Tragedy of the Commons: weight loss

Showing posts with label weight loss. Show all posts

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Big Baby

He’s a bouncing baby boy who could break a knee — a mother in Jakarta, Indonesia, delivered a 19.2-pound, 2-foot-long child on Monday via Caesarean section.

The big baby, a weight record for a newborn in Indonesia, although a bit short of the world record of 23 pounds set in 1879, was likely caused by his mother having gestational diabetes. And even though mom Ani was saved the grueling task of pushing the child out herself, the surgery to bring him into the world was still touch and go.

Link, via my wife.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

I have been testing the Nike+ Sport Band with varied success.

Pros:
The trendy wristband with clock and digital read out is very user friendly and barely noticeable while running.

Just unplug your wristband piece and pop it into a USB port on your computer and your workout is uploaded to the Nike+ homepage that tracks your mileage.

The cost ($60) is very reasonable.

Cons:
I have had varying success with the accuracy of the band. My first run was horrendous, partly because proper directions were practically nonexistent (think IKEA, only 10 times worse). But, I calibrated it after the first run and it has been almost perfect since. I double check my mileage with mapmyrun.com

Overall, I've been rather pleased with the Nike+ Sport Band. Has anyone else used this or higher end devices such as Garmin?

Monday, September 8, 2008

High Fructose Corn Syrup

As I have examined Evaporated Cane Juice and Sugar in these posts, I thought I might start a discussion about High Fructose Corn Syrup (HCFS). HCFS has recently become a bad word in nutrition circles, and many folks are starting to avoid it at all costs. Here are two commercials that are intended to start a bit of a dialog, and perhaps question that conventional wisdom:

What do you think? Do these videos and the accompanying website spin the truth? Is High Fructose Corn Syrup that much worse than regular sugar? Perhaps we should not take a commercial enterprise at its word...I did some preliminary searches for medical studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18469239

CONCLUSIONS: Sucrose and HFCS do not have substantially different short-term endocrine/metabolic effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17616770

CONCLUSION: There was no evidence that commercial cola beverages sweetened with either sucrose or HFCS have significantly different effects on hunger, satiety, or short-term energy intakes.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588

In addition, animal studies have shown a link between increased consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and adverse health effects, such as diabetes and high cholesterol. However, the evidence is not as clear in human studies.

Despite the lack of clarity in research, the fact remains that Americans consume large quantities of high-fructose corn syrup in the form of soft drinks, fruit-flavored beverages and other processed foods. These types of foods are often high in calories and low in nutritional value. This fact alone is reason to be cautious about foods containing high-fructose corn syrup.

Do you avoid HCFS? Perhaps avoid all simple carbohydrates? Maybe you eschew carbs altogether? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Other Sugar posts:
Evaporated Cane Juice: Part I
Evaporated Cane Juice: Part II
Caramel Apples
Sugar and the Environment
A Look at Agave

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Eating on $100 a Week?

Here is an interesting article chronicling a family of four's attempt to eat for a week, spending only $100. With increasing energy and food costs, this may be harder than ever. I know our family has been attempting to lower our overall costs, and food is one area that is up for examination. One must balance thrift with health, however, and eating only mac and cheese and mayo sandwiches is not advised.

Some interesting facts and ideas from the article:

- A food stamp allowance for a family of four is $117
- A $100 budget gave us $1.19 a meal per person (wow)
- "Americans are obsessed with protein, but it's the one nutrient we actually get too much of"
- Planning is key: if you do not buy enough, you'll have to go back and end up spending more (impulse items)
- "The most inexpensive snacks are also some of the healthiest"

It should be noted that as Americans, we recently have spent less of food as a percentage of household income than ever in history (less than 10%). Even with recent increases due to higher energy prices; we still spend relatively little on food. Compared to the rest of the world, this number is high on absolute terms, though. A main reason for this is the large amounts of processed and convenience foods that we eat. Pound for pound, prepared and processed foods cost much more than 'real' food.

If one factors the time involved in preparation, some packaged foods may come out ahead economically, depending on your salary. This says nothing about the nutritional value, however, and the increase in quick food has a strong correlation to our expanding waistlines.

As the article notes, some fresh vegetables did not fit in the super-econo budget. (Organics are even pricier) But as it also noted, this was a budget that was under a poverty level. By substituting many name-brand, convenience, and packaged foods with whole, healthy ones, American's could cut our food budgets by large amounts and our middle sections as well.

Another idea: adding a prolific back yard garden could help your wallet and waistline, also.

A good site for further reading: food related economic data.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Lemond Poprad Review

Lemond Poprad 2008

I purchased the Poprad after riding several different Cyclocross bicycles. I preferred the Poprad over the Specialized Tricross and Surly Crosscheck.

Some highlights quotes from the Lemond website:
Poprad is a city in Slovakia where Matt Kelly won the first American World Championship in Cyclocross—on a LeMond.

Pros:
The front and rear derailleurs are the Shimano 105 and Ultegra; so smooth you can not even tell you have shifted. The feel of the ride is smooth but it also seems to handle more like a road bike than the Specialized.

The steel frame is made in the USA, which was a selling point for me. The seat post and front fork are carbon.

Aesthetically, the Poprad is a hands down winner. The white frame with white handlebars is SICK!!

Cons:
It set me back about $1500, whereas the Surly, my second choice, was a couple hundred less.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Specialized Langster 2007 Update: Part 3

a full two months(see original post) - here's what I think...

On an overall scale, I would say the Langster ranks 8.5 out of 10.

Pros - The Langster is light-weight and fun to ride, a good work out on hills, and a great conversation starter with the ladies. Not to dwell too much on that point, but the chicks dig the Langster. I use the bike 4-5 times per week and at least 5-6 miles per day. I know, not a heavy workout routine by any means, but for someone with a busy schedule and is not in the best shape in the world, I think the mileage and frequency is adequate enough. I feel my leg muscles tightening up and toning by the day.

Cons - While I liked the single-gear aspect initially, it can be a bit of a pain from time to time, especially when going downhill. Not uphill? No no, that's what I enjoy the most. If there is any type of downhill slope, pedaling becomes virtually impossible and you're at the mercy of the bike to "bottom-out", so to speak. The one long ride I did take, roughly 25-30 miles, I wished to have several gears just to switch things up, but in the end, it was not a huge deal.

So why did I rate the Specialized Langster at 8.5 out of 10? For the price range, I would rate it 9.5 out of 10, but I tried out other bikes during the interim since my previous post and more expensive bikes are obviously better. With that being said, I felt my bike at roughly a third of the price of the other bikes I rode is a steal to say the least.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Five Financial Costs of Obesity

Here is a Newsweek article that lists five major costs of American obesity. The results are compiled from several recent studies and other sources.

1. Lower Wages
2. Less Hours Worked
3. Higher Medical Costs
4. Higher Airfare
5. Less Fuel Economy

The last one seems to be a bit of a stretch. Even several hundred pounds will only slightly affect fuel economy. Over the entire country I suppose this would add up, but any small effect will add up if multiplied by 300 million.

There is another angle, however: larger individuals will no doubt opt for larger vehicles, which in turn does have a significant effect. Also, as the average American increases in size, automakers must continually readjust auto size, thus building larger and larger vehicles to keep up with demand.

Can you think of any other areas where obesity would have added, perhaps hidden, costs?

Read more here, here, and here.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Evaporated Cane Juice vs. Sugar, Part II

As I noted in this post, I was skeptical about the differences between Evaporated Cane Juice and regular table sugar. As I found, the difference is negligible, and the price would not seem to justify the small amount of nutrients that might be found in Cane Juice. I found an article that examines the issue a bit more, this time examining the health ramifications of simple carbohydrates.

First, the author lists the plethora of alternate names that "sugar" has picked up in the health food aisle:

Perhaps because it sounds like it fits in with a New Age mentality, a lot of manufacturers are using the word "crystals" in describing their sweetening agents nowadays. But sugar they are. To list just a few, there are: cane juice crystals, dehydrated cane juice crystals, unrefined cane juice crystals, raw cane crystals, washed cane juice crystals, Florida crystals (a trademarked name), unbleached evaporated sugar cane juice crystals, crystallized cane juice, and unbleached crystallized evaporated cane juice. There are also products with such names as organic dehydrated cane juice, unbleached sugar cane, evaporated cane juice, and evaporated cane juice sugar.

There are many supposed benefits to these products that have been processed less; and organic products are most likely better for the environment. But since these products are chemically equivalent to sugar, how will they affect your health? The first expert to weigh in, a nutritionist, laments that folks should not think these products are a healthy substitute for sugar:

VanDien's assessment of sweeteners is pretty rigorous. She thinks virtually every commonly used sweetener is as bad as sugar when it makes up a significant part of the diet, as it does for too many Americans.
"Whether you're talking about cane sugar, honey, barley malt or Sucanat (a tradenamed product), they're all primarily simple sugars, simple carbohydrates," VanDien explains. "People should be concerned that, if they're eating 150 pounds of sugar a year and you change that to 150 pounds of barley malt, you'll have the same problems with your immune system and blood sugar levels you would have if you are eating the sugar."

The second expert, with a PhD in nutrition, agrees:

"It's a question of economics," says Fuchs. "Health food stores and manufacturers are capturing dollars from products that are not necessarily the best quality or the healthiest. Some of the companies that use things such as evaporated cane juice say they've studied it and find that people metabolize their sugars more slowly than refined sugar. But I find people who have the same problems with evaporated cane juice as they do with regular sugar. And I deal with people all over the country. I find that people who react to sucrose, or refined sugar, are reacting in the same way to evaporated cane juice," says Fuchs.

She does feel that some sweeteners are superior to sugar, however:

Fuchs does feel that some alternative sweeteners are clearly better than sugar, or the so-called lesser refined sugars. "Sugar is 93 percent sucrose. That's different than barley malt, which is maltose and glucose, and different than maple syrup, or fruit juice concentrate. You can't say those are the same things as sugar when their chemical compositions are different."

The main point I gleaned from the article, is that while there is no really 'healthy' substitute for simple sweeteners, a little will not kill you.

But while VanDien faults sugar for not being "nutrient dense," she also says that "almost anything, in moderation, is not bad. I think balance and moderation are the key words.

However, since most Americans eat very large quantities, they could kill you. In the words of St. Augustine, "To many, total abstinence is easier than perfect moderation."

Other Sugar posts:
Evaporated Cane Juice: Part I
Where to Buy
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Caramel Apples
Sugar and the Environment
Alternative Sugar Names
A Look at Agave

Friday, August 8, 2008

Fat Future?

According to a new study, if current trends persist, 100% of American adults will be overweight in 40 years :

The figure might sound alarming, or impossible, but researchers say that even if the actual rate never reaches the 100-percent mark, any upward movement is worrying; two-thirds of the population is already overweight.

"Genetically and physiologically, it should be impossible" for all U.S. adults to become overweight, said Dr. Lan Liang of the federal government's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, one of the researchers on the study.

I tend to think that extrapolating data out for many years like this is not very accurate, and I would hope there will be a few holdouts from the ranks of the heavy. The overwhelming size of the problem cannot be ignored, however. Our healthcare system and other entitlement benefits are already extremely strained. If everyone is fat...what hope do we have?

More on American Obesity...

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Keepin' it Langster

I just bought a bike to get more exercise, save fuel and hopefully a little cash.The process, however, to find a bike in my price range was long and daunting. I finally decided to purchase a Specialized Langster. The bike caught my eye for a number of reasons, but most notably was the quality of bike and great reviews.

I actually purchased an '07 fixed/single gear Langster and I love it so far. Light weight, fast, easy to handle and still a comfortable ride. I wanted one of '08 special edition models, but I got a close-out price that saved me around $200 for essentially the same bike, so really it was a no brainer. (I liked the Langster Chicago with the skyline graphics, but opted for the '07 red version, which appears to have some skulls near the front gears of the bike - instant street cred and an eye catcher for the ladies.)

I was slightly skeptical of the single-gear aspect, but it has not posed any problems yet. After chatting with a couple of bike gurus at a local shop, they said the real difference in riding with the single-gear is focusing on your consistency in pedaling. After riding for a couple of weeks now, I can relate to what they were saying. For instance, if I go all out, I can go really fast but cannot keep up with the pedal speed or tire quickly (usually both). However, if I just maintain an even pump for a consistent and extended period of time, my top-end speed is higher and prolonged, creating a better workout.

Here's a link to another blog that has a pretty good review of the same bike, and some pics too. I don't have a digital camera and I'm usually too fast for a traditional camera's shudder speed.

I would highly suggest this bike.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Wii Fit Review

I received a new toy this weekend...Wii Fit. I have been quite amazed with the Wii in general, and the new balance board attachment is no exception. I've only had a few days to test it out, but I'll sum up some of the pros and cons that I've noticed so far.

Pros

Several games are quite addicting right off the bat (ski jump)
Fairly good accuracy and control
More physically exerting than most video games
A fun way to switch up your workout
A wide range of exercise categories (yoga, strength, cardio, balance)
Lots of unlockables
Allows you to set goals for BMI improvement and/or weight loss
Records and graphs your individual Mii data
Excels in balance game category

Cons

A bit pricey
Lots of stopping in between individual games and workouts
Cardio is rather limited (infinitely better to run outside)
Cumbersome to switch between Miis (limited multi-player)
Wii Fit Age is a bit random (much like on Wii Sports)

We have already gotten quite a bit of enjoyment from it (and like most Wii games, it will appeal to a wide range of demographics). Overall it is a fun diversion, but don't mistake it for a replacement for a serious workout routine. It certainly excels in the balance and plyometric strength categories, and may be that extra motivation you need to get off the couch on a rainy day. Also, I don't put much stock in BMI or 'Wii Fit Age' as a fitness measurement (and you shouldn't have too thin of skin when you step on it).

Hopefully there will be more balance board games available soon. A quick search reveals that several are in the works: another fitness title (with Jillian Michaels from The Biggest Loser fame), winter sports, boxing and a horse racing game.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Evaporated Cane Juice

If you ever happen to look at food labels, you may have run across this: "Evaporated Cane Juice"(ECJ). It seems to be commonly found in organic products and other 'health' foods. I noticed it one day, and it got me thinking...how is that different than plain old sugar? Is it really more healthy or are they just trying to pull a fast one on me? So, being the curious fellow I am...I googled it.

Here's what I found:

Basically, Evaporated Cane Juice is sugar that is a little less processed. Wikipedia has a good section on sugar cane processing. There are two schools of thought about ECJ...

1) Any carbohydrates that are less refined are better, and the less refined product has more nutrients
2) The two products are nearly identical in chemical composition, yet not in price...so save your cash

Here are two sources that claim health benefits:

Evaporated cane juice is a healthy alternative to refined sugar. While both sweetners are made from sugar cane, evaporated cane juice does not undergo the same degree of processing that refined sugar does. Therefore, unlike refined sugar, it retains more of the nutrients found in sugar cane.

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=120#nutritionalprofile

This site compares many different types of sugar products:

http://www.floridacrystals.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.EvaporatedCaneJuice

Here is a blog that does not believe the benefits out weigh the increased cost:

Evaporated cane juice and plain old sugar are unequivocally the same, α-D-fructofuranosyl β-D-glucopyranoside (aka, sucrose, table sugar).

http://webercam.com/2008/04/evaporated-cane-juice-vs-granulated.html

It seems to me that it is very similar to regular sugar. All things being equal, it does have higher amounts of certain nutrients, so it probably is a bit better. The B vitamins that it provides are readily found in many other common foods, however. Organic ECJ seems to be a popular way to sweeten organic products, so environmentally and ecologically it may come out ahead.

I rarely do much baking and do not use very much granulated sugar at all. Since the price is much higher, I probably would not buy ECJ over regular white sugar. However, when checking labels, now I know what the term means and can purchase accordingly.

Other sugar posts:
Evaporated Cane Juice: Part II
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Caramel Apples
Sugar and the Environment
Alternative Sugar Names
A Look at Agave
Where to Buy

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Former World's Heaviest Man Has New Life Mission

Manuel Uribe, who once weighed a half ton but has slimmed down to about 700 pounds, celebrates his 43rd birthday on Wednesday with a simple wish for the coming year: to be able to stand on his own two feet to get married.

I'm not sure which is more shocking, the fact that he weighs around 700lbs, or the fact that he has already lost over 500.

Uribe said his weight problem spiraled out of control after he moved to the United States for a few years in 1988 and indulged in a nonstop diet of junk food and soft drinks.

I doubt that diet alone could have these results. The article alludes to a botched surgery, and I would have to think other health problems may have contributed to his state. Also, at some point, his family and/or caregivers must bear some responsibility for continuing to enable such massive weight gain.

I cannot imagine the extreme difficulty and isolation that an existence such as this would bring. Fortunately, it seems like he is turning it around. Hopefully he can return to a normal life very soon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25085766/

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

American Obesity Epidemic?

My coworkers and I had a conversation yesterday about the increasing problem of obesity in America. I realize that this can be an uncomfortable subject, but here are some sobering statistics:

During the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States.

Currently, more than 64% of US adults are either overweight
or obese, according to results from the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). This figure represents a 14% increase in the
prevalence rate from NHANES III (1988-94) and a 36% increase from NHANES II
(1976 -80). (Prevalence is the percentage of the population that falls into the
designated category.)

The greatest increase took place in the obese group (Body Mass Index > 30), where the prevalence doubled from NHANES II (1976-80). Roughly 59 million American adults are in this group, which is at the greatest health risk. (Please note that NHANES data are based on weights and heights as actually measured by trained health professionals using standardized measuring equipment.) (source)

Obesity has been linked to increases in diabetes and cancer as well as negative stigma and bias in employment, education and society in general (source).

We debated the sources and solutions of this growing problem. Increased health problems tax our already overburdened health care system. Our automobiles have grown to accommodate the 'average' American. According to a recent University of Illinois study, Americans waste an extra $Billion in fuel costs due to being overweight(source). Airlines are already charging x-large passengers for two seats. They also have begun to charge for our first bag. Could the future bring us to a point where everyone is weighed in and charged by the pound?

As for solutions, we could not arrive at any that would either be feasible and/or acceptable to the general public. We mostly fixated on our diets...the large amounts of fast food, the over sized portions that we have come to expect. We did not heavily discuss the relative lack of exercise and sedentary lifestyle many have settled in to, but I hold that as one key to the puzzle. Several ideas that were floated were: mandatory portion control in restaurants, special taxes for 'junk food' (how that is defined opens cans of worms), luxury taxes on any restaurant, and increased nutritional information in restaurants. None of these seemed to really be a feasible solution and the conversation drifted to another topic...but I thought it might be good to continue the discussion here.

My opinion is that the obesity problem can be directly traced to our affluence. It is one of the drawbacks to having it all. Our lives are extremely busy and stressful, which leaves little time for meal planning and physical activity. This is a recipe for disaster, of course. I think one good source of diet info and advice might be In Defense of Food, but I hesitate to endorse any one diet or solution. Many of the ideas in that book could help many people, but it may not be a fit for everyone.

Bottom line, a healthy diet and regular exercise will prevent many ill affects, but finding the motivation is extremely difficult. Providing the motivation to those that do not want it is nearly impossible.

Any ideas?

More on American Obesity...

Monday, June 2, 2008

Family food expenditures around the world

I found a little photo show of some 'representative' family food expenditures for one week from several selected countries around the globe. I'm not sure how average these depictions are, but they are certainly eye opening. As stark as they are, ultimately I find a bit of hope. If people can live on less than 2 bucks a week, we've got a long way to go before we are 'starving'. It may seem like the end of the world, but I think we can live without pizza and soda.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1626519_1373664,00.html

Monday, May 19, 2008

In Defense of Food

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, Michael Pollan

Could you stand to lose a few pounds? Perhaps just concerned with eating right for health reasons? Have you ever noticed that it seems just about everyday there is a new 'breakthrough scientific study' that claims to have found the holy grail of nutrition? Perhaps it is a low-fat diet...or low-carb...more antioxidants...maybe we just need more omega-3s? Does it seem like a lot of this information tends to contradict previous findings, which in turn, is contradicted again? I found this book to be an eye-opening look into why this has been occurring for over the last century. The author examines the origins of 'Nutritionism'...the phenomenon of applying science and technology to essentially replace our ancestor's food chain with The Western Diet.

Beginning in the early 19th century, scientists discovered the basic building blocks of food: Carbohydrates, Protein and Fat. A little while longer they discovered a few basic nutrients (vitamins) and proclaimed they had solved animal and human nutrition. Soon after, the first baby formula was created (consisting of cow's milk, flour and potassium bicarbonate). Nutritionism was on its way. Unfortunately, doctors began to notice that babies fed exclusively on this diet did not fare especially well...undeterred, the food scientists forged ahead, looking for the magic formula for human nutrition. The author continues to explore the Age of Nutritionism, from the advent of processed grains to the low-fat phenomenon of the late 50s-present to the low-carb craze of the turn of this century. He highlights that current scientists, in some respects, are just like the early ones. There are just far too many things that we just do not know about how the human body utilizes food.

Out of The Age of Nutritionism was born The Western Diet. Highly processed foods, shelf stable and able to be transported around the globe. A plethora of foods sources were distilled into about 4 monoculture grains (corn, soy, wheat, rice) and 3 protein sources (beef, pork and chicken). These staples were then bred for maximum production at low cost (a worthy goal when there are poor, starving people), however this came at a cost of nutritive value and flavor. The author then describes the after affects of the adoption of The Western Diet. After industrialization, native peoples quickly began to contract 'western' diseases (hypertension, diabetes, cancer, etc.) when previously they had very low rates. Pollan describes a study of modern aboriginals who had a wide range of maladies simply disappear after returning to a bush diet for several weeks; foraging for plants, grubs and wild game.

As you may know, the U.S. has very high rates of obesity, hypertension, cancer, and heart disease. Much of the increases in life expectancy have come from preventing infant mortality, not actually extending life spans. In the near future, we may actually see a decrease in life expectancy. Much of this, Pollan argues, is due to our diet. Food scientists can break food down into parts, but it has a harder time putting it back together. And even if they could, do we really know the optimal configuration? Perhaps someday we will...but until then?

What can we do? Must we return to a hunter/gatherer existence to save ourselves? Fortunately, no. The author suggests only simple, basic guidelines: Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants. Out of these basic guidelines, there are some sub-bullets I would like to highlight.

Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food
Avoid food products that make health claims
Shop the peripheries of the supermarket, avoid the center aisles
Eat well-grown food from healthy soils
Don't look for the magic bullet in traditional diets
Eat meals, at a table
Cook...and plant a garden

I highly recommend this book. It has really affected the way I think about food. I have always subconsciously been in the nutritionist frame of mind...the body is a machine and food is its fuel. This book sheds light on a counter-claim; that food is actually a relationship between many things, both living and not. I invite you to investigate this yourself.

I would caution that while our diets constitute one portion of our health, it is not the only determinant. Our ancestors also had much different activity levels than we in modern societies do today. I am a strong believer in the power of exercise, which is not in the scope of this book; but in my view, cannot be left out of any discussion of health. I also am an optimist in regards to science. While our scientists may not currently hold the keys to the universe...does that mean we should not implore them to keep looking?

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Eat This, Not That

I just finished skimming through Eat This, Not That by the editors of Men's Health magazine. It is a popular (it was on wait list at the library for several months) handbook for healthy food substitutions. It is primarily geared towards casual dining and fast food restaurant eating, but has sections pertaining to grocery shopping as well.

You may notice I said I only skimmed the book. I got to page 'xii' in the introduction of "Top 10 Swaps". For burritos it told me to eat a Taco Bell Regular Style Steak Burrito Supreme instead of a Chipotle Steak burrito. I nearly put it down right then. Sure the Taco Bell burrito has less calories and fat...it's smaller. I can normally be sated with one Chipotle burrito. I've never just eaten one Taco Bell offering, and my stomach rarely lets me forget it. You can't tell me *pound for pound* anything at Taco Bell is better than Chipotle. With the author's credibility severely damaged, I warily continued.

As I flipped through I was struck by a combo of typos, contradictions and carb-phobia. Carbs are not evil, people. While only giving it a cursory glance, I found two cases where they recommended to both 'Eat' and 'Not Eat' a certain food (Goldfish Crackers and Kraft Zesty Italian Dressing). I will continue to eat both of these.

While I would not recommend this "book" (more of a glorified magazine), it had several redeeming qualities. First, the basic concept is sound. There are easy substitutions that you can make every day that can save calories (like don't put so much cheese, bacon and ranch dressing on stuff). Over time these small savings can prevent weight gain. I just don't know if I would trust anything in this book. It is not a "no-diet, weight loss solution" in my opinion. Secondly, there is a section called "8 Foods You Should Eat Every Day". Spinach, yogurt, tomatoes, carrots, blueberries, black beans and walnuts; each with several similar substitutes. All-in-all I'd say those are pretty good choices.

Bottom line, if you want to improve your diet: Read this (Advanced Sports Nutrition), Not that.