, heavier people burn more calories than slight ones. You would have to walk maybe 10 miles to burn off the excess calories from the average meal eaten outside the home. Maybe more, if you also eat the chips while waiting for the Fajitas to come!
Like calorie intake/outgo and weight loss, you can predict weight loss from exercise (or the extra calories you can consume if you are at the proper weight). Since a pound = 3500 calories, you simply do a little math with the readily-available charts that are available for calories burned during exercise. Many of us in the class at the Aerobics Center kept meticulous records. We predicted within about one pound a month how much we would lose given the math of our intake versus the burn rate from exercise.
So, if a person wants to lose 2 pounds a week, they can cut back 5,000 calories a week in food intake and burn up an additional 2,000 in exercise, or any combination that equals 7,000 calories less a week.
After over 45 years of watching my weight, I finally discovered there is no shortcut to losing weight and keeping it off. The answer is in reducing calorie intake, but eating a balanced diet that you can live with all your life, and exercising regularly. Pretty simple, as long as one has determination and a calculator. Once you get to your proper weight, you continue to eat the same basic foods, but in larger portions, with perhaps a piece of chocolate cake now and then.
SlimFast, Ensure, Sustacal, and others brag about all the nutrients in a 200-350 calorie can of their stuff. For about those same 200-350 calories, you can have Oatmeal, skim milk, a small piece of fruit, and a multiple vitamin/mineral tablet . Or a soy-burger on light whole wheat bread and topped off with some BBQ sauce - and maybe a piece of fruit. The Oatmeal and small banana, or the soy-burger sandwich will stick to your ribs. The liquid supplements - well, make up your own joke. They tell you to drink that stuff two times a day and have a sensible dinner. I have better advice. Eat three sensible meals a day and a fruit or veggie snack in between meals. You will lose the same amount of weight and eat well. Finally, the word is out, even from the medical community. Liquid meals have a place for people who cannot eat solid foods and for an occasional meal while on the run. I keep a can of Nestles chocolate drink in my vehicle for an emergency meal. Other than that, they serve no useful purpose.
You can't have any fun drinking fortified swill for the rest of your life. Whatever pattern of eating you assume, it must be sustainable for life, with the only variance being in the calories consumed during a time you want to lose weight.
Update: 10-10-96A recent article in U.S. News & World Report (Oct.7, 1996, p.69) is called "Liquid Energy in a Can." Some of the highlights are:
"They're better for you than a bag of cheese curls and a soda but not as good as a carton of yogurt, a piece of fruit and a multigrain roll." That sounds familiar- from a few paragraphs back.
"... the drinks are an inadequate substitute for three squares." "... but lacks fiber and other nutrients found in nature."
Laura Sum, product manager for Boost, from Mead Johnson Nutritionals, which also makes Sustacal, says, "Clearly, if we take on real food, we're going to lose. Real food is better." Say what?
So, when you see those ads on TV, you like me, can shake your head and say, "Who are they trying to kid?" And light a candle for Laura Sum. She may be looking for work in a Whole Foods Market soon.
By the way, since I wrote this on May 12, I still have my can of liquid diet in the truck - untouched. But I have consumed plenty of bananas, bagels, and orange juice while on the run.
Update: January 3, 1997
In the January 3, 1997, edition of the Wall Street Journal, on page B2, there is a report of FTC charges concerning the advertising claims of the liquid supplement Ensure. Some of the highlights follow:
The FTC alleged that Abbott made "false and unsubstantiated claims ... that many doctors recommended Ensure as a meal supplement and replacement for healthy adults, including those in their 30s and 40s.""Ensure may provide a benefit if you have a medical condition that makes it difficult to eat or if you are using them in place of an occasional skipped meal," said Jodie Bernstein, director of the FTC's consumer protection bureau, in a statement. "Abbot went too far, however, when it suggested that doctors recommend Ensure for healthy, active people, like those in the ads, in order to stay healthy and active."
Abbot also is alleged to have misrepresented the percentage of the recommended daily intake of vitamins that are contained in Ensure.
Say that you eat 1500 calories a day and want to adhere to taking in no more than 20% of your calories from fat. The math is: 1500 x .20 / (divide by) 9 =33.33 grams of fat per day. Suppose you are doing 1500 calories and 10% fat. The calculation is: 1500 x .10 / 9 = 16.67 grams of fat a day.
Look at food labels, especially for cookies, pastries, candy, and prepared foods. You will be astounded at the grams of fat present. A single order of French Fries may contain 20 grams of fat! So much for eating French Fries on the Dean Ornish reversing-heart-disease diet! A Burger King Whopper contains 39 grams of fat! A McDonald's Big Mac has 31 grams of fat. However, a BK Broiler Chicken Sandwich, with the Mayo, is only 12 grams of fat (see later attempt at an explanation).
The McDonald's Grilled Chicken Deluxe is 440 calories and 20 grams of fat. One assumes that if you "hold the Mayo," the McDonald's Grilled Chicken sandwich has about the same fat content as the BK- Broiler. Substituting BBQ sauce for Mayo produces a tasty sandwich which has no added fat from the condiment. But the facts are hard to come by, even when you use the nutritional information published on the Web pages for Burger King and McDonald's.
Burger King lists the BK-Broiler chicken sandwich at 550 calories and 29 grams of fat. They list Mayonnaise at 210 calories and 23 grams of fat. If you subtract the Mayo, that would give you a chicken sandwich of 340 calories and 6 grams of fat. Since 4 ounces of chicken is about 4 grams of fat and a bread roll about 2 grams, the Mayo-free sandwich should be about 6 grams of fat. But .... the Burger King nutrition list of commonly-asked questions says that a Bk-Broiler without Mayonnaise is 12 grams of fat! I give up! Make up your minds. To someone with heart disease, or who is trying to lower heart-disease risk factors, the cumulative effect of eating 6 more grams of fat per sandwich that they thought they were getting, is significant.
At McDonald's Web page, they list the Grilled Chicken Deluxe at 440 calories and 20 grams of fat. McD does not list calories and fat grams for its regular Mayo. But, if you hold the Mayo, that should produce a sandwich of about the same calories and fat content as the Burger King BK-Broiler. Until these two corporations make up their minds about the nutritional content of their chicken sandwiches without Mayo, we can probably assume that either one has about the same calories and fat content. After all, chicken breasts and bread are the only significant producers of calories and fat in these two chicken sandwiches - if you hold the Mayo.
Nearly every day I eat 1/4 cup (uncooked portion) of Quick Oats Plus Oat Bran, from Ralston Foods. Even this cereal has 3 grams of fat in it. I use 1 cup (more or less) of 1%-fat Soy Milk on the cereal. One cup has 2.0 grams of fat in it. That is 5.0 grams of my 16+ gram ration for the day - on one of the most healthful and fat-free breakfasts you can eat. Now, I have switched to non-fat soy milk.
You can do what you want. But the medical evidence is overwhelming that you should restrict your fat to 10 to 20% of fat, not the 30% value touted so often. If you will lower your fat intake, your cholesterol should drop accordingly. When I lowered my fat intake to around 10%, my cholesterol dropped to 150 - from around 240 that it was on a "normal low-fat" diet. Each person reacts differently. But, there is little doubt that you may be able to avoid taking cholesterol-lowering drugs if you will simply restrict your intake of saturated fat. There are other natural ways to lower cholesterol, such as the margarines Total and Benecol, and the supplement Cholestin (which contains Chinese Red Yeast). There are claims that Olive Oil lowers cholesterol. Maybe, but it is one of the "best" oils for you, and thus is a good bet on several fronts. Eating a couple of servings of Salmon or Albacore Tuna also provide you with the "good" oils. By the way, in the famed Framingham heart study, nobody with a cholesterol of 150 or below ever had a heart attack. But, there is some evidence today that somewhere around 180 may be optimal - that 150 may be too low.
Dr. Dean Ornish, who is the pioneer of the "10% or less fat" diet for the reversal of heart disease, points out that the study focuses only on lab measurements of blood chemistry. The study does not attempt to track the actual effect of low-fat diets on heart disease and general longevity.
This absurd study result will also come as a shock to the millions of healthy, long lived, vegetarians around the World, who have a far lower incidence of heart disease (and cancer) than meat eaters. It will also be a shock to the Japanese, Chinese, and the many other cultures who eat a generally low-fat diet - and have less heart disease than Americans who eat a fat-laden diet.
In my own case, the 30% fat diet over many years left me with a cholesterol of about 240. After cutting back to 10% of fat in my diet, it dropped to 150! I suspect that there are millions of people adhering to the American Heart Association guideline of 30% fat consumption, who still have high cholesterol and/or heart disease. Many are given medication to lower their cholesterol. A typical U.S. medical answer to everything - take a pill. Now, in 2001, the American Heart Association has given up on suggesting percentages for intake of fat. Instead, they are taking the "eat a balanced diet, with limitations on saturated fat" approach.
I will predict that over time that this latest "study" which says there is no benefit, and potential harm, from eating less than about 27% fat in your diet will be completely discredited. In the meantime, people are lining up to take advantage of the Monster-Burger War. One recent big seller, the Big King from Burger King is reported to have 660 calories, 43 grams of fat, and 920 grams of sodium. That is 39% more fat than a Big Mac and equals my total fat consumption for three days!
My adherence to the 10% of fat or less diet espoused by Dr. Dean Ornish produced some significant results. I lost 55 pounds (in a sensible 18 months, not on some 12-week miracle diet), my blood pressure dropped dramatically, my cholesterol dropped dramatically, and my treadmill times increased substantially - among other indicators. The only quibble I have with Dr. Ornish is his insistence on not eating any fat in the form of meat, poultry, or nuts and seeds - for those with health concerns such as high blood pressure, precursors to heart attack, and obesity. So, I have now modified my diet to include fish, nuts, and eggs (at my doctor's insistence) and a lean steak now and then. I try to keep my intake of Saturated Fat at or below 10% of my calorie intake. Not easy to do, but there is still room from an occasional donut or piece of chocolate. Wine has no saturated fat!
In the long haul, I suspect that the answer will be in restricting fats to 20% or less, but concentrating on keeping saturated fats below about 7% - 10% and eating some cholesterol-friendly foods and supplements. Some guidelines now talk in these terms. Keeping saturated fats below 10% is a world of difference from trying to keep all fats below 10%.
One must be suspicious that the "low-fat-diet-is-bad-for-you" study was funded by fast food chains, cake and cookie producers, candy companies, and other such vested interests. It is the only logical explanation for such an absurd conclusion. Although there is growing evidence that a cholesterol level of 150 may be too low for good health. The public has been jerked around by medical research on diet and nutrition for decades. Eggs were bad for you, now they are not. Steak was bad for you, now a lean cut is as OK as a piece of chicken. High cholesterol was said to be the major cause of heart disease, now it may also be homocysteine level, a virus, or who knows what else? A large proportion of people who have heart attacks have "normal" cholesterol readings. The practice of medicine has always been "crisis medicine." Doctors were trained to treat you when your system broke down. Gradually, they are beginning to focus on the very important role of preventive medicine, with more attention on what we eat, getting adequate exercise and rest, limiting stress, the role of nutritional supplements and herbs, and so on.
In 2001, we find the U.S. Government doing some in-depth studies of the major diet approaches. Dr. Dean Ornish is on the far end of low-fat. Dr. Atkins suggests that you eat bacon, steak, and cheese, etc. as the bulk of your diet, and there are many diets that fall in between. Already, the medical community is starting to be more vocal in questioning the healthfullness of Dr. Atkin's "high protein/high fat" approach. After millions of dollars of research the government may decide that our diet should be balanced and low in saturated fat. And that "crash diets" and extreme high-fat diets like the Atkin's Diet are harmful. They may not be right, but that is pretty much the conventional medical wisdom. Or that the answer to weight control is quite simply a smaller intake of food and a consistent exercise program (more likely to be correct). Anybody who has followed this debate for 20 years or so will know that the main reason for the "extreme" diets is to sell books, tapes, and specially packaged foods and supplements. If the Government wanted to do something useful, it would limit the size of burgers and French-fry portions in eating establishments - and ban food commercials on TV after 6 p.m. You cannot eat three meals a day and maintain a proper weight if one of those meals is a double cheeseburger, large fries, and a hot-apple pie. And you cannot sit in front of the TV with the onslaught of stimuli from food commercials without wandering into the kitchen once too often.
Some further thoughts in Feb., 2005: After carefully reading and following the low-carb debate - mostly by reading in the scientific literature rather than in the popular press - it seems almost beyond debate that refined carbohydrates are in many ways responsible for our epidemic of obesity - and for the huge increase in adult-onset diabetes. The sensible rule is: don't eat white bread, white pasta, white rice, but rather whole grains, brown rice, whole-wheat pasta, and so on. The new U.S. Food Guidelines reflect this new "informed" thinking. The French, who love their long loaves of white bread will scoff at thsi notion to avoid white bread. And Asians will shrug off any idea that the white rice they have eaten for centuries is bad for them. But, if you subscribe to the new theory about avoidling refined carbohydrates, don't be fooled, for instance by breads that say they are "Wheat bread." Look for labels that say 100% whole wheat. Labels generally list the ingredients in the order of their precedence. So, if the ingredient you want is not listed first, you may want to reconsider what the brand claims it is made of.
And, as you will see over and over in my writing about cholesterol and saturated fat, nearly each month there is more evidence that cholesterol and saturated fat are not (or most likely not) the major cause of heart disease - as we have been told for so long. See, for example, www.thincs.org. The new villain is Trans Fatty Acids (TFA), and probably with good reason. Companies are racing to rid their products of TFAs. Frito-Lay now says that they have taken the TFAs out of their chips, for example.
Back to the list of Topics in this Section
Richard C. Rhodes, Revised Feb 15, 2005