The Truth About Eggs

Posted in Food, health, nutrition with tags , , , , , on July 26, 2010 by Ki Fit

Some say you should only eat three a week – others say you should completely avoid them as they are sky-high in cholesterol. Others recommend that you eat one at breakfast everyday to keep hunger at bay and to help you lose weight. So what exactly is the debate on eggs about? Are they good? Are they bad? And how often should you actually eat them?

Nutritional value of eggs
The egg is a nutrient-dense food, containing high quality protein and a wide range of essential vitamins, minerals and trace elements. Eggs can therefore make a significant contribution to a healthy diet. A medium egg has an energy value of 85 kilocalories, thus the consumption of one egg daily would contribute only around 3% of the average energy requirement of an adult man; 4% for an adult woman. Eggs contain most of the vitamins with the exception of vitamin C. They are a particularly rich source of vitamins B12, B2 (riboflavin) and folate. Eggs are also a good source of the fat-soluble vitamins A and D and also provide some vitamin E. Approximately 11% of the egg content is fat. The fat of an egg is found almost entirely in the yolk; there is less than 0.05% in the albumen (egg white). Approximately 17% of an egg’s fatty acids are polyunsaturated, 44% monounsaturated and 32% saturated. Eggs are also a significant source of cholesterol.

Cholesterol in eggs and coronary heart disease
Eggs, as with liver, kidney and prawns, do contain more dietary cholesterol than many other foods. In the past, if you had high blood cholesterol, advice was to limit the intake of these foods. Eggs in particular tended to be eaten more frequently than liver, kidney or prawns, therefore they were thrown into the spotlight when it came to advising people to cut down on cholesterol containing foods.

However, more recent research has shown that cholesterol in food actually has little effect on our blood cholesterol levels. What really has an effect on blood cholesterol is the amount of saturated fat that in present in the diet. Therefore if you have high cholesterol, the priority is to reduce the amount of saturated fat in your diet, which is found in full-fat milk, butter, lard, cream, pastries. cakes, chocolates and crisps. Eating a diet that is high in soluble fibre (found in oats, pulses, fruit and vegetables) can also help to lower cholesterol.

Thanks to this eggs-cellent news… for general people and for people who have high cholesterol, current recommendations from Dieticians are that you don’t have to limit the number of eggs you eat unless you have been advised to do so by your GP or Dietitian. As previously mentioned, if you have high cholesterol, it is of greater importance to watch your intake of saturated fat.

Eggs and salmonella
In the past there have also been concerns about the safety of eggs, particularly in relation to salmonella. However the risk of getting salmonella from eggs is very low, given the stringent safety procedures that the UK eggs industry has to go through. However, studies have shown that on average the risk of finding an egg with salmonella inside it is 0.0005% (five thousandths of one percent). At this rate, if you are an average consumer, you might encounter a contaminated egg once every 84 years!

However, to reduce the risk of food poisoning from eggs, the British Egg Information Service recommends the following:

  • Look for the Lion Quality mark (or the words ‘Lion Quality’) on the egg-shell and egg box. This mark indicates that the eggs have been produced to the highest standard of food safety (which includes vaccination against Salmonella Enteritidis)
  • Buy eggs from a reputable retailer where the eggs have been transported and stored at the correct temperature
  • Keep the eggs in the fridge in their box after buying them
  • Store eggs separately from other foods
  • Always use eggs by the “best before” date shown on the egg or box
  • Wash your hands before and after handling eggs
  • Discard dirty or cracked eggs
  • Eat cooked egg dishes as soon as possible after cooking them or store in the fridge

The Foods Standards Agency recommends against eating raw eggs or uncooked foods such as mousse or fresh mayonnaise. Susceptible population groups such as babies, toddlers, pregnant women, the elderly or people who are unwell should only eat eggs that have been cooked until the white and yolk are solid.

References:

  1. Thomas B, Bishop J. Manual of dietetic practice.4th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2007
  2. Geisller C, Powers H. Human Nutrition. 11th edition. Elsevier Ltd. 2006
  3. Foods Standard Agency. Egg survey.
  4. British Egg information Service.

Leave A Comment »

Exercise and Fat Burning

Posted in Activity, Dieting, Exercise, Weight Loss, calories with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 21, 2010 by Ki Fit

Introduction
Exercise is no longer just exercise, it’s so much more. We now talk a language of reps, sets, intensity, frequency, duration, load, fat-burning, muscle-building and most of all, weight. Although there are countless strategies and approaches in weight management programs, the three overall objectives should include:

 An aerobic and resistance exercise plan to increase caloric expenditure and maintain fat-free (muscle) mass

 A lifestyle/dietary approach emphasising balanced nutrition with an appropriate calorie deficit

 Important guidelines on how to make positive behaviour changes in exercise and lifestyle habits, as well as how to make positive changes for life

In terms of exercising for weight management, the most controversial (and abused!) claim is that you should “exercise in the fat-burning zone to maximise weight-loss and fat utilisation”. Well, what exactly is the “fat-burning zone” and what is the best exercise? There are numerous opinions out there, which seem to confuse fitness professionals and the general population alike. Below is a quick look into the world of “fat burning” and how exercise is related.

Energy Balance Basics
What the First Law of Thermodynamics teaches us is energy is neither created nor destroyed. Since a kilocalorie (kcal or sometimes just ‘calorie’) is a unit of energy, this means that the calories we eat will either be stored somewhere in the body or expended for fuel in metabolism for daily activities, occupational tasks and/or exercise. This basic caloric rule is that you should eat what you burn to maintain weight, and if you want to gain weight you should eat more than what you consume (positive energy balance). For weight loss, a negative energy balance is needed, where energy expenditure is more than energy consumption.

What is often not explained is that when in a negative energy balance, the weight loss may come from three body sources: water, adipose tissue, and muscle tissue. Generally, body water remains relatively normal, given regular hydration, which leaves adipose and muscle tissue. It is not advisable to lose muscle mass as this has a large influence on the resting metabolic rate and affects overall calorie expenditure. Therefore, the goal of the weight loss should always be to lose fat while preserving muscle mass.

The Claim – “Low Intensity Exercise is Better for Fat Burning”
How many times have you heard this? Well research has shown that exercise at lower intensities (50% VO2max) does use a greater ratio of fat to carbohydrate than at higher intensities (70% VO2max). However what is important to highlight is higher training intensities have a greater TOTAL energy expenditure, and a person will almost always burn the same amount (or more) fat calories as seen during lower training intensities, providing the workouts are the same length in time. Basically this means that even though fat is the primary fuel during low intensity exercise, this does not necessarily indicate greater fat loss. This is particularly important when considering weight loss plans. The greater total calorie burn resulting from the exercise is going to have more impact on weight loss, and essentially add to workout efficiency, i.e. greater calorie burn for less time spent. It’s important to remember however, that for those who are sedentary and carry orthopaedic, cardiac or health risks, high intensity exercise may not be appropriate. If this is the case, longer duration lower-intensity exercise becomes more important. In fact, since most people can’t do ‘high intensity’ exercise on a daily basis due to potential overtraining and over use concerns, perhaps the best strategy is to integrate and balance the long duration workouts with the high intensity workouts for optimal calorie (fat) burning.

Resistance Training – fat burner?
Research has confirmed that the most important benefit of resistance exercise in a weight loss program is the preservation of muscle mass. In addition to this, other research has shown that diet only programs can lower a person’s resting metabolic rate (RMR) by 20% (which may be approximately 300 less calories expended per day) and resistance training is one of the best protective interventions to maintain the RMR during a caloric restrictive weight loss program.

Exercise ‘after-burn’ helps fat burning
The exercise after-burn, or EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption), is the number of calories expended above resting values after a workout. Although intensity dependent, both aerobic and resistance training programs may elicit an EPOC from 65-150 (primarily fat) calories post workout, and can last up to 6 hours. It has been suggested that since one pound of fat is roughly equal to 3,500 calories, EPOC is an insignificant factor in the fat burning process. However, if you consider someone who is training regularly, over a couple months this can be quite meaningful!

The last drop – “To burn more fat, burn more calories!”
So the good news is that your body can become more efficient at burning fat with the right training. However, remember that the TOTAL calories you burn are more important for weight loss than whether you are burning more fat or carbohydrate during exercise. Use a combination of aerobic training and resistance training to balance your exercise plan, preserve muscle mass and maintain resting metabolic rate.

References:
Bryner, R.W., Ullrich, I.H., Sauers, J., Donley, D., Hornsby, G., Kolar, M., and Yeater, R. (1990). Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 18: 115-121.
Hill, A.J. (2004). Does dieting make you fat? British Journal of Nutrition. Suppl 1, S15-S18.
Horowitz, J. and Klein, S. (2000). Lipid metabolism during endurance exercise. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72: 558S-563S.
Thompson D.L., Townsend K.M., Boughey R., Patterson K., and Bassett D.R. Jr. (1998). Substrate use during and following moderate- and low-intensity exercise: implications for weight control. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology. Jun;78(1):43-49
Len Kravitz, Ph.D. Fat Facts

Leave A Comment »

ORGANIC FOODS: BUY OR BYPASS?

Posted in Food, Organic, health, nutrition with tags , , on May 7, 2010 by Ki Fit

You’re standing in front of the fresh fruit section in a supermarket. In one hand you’re holding a conventionally grown punnet of strawberries, and in the other hand you have one labelled ‘organically grown’. The strawberries in both packets are bright red and juicy. The conventionally grown strawberries are a proven family favourite and cost less, however you’ve heard, read and been told that organic foods are more nutritious and better for you than non-organic foods. Which one do you choose???

Before you decide, here’s an exploration into the difference between organic foods and their traditionally grown counterparts so you can make a better informed choice.

Conventional vs. Organic farming
Organic farming is a holistic approach to the way in which farmers grow and process agricultural products, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products and meat. Organic farming practices are designed to promote soil and water conservation by making use of crop rotation, environmental management and good animal husbandry to control pests and diseases.

Here are the main differences between conventional methods of farming and organic farming:

CONVENTIONAL FARMERS
Apply chemical fertilisers to promote plant growth

Use chemical herbicides to manage weeds

Spray insecticides to reduce pests and disease

Give animals antibiotics, growth hormones and medications to prevent disease and spur growth

ORGANIC FARMERS
Restricted use of artificial fertilisers or pesticides. Apply natural fertilisers such as manure or compost to feed soil and plants

Use crop rotation, hand wedding and mulching to manage weeds

Use beneficial birds, insects, traps to reduce pests and disease

Give animals organic feed or allow them access to outdoors. Use preventive measures such as rotational grazing, a balanced diet and clean housing to help minimise disease

Organic or not? What does the label tell you?
DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) is responsible for the regulations governing the production of organic foods and the administration of organic bodies in the UK. Each organic scheme has established an organic certification programme that requires all organic foods to meet certain criteria and standards that are set out in European Law. These standards regulate how organic foods are grown, handled and processed. Any farmer or food manufacturer who labels and sells a product as organic must include a code number that denotes the approved certification body.

There are certain rules relating to the degree of “organic-ness” of a product. These are:

100% organic – Products that are completely organic or made of all organic ingredients such as fruit, vegetables, eggs or other single ingredient food

Organic- Products that are at least 95 percent organic

If the products contain between 70% and 95% organic ingredients, organic ingredients can be mentioned only in the ingredient list, and a clear statement must be given on the front of the label showing the total percentage of the ingredients that are organic

TIP: You may see other terms on food labels such as “all natural”, “free range” or “hormone free”. These descriptions maybe important to you, however it is important not to mix them with the term “organic”! Most of the time, these are simply marketing terms.

Organic Foods: Are they safer? More nutritious?
Many factors will influence your decision to buy or not to buy organic food. Here are some factors you may need to consider:

Nutrition
Consumers may want to buy organic products because they believe them to be more nutritious than other foods. However there is no conclusive evidence
that shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. Even though DEFA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) certifies organic food, it doesn’t claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.

Nutrient levels in food depend on many different factors such as freshness, storage conditions, crop variety, soil conditions, weather conditions and how animals are fed. So all crops and animals will therefore vary in nutritional content to some extent!

Pesticides
Some consumers buy organic food to limit their exposure to these residues, however experts have concluded that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables actually poses very little health risk.

Before a pesticide is approved to be used in farming, it is rigorously assessed to ensure that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, and that if any pesticide residue is left in the food, it will not be harmful to consumers.

All fruit and vegetables – organic or not organic need to be washed before being eaten as organic foods could contain bacteria from the manure used to promote plant growth, which could also pose a health risk.

Quality and Appearance
Organic foods meet the same quality and safety standards as conventional foods. However there is a difference in the way food is produced, processed and handled. Organic products may last shorter than conventional foods as they are not treated with wax or preservatives.

Environment
Some consumers like to buy organic food for environmental reasons. Organic farming practices are designed to benefit the environment by reducing pollution and conserving water and soil.

Cost
Organic foods tend to cost more than conventional food products.

Higher prices are due to more expensive farming practices lower crop yields.

Taste
Taste is a subjective and personal consideration. Some people say that you can taste the difference between organic and non organic food; others say they find no difference, so it is important to decide yourself which you prefer. However whether you buy organic or not, finding the freshest foods available will have the biggest impact on taste.

Buying tips
Whether you’re already a fan of organic foods, a food safety fanatic, or you just want to shop wisely, here are some tips that you may want to consider:

Buy fruit and vegetables in season: This will ensure that you are buying food of a highest quality. If there is one close by, get to a farmers market where you can purchase fresh fruit and veg.

Read food labels carefully. Just because a product says it is organic or contains organic ingredients it isn’t necessarily “healthy” or a “healthy alternative”. It is still possible for organic foods to be high in salt, sugar and fat.

Don’t confuse natural foods with organic foods – Foods labelled with “natural” are often confused with the word organic, but these don’t mean the same thing!

Wash all fresh fruit and vegetables thoroughly: Whether it is organic or not, it is important to wash all fruit and vegetables in running water to reduce the amount of dirt and bacteria on them; you may need to use a small scrubbing brush to remove all the dirt (i.e. for potatoes).

If you are worried about pesticides, it is recommended that you peel your fruits and vegetables and trim outer leaves of leafy vegetables in addition to washing them thoroughly. However it is important to remember that peeling vegetables may also reduce the amount of fibre and nutrients in the fruit or vegetable.

There may also be pesticide residue in the fat on meat, so it is recommended that you remove fat from meat and the skin from poultry and fish. This will also mean you are eating less saturated fat which is always a good thing!

References:
1) Thomas B, Bishop J. Manual of dietetic practice.4th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2007
2) Geisller C, Powers H. Human Nutrition. 11th edition. Elsevier Ltd. 2006
3) Burke L, Deakin V. Clinical Sports Nutrition. 3rd ed. Australia. McGraw- Hill Australia Pty Ltd., 2006.
4) Burke L. Practical Sports Nutrition. Human Kinetics, 2007.
5) Clark Nancy. Nancy Clark’s Sports Nutrition Guidebook. 4th ed. Human Kinetics, 2008
6) Foods Standard Agency: Eat well, Be well. Organic.
http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/labellingterms/organic/

Leave A Comment »

How to have an egg-stra healthy Easter

Posted in Dinner, Easter, nutrition with tags , , , , on April 1, 2010 by Ki Fit

For any weight conscious person the annual choc-fest of Easter can quite frankly be a nightmare. Even if you’re the Scrooge of Easter, chocolate eggs somehow manage to sneak themselves into the house. But panic not… here are a few tips on how you can still be healthy over the Easter holiday season.

Start your day right

Ensuring you have a nutritious breakfast is the best way to start any day. It will boost your metabolism, help regulate your blood sugar levels as well as your appetite for the rest of the day. Fill yourself up with a big healthy breakfast. If you want to stick with the Easter theme enjoy a boiled egg and soldiers (made from whole-grain toast of course)!


Healthy eating is pretty much a matter of tweaking traditional holiday foods. Here are some tactics on how to have a healthy roast dinner:

  1. Go lean on the protein:
    When buying lamb, try and opt for the leanest cuts. These are the leg cuts (sirloin and shank). Avoid cuts with excessive fat or with fat that looks crumbly, brittle and yellowish. Shoulder lamb is the fattiest lamb cut.
  2. Vegetables are part of the roast dinner deal:
    Ensuring that you have hearty servings of vegetables at your meals is Ki (couldn’t resist that pun!) for weight management, as vegetables contain the fibre. Fibre keeps you fuller for longer. Choose vegetables that are deep in colour such as broccoli, carrots, peppers, tomatoes and spinach. For your starch, try roasted butternut or sweet potato instead of creamy mashed potatoes.

Keep it sweet

The idea isn’t to banish all chocolate out of site, as it only leaves you feeling deprived and craving for it! Rather, follow these healthy eating tips to avoid the chocolate overkill:

  • Opt for a dark chocolate instead of milk chocolate. Dark chocolate has half of the sugar that milk chocolate contains and is also a source of minerals such as magnesium and copper.
  • If you struggle with portion control then buy mini eggs rather than the massive luxury eggs.
  • Have hollow eggs rather than eggs with a creamy or caramel centre as these are more calorific.
  • Melt your eggs to make a chocolate dip and dunk fruit pieces to make a healthy snack.
  • As a break from the chocolate, enjoy a hot cross bun, but go easy on the butter!

Whatever your plans, indulge a little, welcome Spring with open arms and have an active (be sure to use Ki Fit to tell you just how much movement you need to do!) and happy Easter!

Leave A Comment »

Chewing the fat

Posted in health, nutrition with tags , , , on March 24, 2010 by Ki Fit

Fat finds itself in the spotlight once again. One minute we are being urged to avoid it and told that very low fat diets are the way to go; the next we are encouraged to gorge on it, Atkins style. The conflicting viewpoints on fat are like a ping-pong game, aren’t they?

That said however, throughout fat’s fluctuating popularity, there has been one constant: that saturated animal fats are bad news for the heart. But it now seems that even this conventional wisdom is a big fat lie?! Have a look at this link:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/food/articles/2010/02/24/the_ongoing_arguments_over_our_consumption_of_saturated_fats/
Well if that is the case, current fat recommendations will be turned upside down! With articles like this one bombarding us day in and out it’s no wonder there is confusion out there. What do you believe? What is “good or bad” fat? What exactly are we allowed to be eating? Is it butter or margarine? Full cream or semi-skimmed milk? Grizzly fat on steak allowed or not? Crispy chicken skin, to eat or not to eat? Read on to find out what you should really be doing.

Some background
Over the past 30 years health experts have been advocating the need to eat less animal fat. Yet despite this move away from saturated fat there seems to have been no effect on the lowering of the incidence of cardiovascular disease. In fact, in parallel years the levels of obesity and Type 11 diabetes have soared, especially in children. As a result, experts are now being forced to ask whether saturated fats deserve the bad rapport they have had and if efforts to lower dietary fat (particularly saturated fat) have caused a whole new set of chronic disease problems.

The study that has caused the stir was a meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies (review of a population studies). The study stated, “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. However (and this is the important bit, that I will touch on later!) more data is needed to elucidate whether Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.”

What science says:
Numerous trials and studies have been done in this area. The results have been interesting and are summarised below:

1) An American physiologist Ancel Keys was the first to come up with the diet-heart hypothesis in the 1950’s after some of his research showed that a high intake of animal fat not only raised cholesterol levels but was also strongly linked to heart attacks. In one of his studies (the Seven Countries study) he looked at 15 populations in seven countries and found that the amount of fat and the type of fat people ate affected the levels of CVD. From this research he drew further correlations which prompted health experts to recommend that saturated fat intake should be reduced (those found in butter, lard and fatty meat) in favour of monounsaturated fats (olive oil, sunflower oil and corn oil) and polyunsaturated oil (oily fish, linseeds, flaxseeds). Many who are skeptical about fat’s role in heart disease claim that gaping holes exist in this initial research that led to saturated fats being branded a killer! The Intuits’ for instance eat a lot of animal fat yet do not have high rates of heart disease, how does one explain that?

2) One of the biggest studies carried out that looked into heart health was the US Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) which consisted of almost 500,000 women, over 8 years. Initially this study looked at the effect of the reduction in the total dietary fat on heart disease. However, a recommendation after the study had started was to look at types of fat rather than just total fat. This was done in the Dietary Modification Trial. Findings from this trial showed that women who made the biggest reductions in their dietary levels of saturated fats also had the biggest reductions in their blood “LDL” cholesterol (or “bad” cholesterol). A low blood level of LDL cholesterol is associated with a lower risk of problems such as heart attacks. A major limitation of this trial was that it did not examine the impact of the currently recommended low saturated diet on heart disease. This is now the big question scientists are asking.

3) The INTERHEART study enrolled 12,461 patients who had suffered a heart attack, from 262 medical centres in 52 countries. Controls were 14,637 healthy people without heart disease. The study concluded that reducing the intake of saturated and trans fats, replacing them with poly- and monounsaturated alternatives, such as olive, rapeseed, nut and seed oils was the way to go for a healthy heart.

4) A meta analysis (review of studies) of 27 studies published by the British Medical Journal in 2001 concluded that although there was “still only limited and inconclusive evidence of the effects of saturated fat on cardiovascular disease, however they still did advise a permanent reduction of dietary saturated fat”.

What does this all mean?

a) Summary of the scientific evidence:

It is really difficult to prove causal links between diet and disease as there are so many confounding factors involved. There is good evidence that excessive amounts of saturated fat increase the risk of heart disease, but its only ONE of the factors. We shouldn’t be completely avoiding all forms of saturated fat. There are different forms of saturated fat and some have stronger associations with heart disease than others. The fat in red meat for example is a form called stearic acid and isn’t linked to heart disease whereas the types of saturated fat (lauric and myristic acid) found most commonly in “tropical” oils (i.e. palm kernel and coconut) and in dairy products have a much stronger association with heart disease.

Although cheese, whole milk, beef, poultry and pork all contain some saturated fat, these foods also contain a diverse mixture of other fats including monounsaturated fats and polyunsaturated fats. This varied mixture of fats may be one of the reasons why it is hard to prove a direct link between saturated fats and heart disease. It is therefore important to focus on saturated fat in the context of the whole diet.

The findings in the controversial study are definitely interesting but it is important not to take every finding you read at face value. Sometimes health messages get distorted and misinterpreted. The study did also state that “more data is needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat”, and on this basis still advised a reduction of dietary saturated fat. However, this little yet important bit was left out.

b) Explanation for the whole new set of chronic diseases that have arisen as a result of reducing saturated fat intake:

What has happened to consumers in an attempt to cut down on the consumption of butter, lard, suet and other saturated animal fats are two things:

- Firstly, they have switched to margarine and spreads made from trans-fats. Trans-fats have since been found to be more harmful than saturated fats on diabetes and heart disease.
- Secondly, consumers have started eating copious amounts of commercially made low fat foods that are higher in sugar and fructose corn syrup. Eating too many high sugar foods leads to high calorie intakes, increased levels of blood sugar and triglycerides which again in turn increase the risk of diabetes and heart disease.

The Ki Fit Team’s take home message:
Negotiating this fat maze is not easy. At the end of the day it all boils down to the “m” word. Moderation. We definitely don’t need to avoid animal fat completely and there is no reason why we can’t have moderate amounts of it in our diet. Too much of any type of fat day after day will result in obesity which is itself a risk factor for heart disease as fat is an energy dense molecule. The aim of the game should therefore be to ensure that your overall fat intake is within healthy limits.

Fat Fact : The current UK health recommendation is to get no more than 35% of your total calorie intake from fat. No more than 11% of that should be saturated fat derived from animals. Trans- fats should not provide more than 2% of a person’s dietary energy intake. The upper limit for fat intake for women is therefore a daily total of 70g of fat (20g of which can be saturated) and for men 95g (30g of which can be saturated).

Learning to decipher fat figures is a good skill to have. According to the Foods Standard Agency, a high-fat food contains 20g or more of total fat (5g of saturated fat per 100g). Look for instead for foods that are low-fat containing 3g of total fat (1.5g of saturated fat) or less. And a word of warning, just because a food is 90% fat free it does not mean you can eat yourself silly. Check the label as the food may not even necessarily be low fat. In some cases, low fat foods are high sugar-so therefore high in calories too.

References:
1) Thomas B, Bishop J. Manual of dietetic practice.4th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2007
2) Geisller C, Powers H. Human Nutrition. 11thedition. Elsevier Ltd. 2006
3) Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr .2010
4) Keys et al. The Diet and 15 year Death Rate in Seven Countries Study. AJ Epid. Vol 124. No 6: 903 – 915
5) Yusaf S et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004.

Leave A Comment »

Ground breaking results from a 2 year clinical trial

Posted in Clinical study, Recent Research, Weight Loss, Weight loss goals with tags , , , , on March 17, 2010 by Ki Fit

It is so exciting to be able to announce some ground breaking results from a clinical trial unveiled recently by Ki Fit’s strategic partner BodyMedia Inc. Known as the Lifestyle Education for Activity and Nutrition for a Leaner you (LEAN), the trial is evaluating the impact of wearing the armband monitor on weight loss over a 2 year period.

The results are incredible. They show that participants who used the armband either in conjunction with a group weight loss program or as part of their own self led program, lost up to three times more weight than individuals who strived to beat the bulge solo. These are very encouraging and promising outcomes for Ki Fit customers who are trying to manage weight.

Keen to know more? Here’s the low down……

Study Background:

The trial followed 197 overweight or obese men and woman aged 18 – 65, who had access to the internet and were not engaged in an exercise program or formal weight loss program from February 2008 to December 2009. The participants were divided into one of the four groups:

1) Individuals following a group weight loss counselling program:
2) Individuals following a group weight loss counselling program combined with an armband;
3) Individuals using the armband alone;
4) Individuals who received only a weight loss manual (served as a control group).

The results:

They speak for themselves really … have a look below (click on image to enlarge):

In a nutshell the results provide fresh proof that the armband has a profound impact on weight loss. People wearing the armband while participating within a group weight loss program lost up to three times as much weight as the participants who did not use the technology during the study. For those people who were not part of the group session but who used the armband monitor, the results were equally as encouraging. These participants lost more than twice as much weight as those without the benefit of the technology. Nifty, yet unbelievably powerful little tool isn’t it?

The take home message:
It is clear from these results that using the Ki Fit armband empowers people in their weight loss journey to make sustainable lifestyle changes and therefore improve their overall health and vitality.

So be motivated…. become empowered… take control of your weight and transform your body shape for LIFE! Success is at your fingertips with Ki Fit!

Leave A Comment »

ON YOUR BIKE!

Posted in Activity, Cycling, Exercise, health with tags , on March 8, 2010 by Ki Fit

It’s a cycling revolution! It’s hard not to notice that more-and-more people are getting back to basics and cutting their carbon footprints. Cycling has boomed in the last 5 years in Great Britain, and more recently, Transport for London has introduced a new scheme called Cycle Hire, which will be ready this summer. Cycle Hire will be a public bicycle sharing scheme for short journeys in and around central London and is based on a pick-up -drop-off self-service system that operates 24 hours.

Besides doing your part for Mother Earth, cycling is also a great form of exercise that packs in a mighty punch in the form of a host of health benefits like:

 Cycling boosts cardiovascular health
Cycling is an energetic form of exercise that boosts the health of your heart by causing it to pump faster. Regular cycling can protect you from heart disease and other related conditions such as high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.

 Cycling promotes aerobic health
Research has indicated that moderate cycling significantly improves aerobic health. According to this, cycling four times a week for six weeks improved the aerobic health of the cyclists by as much as 11%. By improving your aerobic condition, you can do daily tasks more easily (like climbing stairs!)without getting tired or breathless.

 Cycling helps maintain a healthy body weight
Obesity is a by-product of modern day sedentary living. It is also a major risk factor for a host of chronic diseases including heart disease, diabetes, and depression. Cycling is a simple and easily accessible form of exercise that successfully burns calories and helps maintain weight. Cycling for about 30 minutes, five times a week may provide you with enough exercise to help you keep those extra pounds off and remain healthy.

 Cycling conditions your muscles, making them stronger and leaner!
Cycling exercises predominantly the lower body, however it’s also known to strengthen arms and the back too. Varied routes, like hills, can really work the legs and when out the saddle, cycling becomes a total-body workout!

 Cycling improves co-ordination and balance
Keeping balanced on your seat whist pedalling the legs is an excellent exercise for challenging co-ordination and balance (your core!). This in turn improves mobility and reduces the chances of injuries due to accidents such as slipping or falling.

 Cycling relieves depression
Being physically active is not only good for the body, but also the mind! Enjoying regular cycles can improve moods and self confidence. This helps to fight stress and is an antidote to depression.

 Cycling is easy!
Almost everybody – irrespective of age or health status – can take up cycling. It does not require any fancy equipment or specialised technique. It is also a relatively safe exercise that is also ideal for people with arthritis in the leg joints who do not cope very well with full weight-bearing exercises such as jogging.

 Cycling gets you from A-to-B, costs nothing AND saves you time!
Cycling is also a means of transport, and those using it can get their required exercise merely while commuting from one point to the other without having to spend extra time on a more formal exercise routine. Best part, it’s free! Your travel expenses will disappear and you can save some pounds (the good kind!)

 Safety
Cyclist safety is NUMBER ONE! Not only does this cover protective gear, like a helmet (compulsory!), but also road safety rules, cycle guidelines and riding behaviour. It’s also important to consult your doctor: While cycling is relatively safe, if you are new to it – or are taking it up again after a long lapse – it may be better to consult your doctor first to ascertain if it would be safe for you.

In November 2009, The Guardian reported an alarming sharp rise in cyclist deaths and serious injury numbers, according to the figures released by the Department for Transport . They reported 820 cyclists were killed or seriously injured in the three months to June 2009, a 19% increase on the same period of 2008. More minor injuries rose 7% over the same period. The reporter echoed cycle campaigners warning that such figures should be taken with caution as they can be easily skewed and when taken without the context of an expected surge in rider numbers for the period, the figures are quite hollow.

Safety issues are constantly rose, however CTC policy co-ordinator, Chris Peck, reminds us that cycling remains a fundamentally safe thing to do, particularly when the health and environmental benefits are considered. Chris states further that it’s perhaps the less experienced riders that can be less safe in areas such as road sense.

What’s amazing is that for the first time in years, people are realising that they can make a difference…and cycling seems to be the difference. So what are you waiting for? Get On your bike!

Here are some really useful websites, packed with info and help for novice and experienced cyclists alike:

TFL Cycling – http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/11598.aspx

Cycling England – http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingengland/

CTC – the UK’s national cyclists’ organisation – http://www.ctc.org.uk/

Leave A Comment »

Food intolerances: Posh-Sounding Pickiness?

Posted in Dieting, Newspaper Article, health, nutrition with tags , , , , , on February 25, 2010 by Ki Fit

Very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph about food intolerances (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/maxpemberton/7168007/Food-intolerance-the-new-epidemic.html). Even more amusing, were the comments and lashings out in response to the article. Hot stuff!

The article describes food intolerances as “a new epidemic that is gripping the nation, a result of fad-diets and pseudo-science that surrounds nutrition, a reaction of people demanding attention… a posh sounding pickiness!” An entertaining read for sure but one thing that definitely stands out is the air of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding food allergies and food intolerances. For example, a lot of readers who commented and got really heated up were people who suffered from food allergies (although the article is about food intolerances).

This blog aims to help set the record straight about what is what, so that if you suspect that you have an allergy or intolerance know what you should and shouldn’t be doing.


Food Allergy, Food Intolerance – Is there a difference?

Food allergies and food intolerances are very different and it’s important to distinguish between the two.

A food allergy is an immune system reaction to a particular food or more specifically a protein in a food that is known as an allergen. As part of this response antibodies are produced and this leads to a complex chain of events that result in the release of substances such as histamine. The release of histamine causes symptoms of allergy such as eczema, asthma, rhinitis, conjunctivitis. Most common allergens are: cows’ milk, eggs, shellfish, peanuts, soya and wheat.

Interesting points about a food allergy:

  • It produces distinctive symptoms, usually within seconds or minutes.
  • In extreme cases, it can be life-threatening (i.e. anaphylaxis which is a fatal condition where your body goes into shock and that can lead to death).
  • It doesn’t depend on the amount of food eaten. A tiny trace of the problem food can cause a reaction.
  • The problem food is never craved.

A food allergy is classed as a type 1 allergy, which means that the immune system produces antibodies called IgE antibody in response to the allergen. The involvement of the immune system in food allergies means that there are some clear diagnostic tests that can be used in conjunction with clinical history to diagnose a food allergy. The conventional allergy testing methods are Skin Prick Test, Blood Tests (Radio Allergo Sorbent Test (RAST) or Multi-Allergen Screening Test (MAST), food challenges, food exclusion and reintroduction.

A food intolerance on the other hand does not involve the immune system and is rarely life threatening. A food intolerance is an inability to digest a particular food properly. This means that symptoms of a food intolerance are usually limited to the digestive system (vomiting, diarrhoea). The most common example of a food intolerance is lactose intolerance – where the body doesn’t produce sufficient lactase, the enzyme that is responsible for the breakdown of lactose, the sugar found in milk.

Interesting points about food intolerance:

  • It produces delayed, long lasting symptoms which mainly involve the digestive system. Food intolerances can also manifest in other ways like migraine headaches and skin rashes however, that is another whole entire blog topic!
  • It is never life-threatening.
  • It usually depends on the amount eaten. A reasonable portion of food is needed to cause a reaction.
  • The problem food may be craved.

The first step in diagnosing a food intolerance is to consult your doctor. Your doctor should then make a diagnosis or determine if further dietary or medical assessment is needed to make the diagnosis.

The only reliable way to determine if diet plays a role is to be placed on a temporary “elimination diet” under the supervision of a dietitian and medical practitioner. What happens during this process is that the suspected food is excluded for a period of time (say two weeks) and symptoms are observed and recorded in a detailed diary. If the symptoms improve then the suspect food is re-introduced. To avoid the psychological cause for reaction that may occur with food intolerances, sometimes the food given is disguised so that you don’t know whether you are eating the suspected food. However if the symptoms return when the food is re-introduced then the subject is considered to have an intolerance to that particular food.

Further medical assessment may include the some of the following tests:

  1. Hydrogen Breath Test: This test is used to identify lactose intolerance. A breath sample is collected and tested for the presence of hydrogen. Normally very little hydrogen is detected in the breath. A solution containing lactose is drunk and then breath samples are collected every 15 minutes for 2 hours to detect any increase in hydrogen in the breath as the solution is digested. Increased hydrogen breath levels indicate improper digestion.
  2. Blood tests: These can look at a number of different parameters. For gluten intolerance (coeliac disease) for example they look for antibodies that the body makes in response to eating gluten such as tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTGA) or endomysial antibody (EMA).
  3. Gut biopsys: A biopsy involves an endoscope being passed through your mouth and stomach into the gut. It is done using an anesthetic spray to numb the throat or with a sedative given by injection. Biopsies are collected and examined under a microscope to check for gut damage typical in coeliac disease for instance.

Unfortunately, a number of misleading tests have been promoted for diagnosing intolerances, in the absence of any credible evidence of their reliability. Below is a glimpse of these tests:

  1. IgG blood test: This blood test looks at IgG antibodies present in the blood. It is thought that an increase in IgG to a certain food indicates intolerance to that specific food. There is however ever limited evidence and research supporting this test and its validity in assessing an allergic reaction to a food or food intolerance.
  2. Kinesiology: This idea is based on the theory that certain food causes an energy imbalance in the body. This is detected by testing the response of the muscle. Typically in a consultation you would have to hold a suspect food in one palm and the therapist would then test the muscle response. The result of such a session can lead to the exclusion and elimination of many foods in the diet. However, research has shown clearly that this test is no better than chance and is therefore definitely not an accurate method of detecting ones tolerance to a food.
  3. Hair analysis: In this test, a small lock of hair is sent off to a laboratory and analysed for heavy metals such as lead and mercury. The theory to this test is that these heavy metals cause food intolerances. However there is no known scientific basis for this test and it is also not an accurate method of detecting ones tolerance to food either.
  4. Leucocytotoxic or Cytotoxic test: In this test the white blood cells are mixed with the suspect food and if they swell up the test concludes that there is an indication of an intolerance/ allergy to that food. However, this test too has little scientific basis and rational and because of this is not recommended.
  5. Pulse test: The theory behind this test is that there is a connection between pulse and food intolerance. During the test, the pulse is taken before eating the suspect food and then fifteen minutes afterwards. An increase of ten beats per minute would indicate a food intolerance. However, research shows that is no connection between an increased pulse and food intolerance and therefore using this test as a diagnosis for allergies and food intolerances is not recommended.
  6. Electrodermal (Vega) test: This test measures the electromagnetic conductivity in the body. It is thought that an offending food will show a dip in the electromagnetic conductivity. Research studies show that there is no relationship between electromagnetic conductivity and food intolerance/allergy. The results of this test will therefore be more likely due to “chance”, than an actual intolerance therefore.


Ki’s Take Home Message:

Real food allergies and food intolerances do exist. And for those people who have to deal with them we have a great deal of empathy for you as having one can have a dramatic and deleterious impact on quality of life. Research has shown that genuine food hypersensitivity occurs in about 1.5-3.5 % of the adult population yet, one in five (20%) Britons now claim to have a food allergy or intolerance. These rising numbers imply two things. Firstly, that people are self diagnosing food allergies or food intolerances without actually getting a correct diagnosis. And secondly, that people are relying on diagnoses from non-validated scientific tests.

Self diagnoses leads to the unnecessary exclusion of food groups and a restricted and unbalanced diet. People need to realise is that if not properly managed, avoiding wheat or dairy for instance can have a massive impact on nutritional intake and quality of life and should not be undertaken lightly or without a confirmed diagnosis. Another concern with self diagnoses is that it could mask a different illness which then remains undiagnosed and untreated (like Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Inflammatory Bowel Diseases).

New complementary tests often indicate that you are intolerant /allergic to a whole host of things, when you actually aren’t. Treatment based on these inaccurate results is therefore misleading, and often results in multiple food groups are excluded for long periods of time unnecessarily. In the short term, your metabolism takes a knock in the wrong direction; energy levels are dampened and your general well being… well? What well being?! In the long-term you put yourself at high risk of having a nutritional deficiency.

We are definitely firm believers in every person being different, but at the end of the day as fantastic and inspiring as personal testimony / anecdotal evidence can be it is no substitute for scientific evidence. There are many con tests out there that lack any scientific rationale, so be weary. If you suspect you have an allergy or an intolerance we would strongly recommend that you seek appropriate and substantiated medical assessment and also the correct nutritional advice to ensure that your diet is well balanced, tasty and varied. Life is too short to live on lettuce and brown rice if you don’t have to- isn’t it?

For further information contact Ki Performance.

References:

  1. Thomas B, Bishop J. Manual of dietetic practice.4th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2007
  2. Geisller C, Powers H. Human Nutrition. 11th edition. Elsevier Ltd. 2006
  3. Sampson, H (2004) Update on food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol;113:805-819
  4. Atkinson W., Sheldon T.A., Shaath N., Whorwell P.J. (2004) Food elimination based on IgG antibodies in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 53: 1459-1464
  5. Ernst E. (2000) The role of complementary and alternative medicine. BMJ 321: 1133-1135
  6. Ives A.J. and Hourihane J. O’B. (2002) Evidence-based diagnosis of food allergy. Current Paediatrics 12: 357-364
  7. Niggemann B. and Gruber C. (2003) Side-effects of complementary and alternative medicine. Allergy 58: 707-716
  8. Niggemann B. and Gruber C. (2004) Unproven diagnostic procedures in IgE-mediated allergic diseases. Allergy 59(8): 806-808
  9. Pothmann R et al (2001) Evaluation of applied kinesiology in nutritional intolerance of childhood. Research in complementary and natural classical medicine 8(6): 336-44
  10. Teuber S.S and Porch-Curren C (2003) Unproved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to food allergy and intolerance. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 3(3): 217-221

Leave A Comment »

Low Carbohydrate-High Protein Diets Under The Spotlight

Posted in Dieting, Weight Loss, Weight loss goals, calories, health, nutrition with tags , , , , , , , on February 15, 2010 by Ki Fit

Unless you’ve been living on Mars, chances are that you would have heard (and probably know someone) who advocates for low carbohydrate – high protein diets as the solution for rapid and effective weight loss. Recent media reports have again been extolling the virtues of these Atkins type diets. The word on the street at the moment is that low carbohydrate – high protein diets are the way forward for people with high blood pressure.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8478629.stm.

Really? Is this really true? Should we be ditching the toast and jam and feasting on bacon and eggs fried in butter instead to stay trim and have a healthy blood pressure? Time to find out! The Ki Fit experts have put “low carbohydrate – high protein diets under the spotlight” and here’s the lowdown……

The theory:

The theory behind low carbohydrate (carb) – high protein diets is really quite simple. If dieters avoid foods containing carbs (like starches or sugars) they will shed the pounds. The diet therefore eliminates or dramatically restricts the intake of fruit, fruit juice, starchy vegetables, beans, bread, rice, cereals, pasta and other grain products leaving a limited diet of foods that contains primarily fat and protein ( like meat, cheese, non-starchy vegetables and very little else!). As the diet proceeds the carb restriction relaxes somewhat but fatty, high-protein foods continue to dominate the dieter’s plate.

Cutting carbs out the diet forces your body to burn its fat stores to provide it with energy to the extent that the body goes into ketosis. Ketosis is an abnormal condition in which a carbohydrate – depleted body resorts to fuelling the brain with ketones (a fuel created when protein is burned for energy). The production of ketones suppresses appetite, which also means you eat less and therefore you lose even more weight!

What science says:

Numerous trials and studies have been done comparing the effect of low carb – high protein diets to low fat diets on weight loss. The results have been interesting and are summarised below.

1) The effect of low carb – high protein diets on weight loss:

  • A summary of results from some well designed studies have shown that in the first three months subjects who followed low carbohydrate diets lost an average of 6.8% of their body weight in comparison with a 2.7% loss in the low fat group. Similar results were seen after six months in both groups. However, (and this is the important bit to note!) after 12 months both groups had regained some of the weight lost and the low carbohydrate group gained a higher proportion of the weight that was lost, thus making the difference of weight lost no longer significant.
  • A meta-analysis of 107 research studies on various low – carbohydrate, high-protein weight-loss diets concluded that weight loss on these diets is not due to any special effect of restricting carbohydrate; rather, weight loss depended on the extent to which the dieters’ caloric intake fell and how long they continued with their regimens.
  • Another review that looked into the safety of low carbohydrate diets showed that low carb – high protein diets are at a greater risk for being nutritionally inadequate. The researchers also raised the issue of potential long-term health effects (colon cancer, diabetes, kidney disease) of following these diets for prolonged periods of time.

What does this all mean?

Well, low carb – high protein diets may out perform in the very short term, most probably due to depletion of glycogen (carbohydrate stores) and consequently water and muscle protein. However, in the long-term many studies indicate that these diets are not sustainable and may pose some side effects and risk factors. Weight loss is ultimately about energy balance and there is no special weight-loss advantage from the restriction of carbohydrates. If you want to lose weight it is far more important to be in control of your energy balance and to make lifestyle changes as this will result in sustainable weight loss.

2) The effect of low carbohydrate – high protein diets on high blood pressure:

The claim made in the media about low carb – high protein diets being good for high blood pressure was taken from research that was carried out in North Carolina and published in a recent journal (Archives of Internal Medicine). The findings and interpretations of the study are as follows:

Background information to the study:

  • 146 subjects were allocated either to a low carbohydrate diet or to orlistat (weight loss drug) treatment combined with a low fat diet (less than 30% energy from fat, 500-1,000kcal/day energy deficit). The low carbohydrate diet involved unlimited meat and eggs, cheese and low-carbohydrate vegetables with no restriction to calorie intake. The study was for a 48 week period.
  • The primary outcome of interest was body weight , but blood pressure, fasting cholesterol and blood sugar were also assessed. Diet adherence was measured using four-day food records completed by the participants. Urinary ketones (compounds that are increased when consuming an Atkins – style diet) were assessed as a measure of compliance to the low-carbohydrate diet. A higher level of ketones indicates greater compliance. All participants were assessed in their designated treatment groups, regardless of whether they completed treatments.

Results of the study:

  • Of the 146 people included, 77% completed the study. At two weeks, 72% of the low- carbohydrate groups had high urinary ketones. This declined to 13% at 48 weeks, suggesting that fewer people were complying with the diet by that time.
  • Weight loss, the primary outcome, was similar for both groups.
  • Compared with the orlistat/low-fat diet, the low-carbohydrate diet was shown to be better at lowering blood pressure and improving blood sugar control.
  • There were similar improvements in high-density lipoprotein (“good” cholesterol) in both groups, but low-density lipoprotein (“bad” cholesterol) levels decreased in the orlistat/low fat diet group only.

What does this all mean?

Interpretation of scientific research should always be done with care. Very often study outcomes are taken out of context and the conclusions are distorted and this is actually what has happened in the recent media reports. This is why:

  • The main outcome that the study above was to assess weight change. This was the same between both groups at the end of the study. The study therefore doesn’t provide evidence that the low-carbohydrate diet is better than the low-fat/orlistat combination diet.
  • What the press has done is to focus on the finding that the low-carbohydrate diet reduced blood pressure to a greater extent. However, although the low-carbohydrate diet was associated with improved results for some outcomes (such as blood pressure), other outcomes were better with the low-fat/orlistat diet (such as improved lipid profile). What mores, there are a considerable number of statistical tests that were carried out for other outcomes (that were not the prime focus of this study) which reduces the reliability of these results.

The take home message:

There is definitely a lot of conflicting evidence out there about low carb – high protein diets. What can be said is that following one in the short-term will lead to weight-loss: no questions asked. But in all honesty, most fad diets can result in weight loss, if you can stick to them without losing motivation. With any weight loss program what is far more important is that any changes made in eating habits for weight loss are sustainable and agreeable with long term health. There is growing evidence that low carbohydrate, high protein diets are unable to support this.

One of the main drawbacks of following a low carb – high protein diet is that the long-term health effects have not assessed. Carbohydrates form an important food group and abstaining from them for a long period of time while substituting fat and protein will at some stage have some repercussions in one form or another.

But at the end of the day the choice is yours. In five, ten, twenty years time would you rather be crippled by the potential physical side effects of a low carbohydrate, high protein diet for the sake of a few more pounds of weight loss in the short term… or be slim, vibrant and physically fit, after following a well-balanced diet that involves some lifestyle changes such as moving more and learning to eat the right amount of the correct foods. The choice is yours at the end of the day… we know what we would choose!

References:

  1. Dansinger ML et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 293(1):43-53, 2005.
  2. Sacks FM et al. Comparison of Weight-loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, protein and carbohydrates. New England J of Med. 360(9): 859-870.Feb 2009
  3. Foster G et al. Randomised Trial of a low Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity. J New English Medicine. Vol 348: 2082-2090. May 2003
  4. Yancy Jr WS, Westman EC, McDuffie JR et al. A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet vs Orlistat Plus a Low-Fat Diet for Weight Loss. Archives of Internal Medicine 2010; 170: 136-145

Leave A Comment »

Butt versus Gut!

Posted in Education, Recent Research, Weight Loss, Weight gain, health with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on February 3, 2010 by Ki Fit

Most of us know that abdominal obesity is used an indicator of chronic disease risk, but what about those saddle bags on our bottoms? A recent review (published in the online edition of the International Journal of Obesity January 2010) suggests that fat around the thighs and buttocks may be better for you than a bulging gut….and even more shockingly; a bigger buttocks may even protect your health!

Before we dive into this fantastic revelation for the bigger-bottomed, it’s worthwhile just taking a quick look at why abdominal obesity is so bad. Visceral fat – fat around the organs – actually produces chemicals (cytokines) that cause inflammation, a key player in all those troublesome and dangerous diseases. Cytokines are small, secreted proteins that ordinarily, produce and regulate immunities and inflammation. Adipose cells (the cells that make-up fatty tissue) increase in size, not number as more fuel is presented to the body for storage. As adipose cells grow larger, they produce more cytokines, leading to more inflammation. If that’s not enough, there are macrophages (white blood cells) amongst the adipose cells, which also produce cytokines.

The inflammatory response is a classic immune system mechanism – its chief role is to protect us against and remove unwanted invaders, as well as initiate the healing process for the tissue. Macrophages are the immune system’s first line of defense, patrolling the body for infection and cleaning up after cells as they naturally die off. So why does this happen in response to our fat bellies? Simple – our metabolic and immune systems are bound together.

When a person stretches beyond a healthy weight, a different set of complications emerges from the immune/metabolic relationship, the most worrying – excess inflammation. Why it happens…well that’s the shocking part! As we get heavier, adipose cells begin to balloon with excess fat and cytokine production increases. This is paralleled by an increase in macrophages. Ordinarily these are our little lifesavers, however for overweight people; they are responsible for producing more inflammation promoting cytokines than the adipose cells themselves! For someone who’s been overweight or obese for a prolonged period, the inflammation response becomes chronic and is almost always accompanied by tissue destruction. The most well-known outcomes of obesity-related (systemic) inflammation are insulin resistance (as seen in some Type 2 Diabetics) and atherosclerosis.

So why is being bigger-bottomed a good thing? The team of British researchers responsible for this recent claim has reviewed an impressive database of studies, which have included a wide (pardon-the-pun) range of population groups, age, BMI and co-morbidities. “It is the protective role of lower body, that is, gluteofemoral fat that is striking,” commented the team. They looked specifically at how body fat distribution influences metabolic and cardiovascular risk, and how the waist-to-hip ratio correlates to development of these diseases and mortality. People with more gut relative to butt fat have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity-related conditions.

The researches, based at Oxford University, had some startling conclusions. Feast your eyes on what they had to say!

  1. Increased gluteofemoral (aka buttocks & thigh) fat is independently associated with a protective lipid and glucose profile, as well as a decrease in cardiovascular and metabolic risk
  2. Women tend to store more lower-body fat than men, and are at lower risk of heart disease (than men) until they reach menopause. Only at this later stage in life does a woman’s fat distribution change, leaning heavily towards gut rather than butt.
  3. In men, fat gravitates towards the center because testosterone inhibits the activity of lipoprotein lipase (LPL), an enzyme that plays a role in breaking down fat in the thigh.
  4. On a typical day-to-day level, the fat in our bellies in MORE metabolically active than the fat clinging to our thighs. This basically means that fat can accumulate more easily around the tummy (and be metabolized more quickly) than the fat around our bottoms.
  5. So while lower-body fat is harder to put on and take off, it doesn’t release harmful cytokines like that seen in the visceral fat. So less cytokines means less inflammation, which means less risk in developing chronic diseases.
  6. Leptin and adiponectin hormone levels are positively associated with lower-body fat. Leptin involved in regulating energy intake and expenditure, where adiponectin regulates a number of metabolic processes, including glucose regulation and fatty acid breackdown, and plays an important role in suppressing metabolic abnormalities that may result in diseases like type 2 diabetes, obesity and artherosclerosis.
  7. Lastly, with loss of gluteofemoral fat (due to disease, like Cushings’ Syndrome), metabolic and cardiovascular risk increased

Back in the day, the purpose of fat storage was to get us through those harsh months of drought or winter, but in today’s world, survival from food shortages is…well…guaranteed thanks to our chip-chomping ways. The bottom line is, even though there may be some health benefit in having a bigger bottom, it’s still best advised to keep your butt and gut under control and maintain a healthy weight.

Main Resource

Manolopoulos, KN, Karpe, F & Frayn, KN. Gluteofemoral body fat as a determinant of metabolic health. Int J Obes. Online edition: 12 January 2010.

Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries