Please Take A Moment To Read This Article From Today’s New York Times
In Obesity Epidemic, What’s One Cookie?
By TARA PARKER-POPE
The basic formula for gaining and losing weight is well known: a pound of fat equals 3,500 calories.
That simple equation has fueled the widely accepted notion that weight loss does not require daunting lifestyle changes but “small changes that add up,” as the first lady, Michelle Obama, put it last month in announcing a national plan to counter childhood obesity.
In this view, cutting out or burning just 100 extra calories a day — by replacing soda with water, say, or walking to school — can lead to significant weight loss over time: a pound every 35 days, or more than 10 pounds a year.
While it’s certainly a hopeful message, it’s also misleading. Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in, significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort.
But can small changes in diet and exercise at least keep children from gaining weight? While some obesity experts think so, mathematical models suggest otherwise.
The first lady, Michelle Obama, spoke last month at the White House about her “Let’s Move” initiative, which aims to change the way children eat and play.Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images The first lady, Michelle Obama, spoke last month at the White House about her “Let’s Move” initiative, which aims to change the way children eat and play.
As a recent commentary in The Journal of the American Medical Association noted, the “small changes” theory fails to take the body’s adaptive mechanisms into account. The rise in children’s obesity over the past few decades can’t be explained by an extra 100-calorie soda each day, or fewer physical education classes. Skipping a cookie or walking to school would barely make a dent in a calorie imbalance that goes “far beyond the ability of most individuals to address on a personal level,” the authors wrote — on the order of walking 5 to 10 miles a day for 10 years.
This doesn’t mean small improvements are futile — far from it. But people need to take a realistic view of what they can accomplish.
“As clinicians, we celebrate small changes because they often lead to big changes,” said Dr. David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children’s Hospital Boston and a co-author of the JAMA commentary. “An obese adolescent who cuts back TV viewing from six to five hours each day may then go on to decrease viewing much more. However, it would be entirely unrealistic to think that these changes alone would produce substantial weight loss.”
Why wouldn’t they? The answer lies in biology. A person’s weight remains stable as long as the number of calories consumed doesn’t exceed the amount of calories the body spends, both on exercise and to maintain basic body functions. As the balance between calories going in and calories going out changes, we gain or lose weight.
But bodies don’t gain or lose weight indefinitely. Eventually, a cascade of biological changes kicks in to help the body maintain a new weight. As the JAMA article explains, a person who eats an extra cookie a day will gain some weight, but over time, an increasing proportion of the cookie’s calories also goes to taking care of the extra body weight. Eventually, the body adjusts and stops gaining weight, even if the person continues to eat the cookie.
Similar factors come into play when we skip the extra cookie. We may lose a little weight at first, but soon the body adjusts to the new weight and requires fewer calories.
Regrettably, however, the body is more resistant to weight loss than weight gain. Hormones and brain chemicals that regulate your unconscious drive to eat and how your body responds to exercise can make it even more difficult to lose the weight. You may skip the cookie but unknowingly compensate by eating a bagel later on or an extra serving of pasta at dinner.
“There is a much bigger picture than parsing out the cookie a day or the Coke a day,” said Dr. Jeffrey M. Friedman, head of Rockefeller University’s molecular genetics lab, which first identified leptin, a hormonal signal made by the body’s fat cells that regulates food intake and energy expenditure. “If you ask anyone on the street, ‘Why is someone obese?,’ they’ll say, ‘They eat too much.’ ”
“That is undoubtedly true,” he continued, “but the deeper question is why do they eat too much? It’s clear now that there are many important drivers to eat and that it is not purely a conscious or higher cognitive decision.”
This is not to say that the push for small daily changes in eating and exercise is misguided. James O. Hill, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Denver, says that while weight loss requires significant lifestyle changes, taking away extra calories through small steps can help slow and prevent weight gain.
In a study of 200 families, half were asked to replace 100 calories of sugar with a noncaloric sweetener and walk an extra 2,000 steps a day. The other families were asked to use pedometers to record their exercise but were not asked to make diet changes.
During the six-month study, both groups of children showed small but statistically significant drops in body mass index; the group that also cut 100 calories had more children who maintained or reduced body mass and fewer children who gained excess weight.
The study, published in 2007 in Pediatrics, didn’t look at long-term benefits. But Dr. Hill says it suggests that small changes can keep overweight kids from gaining even more excess weight.
“Once you’re trying for weight loss, you’re out of the small-change realm,” he said. “But the small-steps approach can stop weight gain.”
While small steps are unlikely to solve the nation’s obesity crisis, doctors say losing a little weight, eating more heart-healthy foods and increasing exercise can make a meaningful difference in overall health and risks for heart disease and diabetes.
“I’m not saying throw up your hands and forget about it,” Dr. Friedman said. “Instead of focusing on weight or appearance, focus on people’s health. There are things people can do to improve their health significantly that don’t require normalizing your weight.”
Dr. Ludwig still encourages individuals to make small changes, like watching less television or eating a few extra vegetables, because those shifts can be a prelude to even bigger lifestyle changes that may ultimately lead to weight loss. But he and others say that reversing obesity will require larger shifts — like regulating food advertising to children and eliminating government subsidies that make junk food cheap and profitable.
“We need to know what we’re up against in terms of the basic biological challenges, and then design a campaign that will truly address the problem in its full magnitude,” Dr. Ludwig said. “If we just expect that inner-city child to exercise self-control and walk a little bit more, then I think we’re in for a big disappointment.”
THIS IS JIM:
I totally agree. This is one of the reasons why 97% of all people who lose weight gain it back in 5 years. They think that a short term change will lead to long term results.
See, when you lose weight, then you are smaller. Think of it this way. A big pool needs a lot of water to fill. A small pool doesn’t. Once you become a smaller pool, you need less for FOR LIFE. That’s where most people get tripped up.
PLUS, as you know, if you diet without strength training, you WILL lose muscle and your metabolism will go down.
Jim





Do you think that is why some folks have success on weight watchers – as you lose weight your “points/calories” go down as well.
Greg
Comment by Greg — March 2, 2010 at 10:49 pm
It’s on of the reasons Weight Watchers works. I believe for the most part, they just teach people about portions and caloric allocation. Both are essential to weight loss when it comes to eating.
Keep shooting me articles/info that you find important. Those of you that do that for me really help as I can only read so much.
Jim
Comment by admin — March 2, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Jim, now you have me wondering about something! You agree with the comment above about Weight Watchers working because they lower the points/calories as your weight goes down.
Well……in your Cardio Free Diet book you added 100 calories for each phase. Starting with 1200 calories for phase 1 (womens chart) phase 2 is 1300, phase 3 is 1400 and phase 4 is 1500. So are saying that won’t work as well now?
Are we better off not going about 1200 while losing and then after reaching goal add 100 or 200 extra calories?
Comment by Laurie — March 4, 2010 at 3:02 pm
The last question should say….Are we better off not going above 1200 while losing and then after reaching goal add 100 or 200 extra calories?
Typo in it and I can’t edit!!
Comment by Laurie — March 4, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Your point is very well taken.
If push comes to shove, I would prefer you stay at 1,200 calories until all your weight is off.
But, I do find that most people start to eat more, so by giving you the license to eat more, I may be able to keep you on the plan longer.
It’s a tough call and that is why, in this book, I did let you up the calories. Many people have written and asked if they could stay on the lower calorie plan, and I told them yes if that felt right for them.
It’s for you to decide.
Jim
Comment by Jim Karas — March 4, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Thanks Jim! I asked because I know things change over the years and I just needed to hear your thoughts on it.
Off topic: I still get bothered by people that do tons of cardio including half and full marathons. They always make me feel that I cannot ever be as healthy as they are because they run. I wish people would stop thinking cardio is the answer to losing and maintaining weight.
It gets so frustrating because there seems to be a larger % of people that run. Plus it doesn’t help that The Biggest Loser has them running on treadmills and a marathon at the end of the show. And then viewers think that running has to be the answer to weight loss.
Even the “free” weightloss site that is getting alot of press from a recent book release has a huge number of runners. I wish the the no cardio way would take over. I get odd looks and remarks when I spread the word. I never doubt the concept of it (no cardio) but I do feel alone in a group because of it.
Comment by Laurie — March 4, 2010 at 9:27 pm
in my opinion, there is nothing wrong with cardio and strength training is great too. but ultimately, it is food consumption which determines weightloss. jim always says that weightloss is down to 75% diet and 25% exercise. i dont think that cutting out all cardio is a solution, but people like the idea because we all hate it (understandably)…i do a combination of cardio and weights and find that works really well but ONLY if i am careful with my food consumption.
Comment by Davinda — March 6, 2010 at 10:25 am
Davinda, I am sure you know this but Jim wrote the book “The Cardio Free Diet”. It does not promote running, tread mills or others forms of “cardio”. Strength and resistance and calorie counting achieve results.
Comment by Laurie — March 6, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Hi Laurie,
Yes I have the book and I agree with it, but I still believe that cardio is important (by cardio, i don’t mean 10 miles running a day, just 30-40 minutes, 3-4 times a week). BUT i acknowledge that no matter how much exercise you do, diet is the most important factor in weightloss. I have learnt that the hard way!
Comment by Davinda — March 7, 2010 at 8:13 am
Laurie:
I agree with what you are saying, but when you perform the strength training the way I want you to, your heart rate is up the whole time. That’s your cardio. I just don’t want you to waste your time performing the mindless, repetitive cardio that most people do.
But YES, truly the food is 75% of your weight loss equation. You simply cannot, as I always say, “Out train a bad diet.” It’s impossible.
Jim
Comment by Jim Karas — March 7, 2010 at 9:27 am
Yes, Jim that is the cardio I am referring to….the mindless, repetitive cardio that most people do.
I always get my heart rate up doing strength and resistance. I make sure I do since that is my “cardio”!!
Comment by Laurie — March 7, 2010 at 9:35 am
And YES, I completely agree with the food statement! It bugs me when I hear people say, “I exercised for X amount of time I can eat what I want” or “I exercise so I can eat”.
I believe the higher percent must come from food/diet too.
It is such a great feeling to know what works!
Comment by Laurie — March 7, 2010 at 9:40 am
Jim, how does the strength training get your heartrate up in the same way that a cardio session would? I’ve read the book and I don’t see how it works. am I missing something or doing it wrong?
Comment by Davinda — March 7, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Davinda,
I think the key is very short or no rests between sets of reps. Jim says in his book that you should be hitting failure by the 10th rep, if you aren’t you are lifting too light, if this is case (that you are lifting too light) then you need to increase the tension or weight.
Also, my advice is to remember that cardio doesn’t mean you should be complete of out breathe, the rule is that you heart rate should be just high enough so that you can still have a conversation. Hope that helps and makes sense.
Comment by Olivia — March 13, 2010 at 7:19 am
Olivia:
That is totally correct. You have to hit the failure and then, in the next 30 seconds, move on to the next exercise or next set.
Comment by admin — March 13, 2010 at 9:44 am
I also find that throwing a few lunges or squats in between sets helps get my heartrate up. The other night my heart rate was not high enough in the target range so I did a bunch of lunges and that brought my HR up significantly! Just a suggestion.
Comment by Elizabeth — March 13, 2010 at 2:04 pm