North Vancouver Boot Camp Declares War On Fat!

Tweet

I was talking with a client the other day and that phrase came up, "Declare war on fat" and I truly believe that that's what we need to do if we want to see serious results with our own bodies and generally stop the obesity epidemic that hurting our society.

I watched an interesting video on sugar and fructose by Dr. Robert Lustig, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology. He explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fibre (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. I've provided the video below and I recommend watching it. It's really long so watch it in parts if you can't watch it all at once. The seminar's called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth"

I've summarize a few points below.

The Good
First off, he makes a valid point that the public health movement against dietary fat that started in the early 1980′s was a grandiose failure. The climb in obesity to epidemic proportions over the last 30 years is plenty of evidence for this. It was also accurate of him to cite the significant increase in overall caloric consumption over this same time period. Furthermore, he shows an interesting progression of Coca-Cola’s 6.5 oz bottle in 1915 to the 20 oz bottle of the modern day [3].

Lustig acknowledges the First Law of Thermodynamics as it applies to changes in bodyweight. He attacks the vague expression that “a calorie is a calorie” by pointing out that different nutrients impart different physiological effects and have different roles within the body. His concluding recommendations included kicking out liquid calories except milk, which is generally a good strategy for children. I am however not a huge fan of milk due to the amount of processing done to it [3].

The Not-So-Good
While Lustig correctly points out that the nation’s overall caloric consumption has increased, he proceeds to blame carbohydrates as being the primary constituent. The thing is, he uses data spanning from 1989-1995 on children aged 2-17. Survey data is far from the gold standard of evidence, but if you’re gonna cite it, you might as well go with something more recent that includes adults [3].

Here’s the latest from the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), which tracked the percent of total daily calories of the range of food groups from 1970-2007. The actual spreadsheet of the following figures can be downloaded here, click on the “Percents” tab at the bottom (note that these figures are updated regularly by the ERS, so the version you download may be different from what’s reported here) [1]:

• Meats, eggs, and nut kcals decreased 4%.
• Dairy kcals decreased 3%.
• Percentage of fruit kcals stayed the same.
• Percentage of vegetable kcals stayed the same.
• Flour and cereal product kcals increased 3%.
• Added fat kcals are up 7%,
• Added sugars kcals decreased 1%
• Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.

Taking a hard look at the data above, it appears that the rise in obesity is due in large part to an increase in caloric intake in general, rather than an increase in added sugars in particular. So is too sugar a problem? Absolutely but I think the primarily cause is increased calorie intake and decreased amount of physical activity - people are generally more sedentary [3].

King and colleagues recently compared the physical activity data in the National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 1988-1994 with the NHANES data from 2001-2006, and found a 10% decrease [2]. That figure seems conservative to me. It’s safe to say that all 603 extra daily calories have been landing on the hips, thighs and backsides of the general public [3].

Is fructose (or sugar) really the poison it’s painted to be? The answer is not an absolute yes or no; the evilness of fructose depends completely on dosage and context. Lustig fails to specify the dosage and context of his claims [3].

Ultimately, I believe it comes down to what I mentioned above: too many calories and too little exercise. Now it's true that eating too much sugar (and high fructose corn syrup as it's in a ton of processed food) are a serious issue that needs to be dealt with but solely putting the blame on fructose as the main culprit, I think is a stretch.

On a Side Note
The Canadian National Exhibition is running right now in Toronto and you won't believe what food items are being offered.

Making headlines this year are two amazing (although, ‘amazing’ is a subjective term) new food items – the Krispy Kreme donut burger and deep fried cola.

You ask - are people actually trying this stuff? And, is it even possible to deep-fry a beverage?

The answer - yes, and yes.

I wondering if the PNE here in Vancouver will offer the same. I hope not. Check out the video below to see the Krispy Kreme donut burger and deep fried cola. You'll be shocked.



Dr. Robert Lustig's seminar called Sugar: The Bitter Truth



PS. Quick note re: perfumes and fragrances at boot camp.  Since some people react and are sensative to certain scents and fragrances, please refrain from wearing them when coming to class. Don't worry if you already have it on from work, just don't spray it on before coming. Thanks.

PPS. If you live in North or West Vancouver, BC and want to experience the boot camp in North Vancouver that GUARANTEES you'll lose at least a clothing size in 30 days or your money back AND will help you get fast results like this girl in the video below who lost 20 pounds, 6.5 inches off her waist and 4 inches off her hips, then click the link below:

===>North Vancouver Boot Camp

===>Here's the video:

References

1. Economic Research Service, USDA. Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Data. Updated Feb 27, 2009. [ERS/USDA]
   
2. King DE, et al. Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. Am J Med. 2009 Ju; 122(6):528-34. [Medline]
3. Aragon, A., http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/. Jan 29, 2010.

Tweet This

Your Primary Fat Loss Enemy: The Definitive Guide to Sugar

Tweet

As mentioned in a previous post that insulin is the primary hormone we need to control if we're going to have any sort of success when it comes to lose weight, keeping it off and looking and feeling the way we want. Well I've finished reading that great book that one of my trainers lent me (thanks James!) that I mentioned to you before called The Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson (MarksDailyApple.com) and I wanted to share with you what he says to say about sugar, its different types and the impact it how on insulin (there's that hormone again) and weight gain.

When it comes to weight/fat loss it's all about INSULIN (if you haven't read that one I highly recommend you do so you gain a greater understanding of it)! And when it comes to controlling insulin and its impact on weight gain, its all about SUGAR! If you've been struggling to lose weight this WILL really help in understanding what's going on. Let's delve into this a little deeper.

Buckle up. [Again as mentioned last post, if I harp on any particular food you enjoy; there's no need to worry as I won't say you can never eat that food again (sounds like a mild form of torture) as you can enjoy ALL your favourite foods on your Cheat Day once per week as outlined in my Unstoppable Fat Loss Nutrition System. (For those who don't know the premise behind a Cheat Day its part of my nutrition program and its necessary to keeping your metabolism elevated and your body in fat burning mode as strange as it sounds...it works!)]

Your Primary Fat Loss Enemy: The Definitive Guide to Sugar


You’d think this post would come with a blaring alarm, flashing strobe light or at least an ominous gong. Sugar, after all, gets little welcome around these parts. It’s on one hand a dastardly devil, shameless snare for many a man, woman and child. Beyond this luring, ignoble reputation, however, you’ll find (as is so often the case in life and biology) the story is a bit more complicated – and compelling – than the proverbial black hat. Sugar comes in many forms of course, and each of these leaves a certain amount of damage and destruction in its path. Yet, what do we do when sugar naturally accompanies some of the healthiest fare out there? Do we forgo it altogether when a touch ties an otherwise good Primal recipe together? Are the typical substitutions any better when we choose to use a sweetener? We’ve covered the artificial options in the past, but today I’ll give several natural varieties of sugar their due – the obligatory facts, the practical details and a final Primal analysis.

Why Avoid Sugar?

How could I possibly talk sugar without the warning? If you’ve spent any time around MDA, you likely know the drill. Despite its beloved place (not to mention omnipresence) in our culinary culture, sugar offers the following gifts that keep on giving:

* Sugar stimulates a physiological stressor-reaction cascade that provokes adrenaline and cortisol release and thickens the blood.
* Sugar effectively disables your immune system by impairing white blood cells’ functioning.
* Sugar decreases your body’s production of leptin, a hormone critical for appetite regulation.
* Sugar induces significant oxidative stress in the body.
* Sugar appears to fuel cancer cells. (Check out Free the Animal for much more on the cancer connection.)
* Sugar promotes fat storage and weight gain.
* Sugar disrupts the effective transfer of amino acids to muscle tissue.
* Sugar intake over time spurs insulin resistance, subsequent Type II diabetes and the entire host of related health issues like nerve damage and cardiovascular disease.

Yes, sugar is one insanely powerful drug. Addictive, to boot.

Different Types of Sugar

Public service message aside, let’s get into the nitty-gritty now. Chemically speaking, there are different kinds of sugar. The natural sweeteners and sugary foods we eat contain varying proportions of these. Let’s look at a few of the most common forms.

Glucose

Glucose is the cornerstone of most carbohydrates. It’s a monosaccharide that often combines with and creates other forms of sugar (e.g. sucrose, lactose). In plants, glucose is formed through photosynthesis and stored as starch. In our own bodies, glucose is a precursor for (and product of) glycogen. It’s the common currency of carb-based fuels. In fact, our bodies manufacture glucose (through gluconeogenesis) when our blood levels get too low. Dextrose, a common isomer (same formula, different structure) of glucose, is also referred to as dextroglucose or glucose. Insulin directs glucose processing in the body when blood glucose is already sufficient or high. Glucose supply can be routed to cells throughout the body (e.g. brain cells, red blood cells, etc.) and used right away for energy, or it can be condensed and stored in both the liver and muscle as glycogen for later use. Maltose is a disaccharide joining two glucose molecules. Although it is significantly less sweet (about half of glucose’s sweetness), it is metabolized in the same way glucose is.

Fructose

Then there’s fructose, which is an isomer of glucose. It’s also called crystalline fructose, laevulose/levulose, or fruit sugar. (Crystalline fructose isn’t the same as the manufactured concoction called high fructose corn syrup. We’ll get to that one shortly.)

Some people have a harder time digesting fructose than others. Fructose (in the form of certain fruits, corn syrup, etc.) can cause everything from bloating to diarrhea in these folks. Some experts argue that fructose is a better choice for those with diabetes/insulin resistance because it’s more densely sweet, which encourages people to use less. It also has a lower glycemic value than glucose or sucrose. Indeed, fructose raises insulin less than glucose; however, fructose results in higher ghrelin levels, which boost rather than suppress appetite like insulin does. It also appears to throw off mineral levels (PDF) in the body. Finally, fructose is processed almost solely by the liver. There is some evidence that this concentrated burden on the liver over time can contribute to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The liver’s metabolism of fructose also produces uric acid, a predictor of cardiovascular disease. Fructose appears to be some pretty nasty stuff. For more information on fructose see Dr. Lustig’s video presentation, Sugar: The Bitter Truth, and then follow it up with a counter-perspective from Don Matesz: Paleo Basics: Fact vs. Fiction.

Sucrose

Sucrose is a disaccharide sugar comprised of fructose and glucose in a 1:1 ratio. It’s perhaps the most familiar of the sugars, since sucrose is also known as table sugar. Although it’s found in fruit and other plants (often with varying amounts of free fructose), sugar cane and sugar beets are the most popular sources for commercial production. Given that sucrose contains a large amount of fructose, it shows similar metabolic patterns to the monosaccharide fructose and particularly to high fructose corn syrup, which is commonly blended to an approximate 55% fructose: 45% glucose mixture.

Common Sugar Sweeteners

Now that we’ve covered the basics on the most common sugars, there’s the question of how all this plays out in our everyday choices. Clearly, we want to avoid sugar as a whole, but few of us achieve full sugar abstinence 100% of the time. Consider this run-through a quick and dirty snapshot of common sweeteners that can inform your decision-making.

Glucose Syrup/Corn Syrup

Glucose syrup in this country is usually made from corn, but it can be produced from other starches like potatoes and rice. Chemically speaking, true glucose syrup/corn syrup consists mainly of glucose sugar; however, some companies like Karo add fructose to their products. It’s commonly used as a sweetener plus emulsifier for food items that require a smooth texture like hard candy. Although glucose itself rates a 100 on the glycemic scale, corn syrup generally falls around 75.
HFCS

Like corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced from corn starch; however, the manufacturing process deliberately converts a certain percentage of initial glucose into fructose. The two most common HFCS mixtures are HFCS-55 (containing 55% fructose) and HFCS-42, the former typically added to sodas and the latter added to other processed foods. The presence of fructose in HFCS appears to be key behind its myriad of negative health effects. Fructose content not only contributes to liver disease but lowers HDL levels while increasing small, dense (and more dangerous) LDL particles. As mentioned earlier, fructose also doesn’t flip the hormonal satiation switch as glucose does. Finally, the HFCS industry has been haunted by evidence of mercury contamination related to its production techniques.

Table Sugar/Sucrose

As mentioned, table sugar is actually a 1:1 combination of glucose and fructose and is metabolized in much the same way as HFCS. It’s GI measures around 64. One potential advantage of table sugar over HFCS is the absence of risk for mercury contamination.

Fruit Sugar

Even if you’ve sworn off adding sweetener of any kind to any food ever, there’s the question of fruit. Although the PB advises moderation and selectivity for most nutritional bang for the sugar buck, the best Primal fruits offer some of the highest ORAC values you can get from anything. Is it really necessary to swear off even nutritional powerhouses like berries and cherries to avoid their natural sugar content? The picture gets further complicated by the fact that “fruit sugar” doesn’t exist as a consistent chemical formula. Different fruits contain varying ratios of fructose, glucose and sucrose. Higher fructose-containing fruits include apples and pears, mangos and papaya, while relatively lower fructose fruits include cherries, figs, plums, kiwi, fresh and dried apricots, dried prunes and bananas. Keep in mind, however, that lower fructose ratio fruits can be higher in total sugar.

Raw Honey

Honey consists of dextrose and fructose (broken down from sucrose through honey bee’s digestion) in a nearly 1:1 ratio (with other components such as water, wax, nutrients, etc.). Raw honey has a glycemic index of about 30, but processed honey clocks in around 75. Those who have a harder time digesting fructose can often tolerate honey. Although conventional processing destroys much of honey’s natural benefits, raw honey serves up a (many claim therapeutic) dose of antioxidants, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, and enzymes.

Maple Syrup

Maple syrup is boiled and refined sap from maple trees. It has a GI of 54 and is low in free fructose but high in the fructose-glucose disaccharide sucrose. Nutritionally speaking, it contains manganese, iron and calcium.

Molasses

Although molasses has a fairly equal fructose-glucose ratio (half in free fructose/free glucose and half in disaccharide sucrose), it offers the nutrients extracted in table sugar production: iron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, phosphorus, copper and zinc.

Agave Nectar

The last few year have marked agave nectar’s time in the sun, so to speak. The sweetener has enjoyed growing popularity for some time, but experts are beginning to question whether agave nectar lives up to its reputation. Agave nectar is often heralded as low on the glycemic index (15), however, processing techniques result in a 75% or more fructose content. Given the increasing strikes against fructose, it’s harder to justify use of a higher fructose sweetener without significant nutritional benefit.

Palm Sugar/Coconut Sugar

An up and coming (in this country) sweetener is coconut sugar. The sugar is actually made from a variety of palm sources, but the palm and coconut labels are used (albeit mistakenly) interchangeably. It’s largely sucrose-based and registers in the 30s/40s on the GI. The taste is relatively light from what I understand, and the nutritional profile is worth noting.

There you go, folks. Information is power when it comes to your health, and I hope this list offered good food for thought. Here’s my analysis. When you are choosing whether/how to include sugars in your Primal diet, I’d suggest paying closest attention to the total sugar content first, then to any nutritional benefits, and finally to the fructose content. Blueberries might have a relatively equal fructose/glucose ratio, but they offer huge antioxidant benefit. On the other hand, dried apricots have a lower fructose ratio, but their overall sugar content dwarfs many fruits ounce for ounce. Raw honey and coconut sugar likewise offer solid nutritional benefit for their sugar content compared to other sweeteners. Of course, any sugar should be used in strict moderation, but it’s clear not all sweeteners are Primally equal.

Now it’s your turn, my friends. I’ll look forward to reading your thoughts! Thanks for joining me today.

PS. Stay tuned for our next 45 Day Transformation Weight Loss Cleanse Challenge packed with prizes for all participants and a grand prize for the winner and the one who refers the most people to the Challenge. We'll most likely starting the next 45 Day Cleanse Challenge Saturday August 21, 2010. Just recently a client of ours on the cleanse lost between 20-23 pounds in only 30 days!

PPS. If you live in Vancouver, BC and want to experience some of the best rapid weight loss personal training that GUARANTEES you results or your money back, click the link below:

==> North Vancouver Personal Training


PPPS. Or if you live in North or West Vancouver, BC and want more of a group setting at a cheaper price than 1-on-1 personal training but still want to experience one of the best rapid weight loss fitness boot camps that'll help you get results fast and get you lean and strong then please click the link below:

==> North Vancouver Boot Camp Tweet This