Happy Meals Are Bad, Twinkies Are Good: Welcome to the Food Wars

Or make them fat. Whatever.

How could something so happy - it's even got happy in the name! - cause so much angst? By now you've certainly heard about San Francisco banning the McDonald's Happy Meal. (Note: they actually just banned the toy from being included in meals that don't meet certain nutritional criteria but as a mother of four I can tell you that's pretty much the same thing.) You've probably also heard that a judge overturned the ban. The war on Happy Meals has grown pretty heated in the past couple of weeks and naturally, this battle has filtered down to the fitness blog world.

Last week, MizFit headed up Team Happy Meals (which, if you read her post, is not actually pro-junk food but rather pro-parental responsibility.) In the other corner, Workout Mommy started up Team Healthy Meals for all the reasons you'd expect. Would you rather be healthy or happy, people?! Me, I can't decide.

Against the ban: If you ban the Happy Meal toy kids can still get their fix (and parents their 30 minutes of playland-induced peace) by walking across the street to a variety of other establishments. There is no shortage of junk food or cheap, plastic, movie tie-in crap in this country.

Pro ban: my kids only want the Happy Meal for the toy. They will actually throw their chicken nuggets in the garbage. I know. (I circumvented this wasteful ritual by going to the thrift store and buying a huge bag of old Happy Meal toys for 1$ and then handing them out to the kids for various reasons like pooping in the potty rather than just in the general vicinity, sharing their gum with their brothers even if it was prechewed and sometimes just as a bribe to be quiet and let mommy poop on her potty and chew her own gum in peace.) So if you ban the toy my kids will never want the chicken nuggets or junior cheeseburger all on their own - yay!

Pro: I can't even remember the last time we went to McDonald's - we generally save the Golden Arches for long road trips where we stop every few hours to make an offering at the shrine of the man who invented the indoor playland, unsung hero that he is. So what do I care if they ban them or not?

Against: We have another long road trip in our future. Probably many. A free toy (even if I think it is the lamest thing ever) + a slide that smells like urine = toddler joy. God bless Ronald.

Pro: Maybe this is the kick in the pants fast food establishments needed to offer healthier choices for kids.

Against: They already do, people just don't buy them.

Against: Where does the legislation stop? We've talked before about the slippery slope of letting the government define what is and is not "healthy" food.

Pro: It's more of a gesture, a statement against childhood obesity, than anything else. We have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, right?

Against: Do we really want to make Happy Meals the forbidden fruit?

Against: Legislation targeted at fast food usually affects poor people disproportionally.

Against: It's the parent's job to decide what to feed their children and where to spend their money.

Pro: Perhaps this will spark some conversation about how to better educate parents and children about healthy eating.

Against: Children have to learn sometime how to make healthy choices and they're not going to learn that skill by having some junk food randomly banned. Less than healthy food abounds and it is okay to eat it sometimes, just not all the time.

Pro: So use this new law as a teaching tool!

Pro: This kind of food is addicting. Literally. Plus those things are so processed they don't even rot! So we need to do anything we can to keep it out of the hands of little bodies that are still forming neural pathways (unlike my brain which is shedding neurons by the second - every time I have to listen to the Animaniacs song another cell dies).

Against: So then this law is a piddly drop in the bucket - go big or go home! Hello, school lunches!

Against: Europe has tons of McDonald's (I know, I've seen them!) and Europeans are notoriously Not Fat.

Pro: Really? You know you've reached the end of the debate when someone throws in the everything-is-better-in-Europe argument.

ANYHOW. It's been a long day that started with the kids whining about having to eat whole-wheat chocolate zucchini muffins for breakfast (despite the name, they actually taste amazing) and ended with a fist fight that left two of them bloody and the baby screaming just because she figures why not, that's just what people do in our house. So help my poor addled brain decide.

Oh, and just in case your brain hasn't exploded yet, check out this new study from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (see - you already know it's going to be good because it's European!) that showed that obese children ate more whole grains, fruits, vegetables and lean meats than their slim counterparts. According to the researchers, it's not what you eat but rather how good you are at portion control. Twinkie diet anyone?? (Cliff notes version: Professor lost 27 pounds by eating mostly snack cakes. AND his blood pressure, cholesterol and triglycerides all went down.)

Are you in favor of legislation that would make junk food harder to buy? Does it make a difference if the food is intended for and marketed to, children? What do you make of the Norwegian study results? Did the Twinkie Diet blow your mind as much as it did mine?

Men Have Body Image Issues Too

Just like you can't go to a Melissa Etheridge concert without seeing an abundance of pit hair, these days you can't go to an indie rock concert without seeing... emaciated men? This season, anorexic is the new black for the skinny jeans and eyeliner-for-men set. In a profession where rock stars have typically looked drug-emaciated a la Steven Tyler and David Bowie, this new trend hasn't garnered a lot of attention. The difference now however is that rather than all the bony rib cages being a result of popping oxycontin like tic tacs, thinness is sought after as a goal in its own right. Blame American Apparel or Pete Wentz, but men in this particular hipster subculture are now being held up to the impossibly skinny standard - and realizing firsthand how difficult it is to reach and how painful it is to always come up short.

Recently Caleb Followill of Kings of Leon admitted that he struggles with anorexia. In an interview with Q magazine he says, "I always thought I wasn't good enough. I'd do anything to keep my hands and mouth busy without eating." Adds Priya Elan of The Guardian, "He lived on black coffee and would go running in hot weather wearing a heavy tracksuit to sweat off as many pounds as possible in order to stay skinny. It isn't a huge surprise that the singer of one of indie rock's biggest bands was anorexic. What is surprising is that he's admitted it."

Followill might be the most honest of the group but he certainly isn't the only indie boy in this band. Other indie stars known for their bony frames and body issues include Kurt Cobain, Pete Wentz, Kaiser Chief's Ricky Wilson and Amos Lee. Seeing as I love all of their music (yeah, I just admitted to digging Fall Out Boy. I'm 12, I know.), it would be a shame to see any of them go the Karen Carpenter route - barring Cobain as he's already playing his coffeehouse gig in the sky.

Kurt Cobain, still dead, now schills shoes for the living

Pete Wentz, belching the alphabet

Ricky Wilson gives new meaning to Hey, Mr. Tamborine Man

Amos Lee looks over his shoulder in an alley. Which I would be too if I were sitting on such a nice leather "free" chair.

Slowly but surely it's been percolating to the surface of our media-addled public consciousness that men struggle with body issues too, whether it be looking good in bike shorts at the gym or measuring up to David Beckham's, ahem, standard (is that what the kids are calling it these days?). Worse, it is filtering down to all levels of society as evidenced by my literal tug of war with a pair of teenaged boys over a thrift-store pair of women's Chip and Pepper skinny cut jeans. (I won. You do NOT mess with me in a thrift store!)

Reader Andrew (AJH) pointed this out in his comment on my Finding Your Best Weight post:

Don't think these thoughts are just in women's heads, I was just the same when I was "losing" and am still to a degree. I started at 110kg with a goal weight of 90kg. Each time I reached a goal weight, another 5 kgs seemed like a good idea. I got down to about 68kg and my wife started saying I was looking sick, I couldn't see it, but did find I was finding I had less energy when exercising. I went back up to 70kg, and even then it didn't feel right, I decided less than 75kg seemed a good target and have been there for more than 5 years, feeling good. However, I have been around 72kg the last few months, and there is definitely a thought of that "safe buffer" you mentioned. I think if you're eating sensibly, feeling good and can do the things you want with the energy level you want, you're probably at the right weight.

It's also been shown that young gay men are particularly susceptible to body image woes and eating disorders. As a mother to three wonderful sons and one adorable daughter, I often worry about how society in general and my own struggles in particular will affect my daughter's sense of self and vulnerability to eating disorders. But now I am also worried about the messages my boys are getting. Even as young as they are (my eldest is 8), they are still bombarded daily with messages about what it means to be attractive and how to achieve that standard.

Body image issues in men may not be as prevalent or as pernicious as among women but give 'em twenty years to catch up; we had a head start. What do you think? Have you seen this in any of the men or boys in your life? How do I talk to my sons about this issue? Are eating disorders viewed differently in men than in women? Anyone else a thrift-store addict like I am?? (Today was 50% off day! I so totally scored!!)

Workout Leaving You Lightheaded? [The side effect of exercise no one talks about]

www.marriedtothesea.com

Gym Buddy Allison and I share many similarities: young children, a deep love of garage sales and thrift stores, and the same dark hair/light skin that always makes people ask us if we are sisters. Or just confuse one of us for the other. (Hint: she's the taller one with whiter teeth and shiny hair - basically what would happen if the Old Spice Guy knocked up the Pantene lady.) Recently we discovered we also share something else, albeit a mite more disconcerting than our preoccupation with our body fat percentage: We faint.

That's right, a condition normally associated with overly sensitive (or just overly corsetted) 19th-century rich ladies is felling super healthy Gym Buddies left and right. And it's not just fainting but general light-headedness, dizziness and blacked out vision. Before anyone wigs out, it's not as scary as it sounds, it only happens under certain circumstances and... it's perfectly normal. Um, what?

Called Orthostatic Hypotension, it's a seldom talked about side effect of exercise. While one of the known (great) side effects of exercise is lowered blood pressure, this can turn into a bit of a problem in situations that further lower your blood pressure such as suddenly stopping a vigorous exercise or suddenly changing positions. (I think I'm suddenly seeing a pattern!) Avid exercisers that already have low blood pressure are at particular risk for this. As ehow.com explains,

"Exercise can cause sudden changes in blood pressure. A change of 20 points in your blood pressure can cause you dizziness or even fainting. This happens because for that moment the brain isn't getting enough blood. Athletes and those who exercise regularly tend to have lower blood pressure and slower heart rate. So a sudden drop of 20 points could easily put an athlete into the realm of low blood pressure."

I found this out the hard way the other day while kneeling on my floor sorting ultra-adorable girly baby clothes for the Jelly Bean. (She has a silver tulle tutu! With silver patent-leather mary janes! Squeee!) I stood up to hang a dress in her closet and all of a sudden I'm hot, nauseated and my vision is all black. And next thing I know I'm slumped against the closet door on the floor with Jelly Bean staring at me with the cutest bewildered expression on her little squishy face.

This is not the first time I have experienced something like this. My normal blood pressure is usually around 85 over 60 although it's been measured lower and my resting heart rate is about 47 beats per minute. Because of this, my predilection to swoon has become a joke with my husband as I've fainted at least twice with each pregnancy. (Pregnancy is another condition that lowers your blood pressure.) But non-preggo fainting is pretty rare for me. More commonly I'm just dizzy, light-headed, nauseated and have spotty vision for a few seconds. It's remedied by remembering to stand up slowly and steadying myself with a wall or chair for a few seconds until the feeling passes. Except for the rare occasion when I actually hit the floor, these spells are barely noticeable and are not very bothersome to me.

The gym, however, amplifies these - both in intensity and in danger. For instance after doing Tabata sprints around the track with Allison one day, we both reeled to the floor in a strange, slow fall. It seems to have been a combination of working so hard and then stopping so suddenly (we were not going to run even one extra step at that level of exertion, much less take a cool-down lap!) that brought both of us momentarily insensate. Similar to that, while doing my long runs I'm fine but the second I stop running (which of course I do immediately because I'm a "sprint to the finish line" kind of girl) I usually have to sit down for a few seconds on the end of my treadmill and wait for my vision to clear before I can walk to the paper towel dispenser and spritz my 'mill down with ineffective-yet-mandatory cleaning spray.

So what about you - have you ever fainted? Locked your knees during your choir concert? Forgotten to drink water during gym class in a heat wave? Do you get dizzy etc. upon changing positions or stopping intense exercise? Any other good side effects of healthy living that end up bad?

Working in an Office or Working at Home: Which is Better For Your Waistline?

Has there ever been a better-named snack than this one? Why do we not have these in the US?? I need some crunky nudity!

"What smells like... salsa?" My coworker at the computer lab (told you I was a born nerd!) looked around until his eyes settled on me, eating lunch tucked into my cubicle. "What is that thing?" he screeched as if he'd caught me gorging on rat innards. This of course caused all my coworkers to come popping out of their cubes like a life-size game of whack-a-mole.

"It's a red pepper," I replied simply. Due to time constraints I hadn't bothered to cut it up and was just eating it whole, like an apple. The moles retreated.

"I thought peppers were just green. They come in red?" he asked, clearly flustered.

"And yellow and orange. Sometimes purple."

"And you just eat it?"

"I just eat it." Ah the days when fresh produce was newsworthy!

I was a lot skinnier in college. This is not unique to me of course - chalk it up to the nuclear metabolisms of youth. For me, however, I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that I was never home. For one thing I had a roommate who was being stalked by debt collectors who insisted on yelling at any female who answered the phone but it also helped that I was as neurotic as they come using every hour not in class or working to study.

Ignoring for a moment the periods where I was actively eating disordered, it seemed to be easier to control what I ate when I wasn't around my kitchen all the time. (Note: it was also much easier to be eating disordered in college.) I'm the planning queen so while office mates were hitting the vending machines for a meal of chewy Runts and diet Dew, I was pulling out my tupperware of salad with sliced pears and cheese crumbles. I hardly ever snacked and I only ate when I was really hungry. (Sometimes really really hungry - I was a terrible meal skipper).

All of which is a far cry from my life now where, thanks to demanding little people, snacks are on the agenda about every waking hour. There is always food on the table, the counters, the floor, and in my baby's neck rolls. (Note to new moms: make sure to lift up your little darling's chin when you bathe him or her. Tons of gunk gets stuck down there and since babies have no necks, you never see it. I learned this the hard way when I found black specks all over my baby's neck. I was sure he had fleas and rushed him to the doctor's. Turns out they were Oreo cookie crumbs. From me. That I'd eaten while I was nursing him. Don't be me.) ANYHOW, as much as I'd like to say that I never eat the PB&J crusts or the soggy nub of a cheese stick, I totally do. In addition to all the visible food, since I do all the shopping our cupboards are filled with food that I love to eat. So when I get writer's block or just hit with a block (happens more than you'd think), it's all too easy to de-stress standing in front of the freezer with a fork and a pint of ice cream. The last issue is how much of my life I spend cooking - I've already 'fessed up to cooking about 20 out of 21 meals a week - and when I cook, I taste. Sometimes I taste so much I have "tasted" an entire meal before even sitting down with my family.

But while I do impart a glossy sheen to my pre-child work days (I could wear a cute top with a skirt and heels without anyone asking me why I'm dressed up so fancy and then bursting into tears because that usually means I'm going somewhere without my entourage of minis.) I do remember the pitfalls of the office diet. Many of my working friends, and quite a few of you in the comments section of my last Intuitive Eating post, reminded me how hard it is to eat healthily at work. Between the client dinners and the office doughnuts and the face cake for everyone's birthdays, the office can be a minefield of temptation. Not to mention the lack of kitchen facilities for fresh food prep and storage, the overtime and the lunch hours that slowly turn into lunch minutes between meetings.

So! Which is better - working in an office or working at home? Cue the mompetition! Second only to the "does this make me look fat" conversation, the career vs. stay-at-home argument is generally a guaranteed way to end up with hurt feelings, strained friendships and possibly a stiletto heel in your eye. Thankfully for me, I'm only talking about which is better for your waistline, not the cosmic implications of where you choose to raise your Special Ovarian Deliveries. (You will notice that I use the phrase "working" in both descriptions because having done both I will tell you that it's hard work no matter which venue you choose to do it in. You may also note that I choose to refrain from limiting the fun to one gender- um, dudes can totally wear stilettos too. Lots of Daddies work at home these days.) The research says that people are more likely to overeat when they are stressed out and their cortisol levels rise so perhaps it's just a question of who stresses you out more - your kids or your boss?

There are advantages and disadvantages to both but I'm going to vote that for me, being in a different zip code than my refrigerator really quells my predilection for mindless grazing. What's your vote? Do you do better with your eating at home or at work? At home - what are your tips to keep from grazing? At work - what are your tricks for avoiding the candy jar? And - anyone else eat ice cream with a fork? I cannot use a spoon; it just feels wrong!

Are Carbohydrates The #1 Health Menace? [Good Calories Bad Calories]

Sparkly vampires that don't die in sunlight and fall in love with inarticulate teenage girls, zombies eating brains with grapefruit spoons and their pinkies out (or off?) with Elizabeth Bennett, hapless-yet-cunning teens battling to the death in a reality show that makes Jersey Shore look like The Christian Ladies Aid Society - these are the types of books that keep most people up at night. Me? I've been up for a week now reading the gripping tales of The Fat-Cholesterol Hypothesis and The Carbohydrate Hypothesis spun by Gary Taubes in his game-changing tome Good Calories Bad Calories. Kinda like the Bible and Moby Dick, lots of people will talk about this book but very few of them have actually read it.

Not that I blame them. It's 576 densely worded pages of research paper hell. And I used to be a Graduate Assistant that was paid to write research papers so I know that of which I speak. I'm going to be honest: I read most of it. Skimmed the rest. Fell asleep and drooled all over the "Conservation of Energy" chapter. Was just like college but without all the PowerPoint atrocities.

Good thing for all of us, Taubes includes a four word summary - a dietary rebus, if you will - on the front cover. Take this handy quiz:

Like the old woman/young woman illusion, what you see is all about your perspective. In this picture, is the piece of bread the "good calories" and the butter the "bad calories" or vice versa? For years, as any of you who lived through the nineties (check yes if you ever included "grrrl" in a description of yourself!) can attest, fat - especially saturated animal fats like butter - was the devil in the Devil's food cake. Even today, the American Heart Association recommends no more than 7% of your daily calories come from saturated fats and no more than 25-35 % from any fat. Most of us are well versed in the "good fats" and "bad fats" doctrine. It is, as Taubes takes the first 4 chapters to point out, the conventional wisdom. (I can't complain too much though because it was during this introduction that I got to meet a delightful 18th century Brit named Banting who lost so much weight on a low-carb diet that he went on a pamphlet-strewn publicity tour that puts Atkins to shame. Banting is like Jared the Subway Guy dressed like Marie Osmond on Nutrisystem and with an evangelical spirit that's half Kirstie Allie and half Richard Simmons. I love him.)

According to Taubes, everything you "know" about diet and nutrition is wrong. He backs up this assertion with very (very very) detailed analyses of all the research ever done on the subject, branching into a conspiracy theory about scientists suppressing evidence and changing study results that I would have found laughably ludicrous had I not worked in academic research for so many years and found out first hand what sharks professors on tenure track can be. But I digress. Here's a summary - you're welcome - of the myths busted by Taubes:

1. Eating fat makes you fat.
2. High cholesterol is bad and the best predictor of heart disease.
3. Cholesterol should be lowered at all costs.
4. The best way to lower triglycerides and cholesterol is through cutting out dietary fats, especially saturated animal fats.
5. That Western illness like cancer, diabetes, dementia and heart disease are inevitable if you live long enough.

Basically, Taubes postulates that the surest and best way to help people not only lose weight but also live the longest, healthiest lives possible is to eat lots of fat (all kinds) and protein but cut out carbohydrates. He especially blames sugar for societal ills - no shocker there - but also includes "good" carbohydrates like fruit and whole grains. Not only do carbohydrates not provide good nutrition in the form of energy, says he, but also have the deleterious effects of leaching vitamins and weakening the body in other ways. For those of you who are familiar with Atkins or with the Paleo/Primal diets, Taubes' book is scripture. For the rest of us, these assertions fly in the face of everything we have been taught about good nutrition.

Honesty, Part Two: He makes a very compelling case. Taubes is a highly acclaimed science writer and this background is evident in his meticulous review of every study out there. He not only tackles famous studies, like the Nurses' Health Study, The Seven Countries Study and Ancel Keys' starvation studies, but he includes every minor paper, even previously unpublished ones. About halfway through the book I wanted to throw my hands up and just accept whatever he said as true because he was clearly willing to do a lot more studying than I am on the subject.

And the science is catching up to him on some points. Recent papers have come out breaking the supposed link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease (yay, we can eat eggs AND their yolks again!). Saturated fats are getting lots more good press - indeed I have had a very positive experience adding more fats of all kinds to my diet. The problem for me is when he starts dissing my beloved whole grains and fruit. No matter his comprehensive body of research stating otherwise, I do better and feel better when I eat a diet that includes those two things. That's why I flunked out of the Primal Blueprint. Twice. (Of course, new science is also contradicting him.)

It is at this point in the story my brain kicks into full-on Crazy. Maybe I'm wrong! Maybe I'm just in denial. Was my mid-afternoon crash the result of my Tabata workout or the whole grain bread I wrapped around my tuna? Maybe I SHOULD try low-carb again! If I don't, I could die a horrible death of diabetes, heart disease or cancer! Or all three at the same time!

The only thing that stopped me from dumping my oatmeal down the disposal that very second was remembering how well my current Intuitive Eating Experiment is going. I'm happy. I'm healthy. I'm 2 pounds away from my pre-pregnancy weight and 5 from my "happy" weight (not to be confused with my ideal weight, also known as the weight I should never weigh again because even though I thought it was ideal it was really too low and I looked sick and didn't menstruate and was kind of a witch so yeah.) In a fit of reason - I'm not possessed of those nearly as often as I ought to be - I e-mailed my dear friend Dr. Jon who, also being British and therefore super cool, gave me a different perspective on Taubes, writing,

"Based on all my years of experience, I'm a great believer in moderation when it comes to diet . People lose sight of certain primary physiological facts and become obsessed with Super Foods, antioxidants, detox diets and supplements . To take some examples, a low fat diet isn't healthy because the body needs both saturated and unsaturated fats to maintain its health, LDL cholesterol is vital to well being, and reduced salt intake can literally kill anybody who works out heavily . That's the major difficulty with laying down rigid guidelines - they don't work for everybody and can actually do major harm .

A while back we talked about the Okinawan diet and I told you that the preliminary results indicate that that population's longevity and general good health seems to be both genetic and influenced by a more restricted diet and reduced intake . It is a relatively low-fat diet too, but too much must not be read into that . The Chinese diet is less restricted and pretty high in fats of all descriptions, and the typical French diet is enough to make a dietitian's eyes water . Yet all three countries have a far lower incidence of heart disease than the USA, Canada and the UK - just a thought, but maybe speaking English is the causative factor ???? :)

What you are doing these days, returning to intuitive eating and trusting your body to tell you what it needs, is the sanest and healthiest way to live . Logically, the human body has developed over the last couple of hundred thousand years and evolved the ability to signal its requirements . The plethora of mad ideas out there is truly mind-boggling . We have one particular "guru" over here who you should really have a look at . Her name is Gillian McKeith, aka the Poo Lady (if you have a look, you'll understand why - she's obsessed with it) . Amongst her insane ideas is that chlorophyll "helps to oxygenate the blood" by swallowing it !!! If you remember your highschool biology, chlorophyll is what makes plants green and uses light to photosynthesise carbon dioxide into carbon for the plant to grow, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere as a byproduct . The only way I could imagine obtaining oxygen from chlorophyll in the gut would be by sticking a searchlight up the unfortunate soul's butt - and then what ??? The gut does NOT have gills !"

So, the take-away message from all this, is that diet books give me way more nightmares than vampires, zombies and teen-death-match-reality-shows combined. (You know it's only a matter of time before someone writes that book!) Actually, what I learned is that I still want to turn to other people - experts, by golly! - to tell me what to do with my body rather than just listening to what it says. There's a fine line here between learning enough to interpret your body's signals and going so far as to substitute everyone else's judgment for your own. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not calling Taubes a quack and there was much of value in the book, especially on fats and their chemical mechanisms in the body, (and his chapter on paradoxes in the literature will blow your mind) but his recommendations on whole carbs and fruits just doesn't sit well with me. Lots of people live long, healthy lives on a variety of diets. You have the Okinawans with their super-low-fat diet. Then you have the Masai whose traditional diet of meat, whole milk and blood (yes, really) is about 70% fat. And these are two of the longest-lived peoples on the planet! But you know what I bet they have in common? They don't spend a lot of time reading diet books.

What are your thoughts on carbohydrates - all good, only the whole kind, or as little as possible and no grains? How much fat do you normally eat? Any of you read Good Calories Bad Calories? Do you always look for experts or research to tell you what to do, like I do??

The Slow Metabolism: Fact or Myth [Research Porn!]

"Jumpstart YOUR metabolism with a wheaties breakfast!" Eating cereal boosts your metabolism! It must be true - it's right there on the box! PS> Where is their mother?!

I'm doing everything right and it's not working! If you have ever thought the aforementioned - usually cried in paroxysms of grief after an unfortunate run-in with the Scale of Self Destruction - then you have inevitably wondered Maybe I have a slow metabolism. (Right after you have wondered if your Body Bugg got hit by lightning without your knowledge and/or if your personal trainer secretly hates people.)

The Set-Point Theory
One of the most hotly debated theories in the study of human metabolism is whether or not people have a baseline or set point, as measured by weight, that is programmed for each individual body and to which the body strives to maintain. Proponents say this is evidence as to why people have such a miserable time sustaining weight loss over time but opponents say if the baseline theory were true then nobody would ever maintain long-term weight loss and some do. On one hand, lending credence to the set point theory, people tend to weigh similarly to those they are genetically related to (even if they weren't raised by them, as seen in identical-twins-traumatized-by-separation-at-birth studies). On the other hand, NY Times science writer Gina Kolata's whole book Rethinking Thin is based on science saying the opposite. Plus they have Jared the Subway Guy and, well, you can't argue with sandwiches.

The science in this area is still emerging but several studies shed additional light on this. Here's the Spark Notes version:

1. Calorie deficits work. You cut enough calories and you will lose weight. However, the devil, as he is wont to be, is in the details. As anyone who has ever tried to create a calorie deficit can tell you, it isn't as easy as calories in, calories out. New research shows that the percentage of deficit taken, the starting point of both body weight and body fat, and the macronutrient ratios in the diet all influence the rate and the way in which weight comes off when you cut calories.

2. The key to maintaining a weight loss is "balancing your energy." Researchers have shown that people who have lost a lot of weight often overestimate the number of calories they need to maintain their new lower weight and therefore overeat, regaining their weight. When asked, the people reported that they were eating only enough to maintain but when examined by researchers they were eating more than reported. (Not that I blame them, that's just human nature!)

3. People who have lost weight have similar resting metabolic rates as their weight-maintaining peers. Your RMR is how many calories your body burns while just surviving and seems to adjust in relation to your weight. This refutes the oft-repeated statement - and the set point theory - that overweight people have slower metabolisms, even after weight loss.

4. No two metabolisms are the same. It's this last point that is the real kicker. While each person's metabolism may react to different environments (starvation, overfeeding) in a proscribed manner, factors like hormones, body fat percentage, diet composition and, yes, gender, can greatly influence it. If you've ever had a roommate who can eat 6 packages of peanut butter cups a day and still stay a size zero (like I did - egads, you should have tried living with her!) while you eat salmon and broccoli every night and can barely maintain a "normal" BMI, then you will know what I'm talking about.

Our metabolisms may not have set points but they sure have enough outside factors working on them to befuddle even the most determined dieter. I remember the first time this truism bit me in the butt. When I first embarked on my health-nut journey (that started out all about the health and ended up all about the nutty) my extra weight came off fairly easily. Yes I had to watch what I ate and exercise but it worked. I lost weight steadily. And then I hit a plateau. All my diet evangelism flew right out the window when confronted with the "But I'm doing everything right by golly!!" paradox.

Other than struggling over the next couple of years to lose a measly few pounds, I didn't get much insight into this until The Great Over-Training Debacle of 2008. During this time, I had my metabolism thoroughly tested - both in the doctor's office (they ran tests on my thyroid and my hormones and even my baby maker - which thankfully was unoccupied at that time) and in the gym via hydrostatic weighing and the Darth Vader-on-a-treadmill metabolic testing. Their conclusion? I need 1242 calories a day to go about my daily life. I still remember the professor's face when he gave me the news, his look daring me to complain. Which I did. Vociferously! "That's IT?!" I shrieked (politely - I'm a very considerate shrieker.) "That's all I get to eat? That's not even a whole meal at T.G.I.Fridays! I'll never get another Blizzard again! I HAVE THE SLOWEST METABOLISM EVER!!!"

To which he replied, every bit the scientist he was, "It's not slow. It's efficient. Your body works perfectly well and is extremely healthy with only half the energy requirements of the average man." While he was waxing eloquent about my body being a Prius in a world of Hummers, I was trying to come to grips with the fact that at Superbowl Parties there would be nothing super in a bowl for me. I could have one chip with a dollop of hummus while everyone else got Chicago-style pizza.

And then I said it. The phrase every parent hates most: "It's not fair."

"Of course it's not," he replied simply. "It never is."

This idea of "deserving" more food has been a real struggle for me as I've progressed with Geneen Roth's Intuitive Eating program. In the past I've focused endlessly on how to "stoke my metabolic fires" "become a fat-burning machine" and "rev up my engine" so that I could eat whatever I wanted with impunity. So every time I feel my body get full after just a few bites, my mind stomps its foot and cries, "It's not fair! This food is yummy and I earned it! Everyone else gets to keep eating it! I want to keep eating it too! What if they eat it all and there's none left for me?!" For whatever reason, talking back to that voice is very difficult for me. Sure I'll survive the Apocalypse (party with the 'roaches!) but that's small comfort when everyone else is snarfing Concession Obsession with abandon.

But the other night I had a breakthrough. There isn't any point in trying to either speed up or slow down my metabolism. Like Andrew said so many years ago, "Why would I want to fix my metabolism? It's not broken." My metabolism may be slow(er) than most but it works great keeping my body running. And you know what? I DO get to eat whatever I want with impunity. I just have to get my wants in line with my needs. When I eat what my body wants (not what my mind wants - that's different), I don't feel restricted or left out or unhappy. I just feel good. Even if that means I only eat four bites of a homemade brownie.

My husband's fallen in love with this reality show "Out of the Wild: the Alaska Experiment" where they dropped a bunch of city slickers with no survival skills into the middle of Alaska, gave them a map and told them to make their own way out. On one episode, the biggest and toughest of the men faints from lack of food (seriously, the people who signed up for this show make Survivor contestants look sane) and the voiceover explains flatly that "muscle is expensive" and that women are "better at conserving body mass on less food." Like the professor said, we're efficient. Long live the women!

Do you think your metabolism is slow or fast or just normal? Does it matter to you? Do you feel like your body has a set point it wants to stay at? How do you deal with the "It's not fair, everyone else gets to double-fist artichoke dip while I'm stuck with crudités?" voices?? (PS> Did you see I got the é to work?? I did it! Wheeee!!!!)

Fasting: How Religion Influences Exercise

We've been one Gym Buddy short in the gym this past month and it's not because she got sick of us randomly drinking out of her water bottle. (Dear Target, when you decide to sell BPA-free water bottles at a ridiculously low price please have more than two colors available as we are easily confused, especially after running Tabata sprints. Sincerely, The Gym Buddies.) Ramadan, the month-long fast observed by most Muslims, is the reason Gym Buddy Krista has temporarily gone M.I.A.. For some reason she doesn't feel like working out when abstaining from food and drink during daylight hours which, since Ramadan falls in August this year, means she fasts from about 4:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. - gotta love living on the 45th parallel!

Hmm... which one is Krista? I'll give you a hint: she's wearing black.

I can relate. In a previous post I mentioned how, as a Mormon, I fast at least once a month for a full 24 hour period. Sagan of Living Healthy in the Real World, asked me to write a post about my experience with voluntary starvation.

Spiritual Benefits
First, I would like to say that for me, fasting is primarily a religious endeavor, a matter of faith. Fasting isn't just about not eating and drinking but is primarily about building a closer relationship with God. The 24 hours is supposed to be a time of prayer, meditation and study. In addition, we donate the money we would have spent on food to the poor and needy in our area so as to keep our focus on serving others. I'm not going to lie: going that long without food or water isn't easy and sometimes it makes me seriously grouchy but I'm not perfect and if anyone knows that, it's God. I figure He's pretty forgiving when I make the kids eat PB&J's because I don't want to cook them something I'm going to have to smell and drool over.

Physical Benefits
That said, there are a lot of benefits to fasting (or intermittent fasting, "IF", as if is often referred to) that extend quite firmly into the physical sphere. Long considered the purview of the incense-and-nutritional-yeast crowd or filed under The Weird Things Hollywood Types Do, fasting isn't generally on most people's radar. But recent research shows that this primitive survival technique may actually have some impressive health benefits.

New research from the American Heart Association found that people who fasted were 39% less likely to have coronary artery disease. This study looked at a sample of 4500 men and women, 90% of whom were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, popularly known as the Mormons. Previously researchers had thought that the Mormons' lower risk of heart disease was due to their religious prohibition against smoking but researchers were surprised to find it most correlated to the monthly 24-hour fasts that adherents practice.

In addition to the heart benefits, Mark Sisson of Mark's Daily Apple and guru of all things IF cites a study that showed, ""health benefits... in insulin resistance, asthma, seasonal allergies, infectious diseases of viral, bacterial and fungal origin (viral URI, recurrent bacterial tonsillitis, chronic sinusitis, periodontal disease), autoimmune disorder (rheumatoid arthritis), osteoarthritis, symptoms due to CNS inflammatory lesions (Tourette's, Meniere's) cardiac arrhythmias (PVCs, atrial fibrillation), menopause related hot flashes." Mark is so convinced of the benefits that he has made fasting one of the primary points of his Primal Blueprint and encourages everyone to try it. Many other studies support the health benefits of fasting including increased insulin sensitivity, faster healing from injury, cellular rejuvenation, decreased blood pressure, reduction in oxidative damage, less type 2 diabetes, less cancer, less cardiovascular disease, protection against heart disease and - the holy grail of health nuts - decreased fat mass. Who wouldn't want all that awesomeness??

Psychological Benefits
Another benefit of fasting, according to Dr. Judith Beck, author of the popular Beck Diet Solution is that it helps you to see that "hunger is not an emergency." So many dieters derail from their carefully planned meals when the hunger pains strike because they think they are starving. They think that if they don't eat immediately then they will be overwhelmed by their hunger when the truth is that hunger waxes and wanes and you will not die if you don't eat for a few hours. Dr. Beck points out that once her patients fast for at least one meal, they see for themselves that they can survive and thrive despite hunger that their cravings have less power over them and it becomes easier to stick with that diet.

But...
Many people, especially hard-core fitness types (ahem, my name is Charlotte and I'm an addict...), fear if they don't get some nutrition every 3-5 hours then they will lose muscle and kill their metabolisms. Actually the opposite is true, according to Mark Sisson (the man with all the answers). "It all makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, because our predecessors almost certainly went through regular cycles where food was either abundant or very scarce. The body may have established protective mechanisms to adapt to these conditions by sensitizing insulin receptors when it was critical that every bit of food be efficiently used or stored (as in famine), or by desensitizing them when there was a surplus, so the body wouldn’t be overly-burdened by grossly excessive calorie intake."

Food is great. It's delicious (usually) and fun to eat and everyone, everywhere needs to eat it. Going against this primal urge is difficult, especially at first. While there are, of course, reasons why some should not attempt fasting (if you are struggling with an eating disorder, for instance, or diabetic or hypoglycemic) for most of us it can be an awesome experience on many levels.

To try it, pick a day when you don't have a lot going on (the day of your big presentation or your final exam is probably not the best time to start this) - I usually choose my rest day so I don't have to worry about dying of thirst after a run - and just plan to skip a meal*. Then try skipping two. The type of fast you do - juice, water only, full abstinence - is up to you. There are as many types as there are people. Just take careful note of how it makes you feel and what, if any, differences you notice. Fasting may be the cheapest and simplest health "products" out there! (Note I did not say "easiest".)

Caveat: When people discover that I fast, they generally say "Oh, you must lose so much weight!" This would not be true. Both Krista and I have noticed that fasting does not cause either of us to lose weight. While the research shows that fasting, over a long period of time, can help you maintain a healthy weight, it doesn't work like a crash diet dropping 10 pounds in 10 days.

Have I convinced you to try it? Have any of you fasted before? What kind did you do and how did it make you feel? Do any of you have religious practices that affect your workout? Ever drank out of a stranger's water bottle by mistake?

*Be smart. Check with your doctor first if you have any health concerns. I am not a doctor, a nurse, a guru of anything or even all that smart sometimes (as evidenced by my massive collection of ridiculous footwear). If you start to feel sick, stop immediately.

Eating Fat Does Not Make You Fat

Confession #1: Today I stopped and bought my boys t-shirts at a garage sale to wear because I haven't had time to do laundry for two weeks now and everything they own has been worn twice. (Once right side out and once inside out - for the latter, I just tell everyone they dressed themselves. I don't add that I told them to dress themselves that way.)

I hang my motherly head in shame. But that is nowhere near as shocking as my next confession. If Charlotte-from-10-years-ago knew what I was about to confess, she'd have had me committed then and spared me this horror. In fact, the only reason I will even admit to this in black and white is because the other day Gym Buddy Allison 'fessed up to doing it - and liking it - too. So here goes...

Confession #2: I eat beef fat.

Not only do I eat it but I love it. I crave it. You know all that white stuff all around the edges of a steak? The stuff that everyone from Dr. Oz to Dr. Phil (to Dr. Oprah-spawn) tells you to trim off? Well, I eat it.

My road to debauchery started out innocently enough with a simple cow (don't all roads to debauchery start with a cow? No??). Gym Buddy Krista was talking up her favorite local beef farmer and since I started Geneen Roth's guidelines, as I explained before, I've stopped being vegetarian in favor of eating what my body - not my mind - says it wants. So I signed up for one of those grass-fed-and-finished, antibiotic-free, hormone-free, organic, kissed-by-angels bovines.

Upon retrieving the dead carcass from the super friendly farmer (any local peeps who want his info, I'm happy to pass it along! Poor man hasn't discovered the Internet yet and has no website but he raises awesome livestock so we'll forgive him.) I learned two important things. First, cows are insanely huge animals. My Bessie was 920 pounds. The smallest portion he'd sell me was 1/4 - those of you good at math (update: this group will not include me as in the original version of this post my cow and cow quarters didn't even remotely add up. I blame the tireds.) will realize that left me with 230 pounds of animal - so thank heavens Gym Buddy Megan split it with me. Second, Mr. Farmer informed me that while fat from traditionally farmed cows (read: cows fed with grain) is terrible for you, fat from grass-pastured cows is fan-freakin'-tastic with a huge ratio of those Omega-3 fatty acids health nuts are always crowing about.

Me being me, I couldn't just take some farmer's word for it, even if he is the coolest farmer I have ever met (which is only because I've never officially met the Bag Lady) so I checked out the research. And you know what? He's right. Mark Sisson of Mark's Daily Apple gives a better breakdown of all the current research and arguments than I could so check out his article "The Definitive Guide to Saturated Fat" for all the nitty gritty. Say what you will about The Primal Blueprint (and heaven knows I've said plenty!) but that man does his homework. For too long we've been conditioned to believe that adage about Good Fats and Bad Fats. Turns out all naturally sourced fats are good fats. Even saturated ones like coconut oil, heavy cream and, yes, animal fat (as long as it isn't conventionally farmed). The only bad fats are those man-made monstrosities like trans-fats and interesterified fats.

While I've embraced the "good fats" a la avocado, nuts and olive oil for several years now, I'm brand new to the saturated fat love fest. Reader Deb asked me what this looks like in real life for me. For a couple of weeks I tried to eat 50% or more of my calories from fat but after jumping on the Geneen Roth train (and quit counting calories) I still eat a lot of fat but I think probably more like 40%, depending on the day. The upshot of this mini-experiment is that eating lots of fat keeps me satiated longer and helps reduce my cravings for sugar (because while it turns out saturated fats aren't correlated with coronary heart disease like we all thought, sugar sure is!) Consider me a convert! I love my real whipped cream.

I still don't like bacon though.

What are your feelings about saturated fats? Do you ever eat the fat on your steaks or chops? Anyone else just hate bacon? And if you want to tell me about the time you bought new clothes/dishes/underwear rather than clean the ones you have, that might make me feel better;)

New Research: Toning Shoes, Instability Exercises Don't Work

Shoe pants. (Shpants? Poos?) Brilliant. If you keep the laces going up, you could use them like suspenders thereby completing the trifecta of cool.

You knew they were too good to be true. We all did. And yet "Officials from Reebok, a unit of Adidas, say the EasyTone is the company’s most successful new product in at least five years." I blame the word "easy." Here's how it went down in my brain:

Um, I have to wear shoes. (And a shirt or I won't get any service.) Minnesota weather precludes me from going barefoot 9 months out of the year so they're an evil necessity. So if I must wear shoes, I might as well get a little bit of toning action in at the same time, right? How hard can it be - they're actually called EASY.

Unfortunately I discovered very quickly that wearing "toning shoes" not only didn't do anything noticeable for my legs or butt, but they were also painful and nearly injurious. I picked the MBTs for my 30-day Experiment as they are generally considered to be the best (and science-iest), if not the prettiest, of the toning shoes. I didn't last 30 days. I barely lasted two weeks. There's a reason you never see a Weeble Wobble lifting weights (besides the fact they have no arms or legs). Turbo Jennie wanted to give them a spin as well so I gave them to her with the instructions to wear them as long as she liked. She gave them back to me the very next day. If a physical education teacher and group fitness instructor doesn't think they work, then the shoes have a serious credibility issue.

Recent research has back up my experience.

The American Council on Exercise (ACE), America’s leading authority on fitness and the largest non-profit fitness certification, education and training organization in the world, today released the findings from an independent research study on the effectiveness of popular toning shoes including Skechers Shape-Ups, MBT (Masai Barefoot Technology) and Reebok EasyTone. The study, one of the first from an independent organization, enlisted a team of researchers from the Exercise and Health Program at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, and found no evidence to suggest that the shoes help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or improve muscle strength and tone. "Our findings demonstrate that toning shoes are not the magic solution consumers were hoping they would be, and simply do not offer any benefits that people cannot reap through walking, running or exercising in traditional athletic shoes.” [ACE Fitness]

Jen Sinkler, editor of Experience Life, explains the fundamental problem with these shoes (and any unstable training surface, including BOSUs and exercise balls) on her blog Survival of the Fittest saying, "The idea that training on unstable surfaces is a good thing is flawed in and of itself -- check out "Build Your Balance" for a glimpse into Eric Cressey's research on the topic (the gist: unstable-surface training makes you slower and less powerful) -- and aside from that, the muscle-activation research these shoe companies are producing is flimsy at best (tiny studies, questionable results)."

The shoe failure did not surprise me. (After all, what do you expect from a company that uses talking boobs to sell shoes?) The BOSU failure, however, did. For years I've seen people doing all kinds of different activities on the BOSU (both sides up) ball: everything from weight lifting to jogging to push-ups to abs. Gym Buddy Allison and I used to take a twice-weekly BOSU class. And we really liked it! We were told that doing regular moves on an unstable surface would "activate our cores" and "work our small supporting muscles" as well as improve our balance. Not so, says the research. And not only do unstable surfaces, whether they be BOSU or shoe, not have a fitness benefit they also up your risk for injury.

What's your opinion on unstable surface training? Have you ever tried any of the toning shoes? Do you love the BOSU/Swiss ball/balance board? Does this research change your mind about any of it? Anyone else think that stupid talking boobs ad is one of the lamest ads of all time?

Shoe fish. Not brilliant.

Scare Tactics: What Keeps You Out of the Gym?

Baffling equipment. Mean girls. Chronic cell-phone chatters. Unidentified puddles of bodily fluids. Germs. Old men on the exercise bike in nothing but tighty whities and black dress socks (true story). There are lots of reasons why people avoid the gym. Frankly, there are probably more reasons to skip the gym than to go. (Thankfully the reasons to go are much more compelling for me than those to skip it!) So when I got this e-mail from Reader M, I was simultaneously irritated - not by her! - and sympathetic:

I keep thinking that I should overcome my fat-girl-phobia and show up at a gym, and then one of these articles come along.

The article she is referring to is the recent New York Times expose (side note - can anyone please tell me how to type the little accent over the e? It's killing me. I once had to write an entire post about my awesome shiny gold leotard that I seriously do workout in, the whole time referring to it as my gold "lame" leo. That's a crime against fashion, is what that is.) "Be Sure Exercise is All You Get At the Gym."

Cue the scary Jaws music, here is yet another article about how bacteria at the gym can kill you. Every few months someone writes an article about MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) - an admittedly terrifying bug - being transmitted through gyms and locker rooms. While the risk is real and potentially lethal, there is a lot of selective reporting involved in this articles (cue my irritation with the NY Times, not my darling Reader M). And I've even written myself several times on this topic (warning: only click through that link if you have a strong stomach. I received more complaints about that pic than any other I have ever posted. Which I don't really get since I think it's hilarious and awesome but I'm gross like that.)

First, as the Mayo clinic points out, while community-acquired cases such as those in gyms, locker rooms and designer wedding dress sample sales (anywhere there is a lot of wrestling involved) are on the rise, "Most MRSA infections occur in people who have been in hospitals or other health care settings, such as nursing homes and dialysis centers." Second, there is a one in three chance you already are carrying MRSA on your skin right this very second. And you are probably still healthy. Lastly, if you do pick up something nasty at the gym - and according to the NY Times 1/3 of us are carrying a contagious skin infection at any given moment - it's more likely to be the unglamorous (but also undeadly) ring worm, athlete's foot, impetigo or, heaven save us from thong panties on a bicycle seat, yeast infections.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm downplaying the seriousness of antibiotic-resistant germs - I had a very dear friend nearly lose her life to one - but I do wish they'd stop using it as a Get Out of Gym free card. Sure you could catch an illness at the gym. But you could also get sick any time you leave the house. I think that the benefits of consistent exercise far outweigh the risk of illness, especially if you take common sense precautions like laying down a towel between you and the weight bench, sanitizing your machine both before and after you use it, wearing flip flops in the showers and drinking Purel straight from the bottle after tongue kissing the towel boy. (None of which I do, by the way. I'm awesome at ignoring my own advice!)

The first part of M's e-mail was what really caught my attention and sympathy though. "I keep thinking that I should overcome my fat-girl-phobia and show up at a gym." Despite the fact that I've been working out deliriously happy in a gym setting for many years now, I have definitely not forgotten how it feels to be new. Whether you are gym-phobic because you are afraid of being the fat-girl freak show or because you're afraid of burrito-ing yourself in gym equipment that has more instructions than the lathe you used in 6th grade wood shop or because you're afraid of missing the step in step class and ending up flat on your back, it all boils down to this: we're afraid of what other people will say (or even think about us).

Do I sweat too much? Is my bacne too disgusting to wear a tank top? Do I smell? Will they laugh at my ratty t and boyfriend's sweat pants? Am I too uncoordinated to do an aerobics class? Will the bootcamp instructor yell at me if I can't run a lap? Will the older women in the pool laugh at me as they pass me lap after lap after lap?

I wish I could tell you no. People are judgmental critters. I don't know if this will make anyone feel better but it happens to all of us. You aren't unique in your problems. I'm not overweight but I've had plenty of people laugh at me, talk about me, and even hawk a loogie into my hair once. I know it hurts; people will roll their eyes, elbow you out of "their" spot, mutter under their breath, giggle. But a lot of it stems from insecurity about ourselves and in my experience if you open yourself up (I know, I hate being vulnerable too!) most people turn out to be remarkably, beautifully helpful and caring. Also, I think people think about us a lot less than we think they do. Chances are that woman's stern look is actually directed at herself in the mirror as she watches her bicep curls and not at your dimpled thighs. Give us the benefit of the doubt and we may surprise you.

And for those who really would be unkind based solely on your weight/clothes/accent/skin color/experience? I'm not going to tell you to "just not care." I care what people think about me. It's very hard not to. But you can acknowledge the hurt without letting it stop you or bring you down. Their negativity will corrode their soul long after you've moved on. Making fun of an overweight person at the gym is like making fun of a sick person for going to the hospital. Exercise is for everybody - literally, every person with a body.

Do you have a gym phobia? Do you worry about germs? Have you ever been made fun of at the gym? How did you deal with it? Any advice for M? Anyone else think this germs-in-the-gym angle is way overblown or am I being flippant about a real risk?

The Fit Girl's Guide to Decoding Restaurant Lies

Comic by the fabulous Natalie Dee

It's the weekend! Everyone who's planning on ending up in a restaurant (minus the tray and apron), raise your hands. To everyone else: what kind of American are you? The economy is failing and only your reckless spending habits can save it! Move, people!! I am a Mystery Shopper and thus will be spending tonight at a "family friendly eatery" to which I'm not allowed to bring my children.

This past weekend I went out to dinner with some girlfriends to The Cheesecake Factory. When one asked - rhetorically, in hindsight - how many calories her decadent slice of cheesecake had, I irritated everyone by piping up with the answer. How did I know this? Because I had read the menu (all 35+ pages of it - it should be called The Cheesecake Novel) online before coming, of course. The Cheesecake Factory is notorious in healthy eating circles for refusing to divulge their nutritional information but thanks to the New York law, they've been outed. And now we all know why they were so reticent. That place is a calorie bomb. And yet, people don't go there for the purpose of eating healthy. It's supposed to be a splurge right?

We have discussed before the many ways that restaurants sabotage our food. There's the added butter and oil to make steamed veggies glisten like Jay Manuel's overly waxed chest. There's the inadvertent (or not) regular cokes subbed for diet. And who can forget the portion sizes overloading our plates despite lovely and informative flash presentations on portion control on every network's morning show plus twice on Oprah?

Before we had just the admission of a few brave workers in the food service industry and our (queasy) guts to go on. Now we have evidence. Two new studies (okay, surveys) are out to tell us exactly how restaurants get us coming and going, hoping that one day we will all be stuck like Winnie the Pooh - the first noted binge eater in children's literature - in Rabbit's hole after consuming an entire winter's worth of honey. Then we will have no choice but to eat their fat and sugar laden fare.

Restaurant Tactic Number 1: Hide the Evidence
Eat This, Not That called out many popular restaurants a year ago for food atrocities against mankind. For example, every omelette on IHOP's menu comes in at over 1,000 calories and 55 grams of fat. Most restaurants surveyed a year ago were smarter than white flour-addled IHOP and refused to disclose their nutritional information. Enter New York's new law requiring truth in calorie labeling.

This year Eat This, Not That is following up with the most egregious sinners
to see who was caught red handed by the new laws. The answer: everyone. My fave "progress" report is: "Arby's has stopped advertising "all-natural" chicken. The assistant manager at the Emmaus, Pennsylvania, location told our reporter that he doesn't think the chicken is all-natural anymore. We wonder if it ever was."

Restaurant Tactic #2: Lie To Your Face
Now that other cities are considering following in New York's footsteps, it is getting harder for companies to avoid listing their ingredients and nutritional information. And with the advent of a little wonder called The Internet, they can't claim distribution overhead or cost prohibitions for preventing them from 'fessing up.

So they lie. They print one thing on their menu, say, Macaroni Grill's "Skinny Chicken" listed at 6 g of fat and less than 500 calories. But when an independent lab tested the maligned chicken, it topped out at 49 grams of fat and 1,022 calories! And it doesn't even taste good!! Seriously, I've ordered that. It's icky. For that kind of calorie wattage I could have just gotten what I really wanted, a DQ Nerds Blizzard (40 g of fat and 900 calories for a medium) and gone home happy.

Restaurant Tactic #3: Make Bad Comparisons
It's seems to be the industry standard to proudly proclaim, "At least we're not McDonalds!!" But in fact sit-down restaurants do way more caloric damage than the Golden Arches and its kin:

[a] menu analysis of 24 national chains revealed that the average entree at a sit-down restaurant contains 867 calories, compared with 522 calories in the average fast-food entree. And that's before appetizers, sides, or desserts-selections that can easily double your total calorie intake.

Now What?
I cook three meals a day, usually from scratch, 6.5 days a week. Plus snacks. By golly, I deserve to eat one meal cooked, served and cleaned up by someone other than myself! And I'd like to do it without undoing all the clean eating I've been sort-of good about all week.

What do you do when you go out to eat? Do you read the nutritional information and plan out your meal beforehand? Or do you figure it's one meal and just eat what you want? Would you like to have the nutritional info posted on every menu like in New York? Have I convinced you that you never ever want to eat out with me yet??

The Problem With Protein Powders

See - this is the proper way to get your protein.

What I'm about to tell you may make me the most reviled person in the fit-o-spere: I don't love smoothies*. Or protein shakes. Or recovery drinks. Or even drinkable yogurt. The only exception to this rule are milkshakes but even then I only like the kind that are basically candy chunks with ice cream and milk poured in the cracks (helloooo Dairy Queen Girl Scout Blizzards! (Made with Girl Scout cookies, not Girl Scouts themselves. (Specifically the Samoa cookies, coconutty caramel devils they are.))) Triple parentheses! See, I get so worked up about smoothies that I must resort to bad grammar to get my point across.

Now that you are recoiling from your screens in horror - For the love of little green apples, what serious worker-outer doesn't love a good protein shake?! - allow me to back pedal a bit. I don't hate smoothies. And my kids adore them (Popeye is so passe, a "Shrek" smoothie is the only way I can get the 3-year-old to eat his spinach) so I do make them with some frequency. I just don't make them for myself.

My first issue is that I like to chew stuff. I blame this on my father who chews ice like the Kardashian sisters chew QuickTrim. Although, to my knowledge, he has never posed in a bikini touting the curative powers of ice chewing (results not typical, spray tan not included.) When I was just a wee tot, he taught me how to make chunky milkshakes - stirred with a spoon and never blended - and it ruined me on the smooth kind forever. He also ate mayonnaise straight out of the jar using a carrot as a spoon which is another one of my secret weaknesses. Aw heck, while I'm airing all his dietary laundry, he also loves unsweetened mineral water, something else I am still preternaturally fond of.

Problemo numero dos is that I don't like protein powder. I don't like it in protein bars, cereals, drink mixes and especially not in smoothies. Not only does it taste funny and is often full of tons of artificial sweeteners and other chemicals but I'm leery of protein that doesn't come from a whole food. (Holla Michael Pollan!) Plus protein powder advertisements are second only to diet pills in obnoxiousness so I feel that I must hate them on principle.

And then there's this: Consumer Reports this month performed lab tests on 15 popular protein drinks and pre-fab smoothies. Their findings are not comforting. In an industry that is self-policed - the FDA does not regulate supplements, leaving manufacturers to set and maintain their own standards - it is probably not much of a surprise that Consumer Reports found several ingredients that were not on the label (i.e. lead, arsenic and cadmium) and found several listed ingredients to be lacking (oh, like, protein). The top three offenders for contaminants were EAS Myoplex Shakes, Muscle Milk protein powders and Muscle Milk Shakes - two of the most popular brands on the market. Especially concerning was the high levels of cadmium found. Thanks to Tommy Boy, we're all pretty aware of the dangers of lead poisoning (I think the most popular retort in my high school was "Did you eat paint chips as a child?") but many of us aren't aware of cadmium, a heavy metal that infiltrates our food supply through many pesticides.

"This is a highly toxic metal, and while there are some cases where decisions have to be weighed against relative risks, accepting that you have to be exposed to any cadmium at all in your protein drink after your workout is definitely not one of them," says Michael Harbut, M.D., director of the Environmental Cancer Initiative at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Royal Oak, Mich. "

In addition to heavy metals, other ingredients not listed on the label - like banned steroids - have been found in protein powders.

Thanks to the popularity of Atkins, South Beach and other low-carb diets, protein is the macronutrient of the day with many people, especially athletes, afraid that they aren't getting enough. Protein powder/shakes companies play on this fear with ambiguous labeling and dosing guidelines, encouraging users to ingest as many servings as possible.

"Shao, the industry trade-group official, says there is no such thing as consuming too much protein, as long as you're getting other nutrients in your diet as well. Not so, says Kathleen Laquale, a licensed nutritionist and certified athletic trainer. "The body can only break down 5 to 9 grams of protein per hour, and any excess that is not burned for energy is converted to fat or excreted, so it's a ridiculous waste to be recommending so much more than you really need."

Excess protein can also have detrimental effects on your health with issues ranging from diarrhea to bone loss to kidney dysfunction. Like anything, you have to find the right balance. Protein is a necessary nutrient and care should be taken to get enough but there is such a thing as too much.

Do you like smoothies or are you weird about needing something to chew on like me? Got a favorite recipe to share? Do you use protein powder? Do you worry about not getting enough protein in your diet? Is Tommy Boy a classic in your house too?

*If you do love smoothies - and I love that you love them! - there are lots of great websites with fantastic healthy, delicious smoothie recipes (and tons of pretty pictures!). Check out Deb the Smoothie Girl, Heather Eats Almond Butter and Allie of Pimp My Protein Shake.

The Number One Most Effective Weight Loss Tip [Giveaway!]

"50 Ways To Burn More Calories" is the biggest, boldest headline on this month's Allure magazine (the one with a spacey Megan Fox on the cover where she says that she can't stand looking at herself and the thing she loves most is to be alone so she often spaces out to block out crowds - good thing she chose Hollywood as her lifelong career then!) The list of 50 tips mostly includes non-stunners like "get more sleep" "walk more" "watch less TV" and "eat whole foods." Salmon and brown rice, the cure-all for everything! Thankfully they also include some downright idiotic suggestions for your entertainment: "Wear stillettos - they work your calves!" (and give you bunions and shorted tendons!), "Pop a pill - glutamate supps burn an extra 20 calories!" (20 calories?! You probably burn that just by wrestling off the child-proof cap) and my personal fave "Avoid eating any kind of fat within two hours of a workout - or your body will burn the fat in your protein bar instead of the fat on your butt!" (This cannot possibly be true).

Strangely, the number one way to get thin didn't even get an honorable mention in Allure's Top 50. It doesn't get a lot of press but there is one way to get thin that has a proven and impressive track record in both real life and the research. It's not a pill or a powder. As much as MeMe Roth would like you to believe it's not willpower. Much to my dismay it's not exercise either. Want to know the number one way to a flat belly?

Get rich.

What, you were expecting something to do with calories in/calories out? It has been shown time and time again that income is the single strongest predictor of body weight. A Seattle study from two years ago showed that 22% of people making less that $15,000 a year are obese (defined as having a BMI over 29) compared with just 15% of those making $50,000 or more a year. If you crack six digits your chance of being obese drops to under 10%. A new Seattle study (being from Seattle I can attest to the plethora of research scientists out there!) extrapolates on why this might be. You may think that it's your dedication to local food or your passion for exercise or even your obsession with Nicole Richie that keeps you thin - and undoubtedly they do - but it takes money to do those kinds of healthy activities.

MSN reports that lower-end grocery stores have ten times the number of obese patrons as more expensive markets. In the already-svelte Seattle (the city has an obesity rate of just 2o%), 40% of Albertson's shoppers were obese compared with less than 4% of Whole Foods shoppers.

"It’s not a matter of availability, lead researcher Adam Drewnowski of the University of Washington said. All of the stores in his study stocked a wide range of nutritious food, including plenty of fruits and vegetables.

Instead, he contends it’s because healthy, low-calorie foods cost more money and take more effort to prepare than processed, high-calorie foods. In a separate study two years ago, Drewnowski estimated that a calorie-dense diet cost $3.52 a day compared with $36.32 a day for a low-calorie diet."

$36.32 a DAY?! I eat a very healthy diet and my budget for my family is $3-5 per person per day. Sure there are ways to be healthy on a budget but learning those tricks often takes education and time... both of which require money.

Fortunately people are starting to catch on to the great poverty divide in the obesity wars. The government recently passed "the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, to spend $400 million starting next year to bring supermarkets to low-income areas." In addition, General Mills - who in the past has gotten a bad rap for sugary cereals but is also the purveyor of Green Giant frozen veggies - has started a get-healthy initiative called Eat Better America. You can sign up on their site to win $1500 plus a variety of other prizes. You can also follow them on Twitter and friend them on Facebook. To help you finance your healthy eats, General Mills would like to give one of you a $25 gift card. To enter, just leave me a comment below telling me your best eating healthy on a budget tip!

Anyone else read that Allure article and want to smack them for writing "Eat less sugar" as if it's actual news and then making it the top headline?" What kind of grocery store do you shop at? Does the rich = thin connection surprise you? How do you eat healthy on a budget?