by Joan Kent | Apr 17, 2018 | Health and Wellness, Master Instructor Blog
Let’s use this post on labeling loopholes to cover three of them. The first is glycerin.
Glycerin (or glycerol) is an alcohol. It’s not like ethanol, so it won’t give you a buzz, but it is an alcohol.
So what? Maybe you haven’t heard of it or haven’t paid much attention to it, but it’s used as a sweetener. It’s in many foods — including about 99.999% of the food bars that are so convenient and far too numerous to name individually. It’s always in the ingredient lists because the FDA insists, but that’s where the disclosure seems to end.
Things may get fuzzy once you check the nutrient counts. If you were ever geeky enough (yes, that would describe me) to do the arithmetic and calculate the calories of fat, carbs and protein in a glycerin-containing food bar, you might notice a discrepancy between the carb numbers you calculated and the label count of carbs per serving. According to Mendosa.com’s Diabetes Update, about half the glycerin-containing bars that were tested were off in their nutrient counts.
Why is that? Glycerin/glycerol doesn’t fall into the reported categories. Strictly speaking, it’s not a carb, not a protein, not a fat, so it doesn’t have to be counted in with any one of them.
What that technicality allows the product developers and packagers to do is make claims on the label, such as “low carb” or “no carbs”. They can say “low sugar” or “sugar-free.” The claims are considered true because glycerin isn’t any of those.
But it’s definitely a sweetener — and often high on the list of predominant ingredients. The product developers know that, of course, but some are willing to keep consumers in the dark because it might limit sales if everyone understood how much sweetener they were getting in the bars. Don’t be fooled.
A second labeling trick is how sugars are placed on ingredient lists. Several bars use a variety of sweeteners and list each of them separately. (I’ll blow the whistle on Cliff Bars because I’ve counted between 9 and 13 different sugars on their labels. At last count, there were no exceptions.)
This practice may encourage the “casual” label reader to skip over many of the sugars (such as “cane juice”) or simply remain unaware of how much sugar is in the bar as a whole. If all the sugar in the bar came from the same source, it would have to be first on the list as the predominant ingredient. Separating the sugars prevents that.
Here’s another labeling trick, although it’s not really about nutrition.
Does anyone besides me remember the “large economy size”? You may already have noticed that unit prices on large sizes are sometime higher than on smaller sizes. Shoppers who are hurried or shopping with young children may not bother to check the unit pricing. They buy the large size because they need that quantity and also — out of cultural habit — expect the larger size to be a better value.
Product developers are paid to know all of these things and help food companies take advantage of it (and us). The only way to prevent it is to remain aware.
More rants to follow.
by Joan Kent | Mar 15, 2018 | Engage Your Students, Health and Wellness, Instructor Training
Clients ask me about lactose all the time. A brief survey of facts about lactose had to begin with milk.
Many books and articles exist on the health problems associated with milk. They include breast, prostate and ovarian cancers; allergic reactions in infants; and increased risk of bone fractures, type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, acne, ear infections, and constipation.
Obviously, the health hazards of milk deserve a full discussion of their own.
Monsanto has had a hand in this, but for brevity, this post will address lactose only.
Lactose Intolerance
Lactose intolerance is an inability to digest lactose, the sugar in milk and other dairy products. It’s caused by a deficiency of lactase, the enzyme necessary for breaking down lactose.
The result will typically be gastrointestinal symptoms and signs, such as bloating, flatulence, diarrhea, nausea and even vomiting.
Lactose intolerance may be genetic, cultural (occurring more frequently in cultures that don’t rely on dairy products as a food source), and even exposure-related. Those accustomed to consuming dairy products frequently, especially as children, may experience higher tolerance overall.
Age can be a factor, as well. Some clients have noticed GI distresses due to dairy products as they get older.
Rates of lactose intolerance may range from 5% in northern European countries to as much as 90% in African and Asian countries, where milk and other dairy products are not consumed.
Some anti-dairy articles recommend milk products for Scandinavians only — and not even all Scandinavians, just blond-haired ones.
Is Lactose Hiding In Your Food?
Unexpected foods may contain lactose. A client who was working hard to get away from sugar had planned to try stevia, but reported to me that she couldn’t use it because she was lactose intolerant.
That made no sense until the next time I visited Trader Joe’s, which is where the client had gone for her groceries. Trader Joe’s carries 2 types of stevia. One is in a small plastic bottle that contains 100% pure stevia. The other is in a much larger bottle and contains stevia plus lactose as a sweetener.
Now, I just don’t get adding sweeteners to sweeteners, but I’m the die-hard Sugar Patrol, so don’t ask me. People even add sweeteners to fruit — frozen, canned, dried, baked — another thing I don’t get. But I digress.
At any rate, there’s more to be said about stevia, since some people may have a sugar reaction to it. That can include, but is not limited to, later cravings for sugary foods. But let’s save the stevia discussion for yet another post.
Bottom line, lactose is an added sweetener used in certain foods. Read all labels.
When Clients Quit Sugar, What Happens?
This brings us to Lactose as Sugar.
As a sugar addiction expert, I’ve seen a common pattern in client food logs. Someone who’s in the process of kicking sugar might start eating more milk products — cheese, yogurt, cottage cheese, and so on.
It’s worth noting and stopping if you’re serious about quitting sugar.
As mentioned above, the negative heath consequences of dairy products are many. Whether you’re lactose intolerant or not, subbing lactose for the sugars you’re trying to quit can and will be counterproductive. Lactose can have the same effect as any other sugar on someone who is sugar-sensitive.
If you’re quitting sugar, quit lactose, too. Your vigilance will reward you.
by John | Feb 12, 2018 | Health and Wellness, Instructor Training, KEEPING IT FUN, Latest News, Master Instructor Blog, Strength Training
This is interesting to me. Why choose to study this?
Talk about opening “Pandora's Box” – this is bound to get a few conversations going…
Cameron Chinatti from Stages Indoor Cycling alerted me to this. ACE (American Council on Exercise) published a scientific study that looked at the effectiveness of pedaling backwards. Please download the PDF and read it in it's entirety, so you have a complete understanding of the purpose and results of the study.
That ACE chose to study this at all is very interesting (and a bit confusing) to me. We've all been taught that we should always pedal forward and never backwards. So what's the point looking into this activity? The intro talks about the potential cross-training effects. Oh, and there's a quick bit about how variety can help prevent boredom…
Discussing this topic, I felt I needed to break it down to these three questions:
- Is backwards pedaling beneficial?
- Is backwards pedaling safe?
- Should you consider adding backwards pedaling to your classes?
#1 Is pedaling backwards beneficial?
In the conclusion of the study, ACE says:
The Bottom Line
This study showed that pedaling backward on the Cascade cycle elicited higher heart-rate and energycost values than pedaling at identical workloads in the forward direction. The increase in physiological response was reflected by higher muscle activation of the quadriceps muscles (vastus medialis, vastus lateralis and rectus femoris), which is consistent with the subjects’ descriptions of feeling like they had to “pull” the pedals when cycling backward. “The concept of specificity tells us that pedaling forward should still make up the vast majority of a cyclist’s training,” explains Dr. Porcari, “but the subtle differences in muscle activation seen when pedaling backward can be very beneficial.” Dr. Porcari recommends treating backward pedaling as a change of pace and a form of cross-training that better targets the quads. Maria Cress, a member of the research team for this study, points out that by improving quadriceps strength by pedaling in the backward direction, cyclists will experience improved strength for regular cycling. “They will be able to work at a higher workload at a lower RPE and heart rate,” says Cress, “which means that incorporating backward pedaling into your routine will eventually make pedaling forward mentally and physically easier.”
So the researchers are saying backwards pedaling is beneficial. These folks from UWL are exercise scientists after all and include Dr. Carl Foster. Dr. Foster's research has validated most of the zone based heart rate training you've learned – regardless of the source.
#2 Is backwards pedaling safe?
Let's start with this. All of the Indoor Cycling certifications recommend against pedaling backwards. But here's where my confusion comes in… why would ACE even consider studying and publishing this? They have to know that there will be many Instructors who will read this and think; “ACE isn't concerned about pedaling backwards, so I don't need to be either!”
I can already see the responses on Facebook; “ACE doesn't know what they're talking about… they don't understand cycling like Spinning®/Schwinn/Keiser/Stages/etc..
So why wasn't ACE concerned?
ACE quotes the manufacturer of this recumbent:
The Cascade CMXRT recumbent exercise bike is designed to mimic the real road feel of cycling outdoors. Its website says that the bike offers “quiet bi-directional resistance [that] lets you pedal forward and backward throughout the whole 360-degree pedal stroke for a more effective workout.”
I'm guessing that ACE saw this and thought; “you can pedal their bike both directions. Let's use it to see if backwards pedaling is beneficial.” Except…
ACE is mistaken about this part.
The Cascade recumbent is fixed gear drive
In the sidebar included in the study, ACE makes this comment:
Of course, bike safety is another issue entirely. Before telling participants in a group exercise class or a personal-training client to start pedaling backward, be sure that the bike you are using is designed to do so. It is important to note that this research was not conducted on a fixed-gear cycle, but rather on a specifically designed recumbent bike that provides resistance in both directions.
As you can see in the above screenshot from Cascade's website that their recumbent does have a fixed gear drive system, just like every other Indoor Cycle – the one exception being CycleOps which uses a freewheel.
What ACE should have highlighted is this recumbent uses magnetic resistance, combined with an aluminum flywheel. The eddy currents that create the magnetic resistance don't care which direction the flywheel spins = that's where the provides resistance in both directions comes from. The aluminum flywheel is light enough that it doesn't create the huge rotational momentum (and resulting “run-away flywheel” effect) experienced with a friction resistance system that uses a heavily weighted flywheel.
There isn't anything special/unique in use here. All of the Indoor Cycling brands (FreeMotion/ICG/Keiser/Schwinn/Stages offer a similar magnetic resistance. So it's my view that this experiment could have been conducted on any ICs with magnetic resistance and ACE would have seen similar results.
Quick side note: I jumped on my personal indoor cycle that has magnetic resistance and a Stages Power Meter, to try backwards pedaling. Believe it or not, I'd never, ever tried this before. The Stages Power Meter did display cadence, but the watts stayed at zero. So no backwards pedaling, power training for me 🙁
What struck me was how I felt everything flipped; where I could add the most force was lifting my lead foot, as it came forward and up. Pushing down seemed very awkward and I didn't feel I could apply much pressure.
#4 Should you consider adding backwards pedaling to your classes?
I wouldn't. There doesn't appear to be enough positive benefits, in contrast with the possible injury. Not to mention pedaling backwards just looks wrong/goofy, So I can't see including it in my class.
If you are thinking; “My class is super experienced and we'd like to try this”. I'd love to know your experiences.
One more note: I briefly rode this recumbent cycle when I was at IHRSA. The manufacturer, Cascade Health and Fitness, and ICI/PRO are currently conducting a small study of our own. We have two clubs who are using recumbents, along with conventional indoor cycles, to see if they can be successfully integrated together in a group class. Our objective is to see if adding a few recumbents can make classes more accessible, to people who have physical limitations that prevent them from riding a stationary bike.
by Joan Kent | Dec 6, 2017 | Health and Wellness, Master Instructor Blog
By Joan Kent
One significant reason for sugar cravings is withdrawal. Withdrawal can promote cravings under various circumstances.
If someone has recently stopped drinking alcohol, cravings for sugar can be strong and frequent. This involves the brain chemicals stimulated by alcohol. The same three chemicals (dopamine, beta-endorphin, and serotonin) are also stimulated by sugar.
The similarity makes sugar a short-term substitute for alcohol when cravings occur. It also explains why people in recovery from alcohol (or drugs) may crave sugar and may eat it often or in large quantities. Or both.
The phenomenon is so common that AA meetings typically feature back-of-room treats that are laden with sugar: cookies, brownies, cakes, pastries. That approach can backfire, but we’ll get to that in a moment.
If someone is addicted to sugar, quitting sugar can lead to cravings. The effect may sometimes be similar to the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal or opiate withdrawal — and also similar to the symptoms of hypoglycemia (low blood glucose).
(As a side note, I postulated years ago that hypoglycemia — especially reactive hypoglycemia, the rapid glucose drop following sugar ingestion in susceptible people — was a specific case of sugar withdrawal. Reviewing the lists below makes it seem there’s a case to be made for that.)
Research shows that cravings are highest when withdrawal is most severe. The higher the level of intake prior to abstinence, the greater the withdrawal and subsequent craving.
Anyway, let’s look at the symptoms in the different cases.
Alcohol withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, nervousness, depression, fatigue, irritability, shakiness, mood swings, nightmares, pupil dilation, clammy skin, headaches, insomnia, nausea, vomiting, sweating, muscle tremor, confusion, rapid heart beat.
Symptoms of hypoglycemia include shakiness, nervousness, anxiety, sweating, chills, irritability, confusion, rapid heartbeat, lightheadedness, dizziness, hunger, nausea, sleepiness, blurred vision, tingling or numbness in the lips or tongue, headaches, weakness, fatigue, anger, sadness, lack of coordination, nightmares, seizures, unconsciousness, confusion, difficulty speaking, night sweats, waking up tired, irritable or confused.
Opiate withdrawal symptoms include agitation, anxiety, muscle aches, eye tearing, insomnia, runny nose, sweating, yawning, abdominal cramping, diarrhea, dilated pupils, goose bumps, nausea, vomiting, fever.
Research on lab animals that have been made addicted to sugar lists withdrawal symptoms that resemble those of opiate withdrawal.
An internet search on symptoms of sugar withdrawal offers lists that include hunger and the desire for sugary foods; headaches; low energy, fatigue; mood swings, crankiness; muscle aches and pains; nausea and other gastric upsets; chills or sweating, especially at night; runny nose; yawning; insomnia.
As you can see, there is quite a bit of overlap in these various symptom lists.
So is sugar withdrawal just like withdrawal from opiates or alcohol? Some would say yes. Some would say that’s too big a stretch. After all, the body has only so many ways of expressing itself, so a similarity in symptoms doesn’t necessarily link them.
But we do know that sugar affects, either directly or indirectly, the same brain chemicals that are affected by alcohol and opiate drugs. As mentioned above, the similarity makes sugar a short-term substitute for alcohol.
However! Eating sugar when you crave either alcohol or sugar can backfire, due to a phenomenon known as priming (i.e., a little makes us want more).
Some people insist priming doesn’t apply to food, just to alcohol or drugs. Clinical experience shows that it does apply, and that avoiding possible priming cues goes a long way toward ending cravings. My advice would be to take priming seriously if you want to end sugar cravings.
[If you have students who need help dealing with sugar cravings and sugar addiction, please let me help. My new program, Last Resort Nutrition® with Joan Kent, starts soon. I also offer individual coaching.]
by Joan Kent | Nov 6, 2017 | Engage Your Students, Health and Wellness
“I don’t understand. She trains well.”
The program manager made that comment when a participant in our weight loss program didn’t get results. I was both an athletic coach and the lead nutritionist.
His comment exasperated me. Of course she trained well. She was an expert at that because of her food issues. She’d junk out, then “train well” to burn off the unwanted calories.
It wasn’t always the same ‘she’ — but she was typically a sugar addict. Sugar addicts don’t necessarily have difficulty training.
Training is the easy part. Early classes at the gym, hitting the weight room, weekend runs, core strength, scheduling with a trainer. No problem.
They don’t refuse to cooperate with the instructor. Workouts don’t threaten their addictive behavior.
The sugar addict wants to eat junk, work out to compensate for it, and keep the addiction going.
Nutrition Rules Push Sugar Addicts’ Buttons
Food guidelines, on the other hand, meet with stonewalling. My nutrition program — highly successful with most participants — annoyed the “resisters.”
I’ve posted about resisting weight loss, but one client kept demanding more and more specific instruction. Our guidelines were never good enough.
First, she claimed not to know what to eat. She wanted menus. When we provided those, she wanted more: exactly which foods to eat, exactly when to eat them, and precise quantities for her calorie and weight-loss needs.
The program manager saw this as our problem. I immediately recognized it as a smokescreen. “Until we provide those things,” he said, “she feels as if her program hasn’t begun.”
His comment was profound — but not in the way he thought.
Registering for a robust weight-loss program looks like a sincere desire to lose weight. Asking for more specifics seems like part of that sincere desire to lose — if you don’t know the games people will play to avoid doing the necessary work.
I’ve been around the defiance of resistant weight-loss clients a long time and see it differently: As long as we didn’t supply what she requested, that was her excuse not to change her eating. Not to give up pizza, margaritas, wine, or nachos. (All of these were in her seldom-kept food log.) Not to move forward — to any degree — until things suited her to a T.
If we had done everything she wanted, she would have had more complaints and more demands.
Bottom line? She saw the lack of personalized info as the chink in the armor, the point of attack. A good friend of mine who works as a life coach said, “It’s better for her if the program fails than if she does. Again.”
This life coach friend disliked many of her weight loss clients because of the games they played. Guess I’m not the only one who has noticed this nonsense.
Not all of you are coaching weight-loss clients, but if you are, here are a few suggestions.
– Encourage them to be honest.
What do they want? Whether their weakness is sugar, alcohol, butter, or something else, their goals should be what they really want.
It’s no crime for them to decide they don’t want to lose weight or end their food addiction.
– See the finish line with no time element.
I learned that from my ultra-endurance athletic coach. Don’t worry about fast results. These days, some people push rapid weight loss. That’s fine if the clients prefer, but there’s no race.
If it’s more comfortable to “set it and forget it”, they can decrease their calories by, say, only 200 to 300 per day. It will take longer to reach the goal, but that’s the only drawback. So what?
They do it daily, forget about it, and let the pounds melt slowly while they go about their business.
– If your client is addicted to sugar or other food, concentrate on the addiction first.
If the client takes on too much at once, it could sabotage the effort. Dealing with addiction first is a strong, solid step toward weight loss. Once eating is under control, the other goals will fall in place.
– Recommend qualified help and a proven system.
Everyone seems to have ideas on how to get rid of sugar cravings, and some of them are almost ridiculous. With the right help, it’s a straightforward process. The wrong advice can make it agonizingly difficult.
Suggest that your clients find a solid system and stick with it.
Save
by Joan Kent | Oct 16, 2017 | Health and Wellness, Master Instructor Blog
By Joan Kent
My last few posts have dealt with aspects of sugar addiction, including sugar’s effect on health. It’s important — you want to be healthy, right?
Still, I’ve avoided one topic because it’s almost guaranteed to alienate people — fructose. The sugar found in fruit. It’s nasty. We’ll get to the details on that soon enough.
Some people are surprised that fruit could be bad. After all, it’s natural. And whenever people talk about healthful eating habits, it’s one of the first things mentioned. “Eat lots of fruits and vegetables!” As if they’re equal. Fruits even come first in that recommendation.
I might agree with the recommendation in part, but would suggest limiting fruit servings to 1 or 2 per day. A serving is half a cup, or a medium-size fruit. Not much fruit, compared with vegetables. (You can go crazy with those veggies.)
I’ve always balked at “Five a day.” Once upon a time (pre-1991), the Basic Four Food Groups consisted of Meats, Milk Products, Grains, and FruitsandVegetables. The original 1991 Food Guide Pyramid was developed to give us a better idea of the relative proportions to eat. The second tier from the bottom was divided unevenly, into 2-4 fruit servings and 3-5 vegetable servings. Apparently, that was too nuanced, too specific. And so the slogan “Five a day” was coined, referring to the minimum number of servings of each and blending them back together, as in the Basic Four.
(I can’t even count the clients I’ve had who were more than happy to get their 5 a day from fruit and skip those pesky vegetables altogether. But I digress.)
The fructose takeover in beverages and prepared foods was designed to cash in on the lower cost of fructose, and the image it had as a “healthy sugar”. Sucrose (granulated table sugar) was seen as unhealthful. Yet fructose has negative health implications, some more serious than others. All of them contribute to a negative picture overall.
What does fructose do that’s bad for our health?
It’s cariogenic, so it causes cavities. It triggers sugar cravings in susceptible people.
It’s frequently malabsorbed, leading to abdominal complaints (bloating, flatulence, diarrhea). Many people are unable to completely absorb fructose in the amounts commonly found in high-fructose corn syrup products.
Due to rapid utilization by the liver, fructose has multiple metabolic effects. Long-term fructose use can lead to high triglycerides, an independent risk factor for heart disease.
Fructose can also decrease glucose tolerance and raise insulin levels. (If that sounds as if it could lead to insulin resistance and diabetes, you’re right.)
Whether people start with triglyceride issues or not, these changes are the expected results of increased fructose. People who respond to fructose normally show these changes at intakes of around 20% of total calories. Carbohydrate-sensitive people can show these negative responses to as little fructose as 7% of total calories.
Carbohydrate sensitivity is defined as exaggerated insulin secretion to sucrose, but fructose and other carbs can trigger the high insulin, as well.
Sucrose can cause many of these same effects. Sucrose is a disaccharide, half glucose and half fructose. ALL of these sucrose problems are attributed to the fructose in it, not the glucose. And no debate on this exists in the science journals.
So everyone agrees that fructose is what makes sucrose the junk that it is.
Fructose is ineffective as a pre- or post-workout fuel, and it actually does even more health damage than the stuff I’ve listed above. For example, both fructose and the sweetener sorbitol (converted to fructose in the liver) accumulate in the lens of the eye in diabetics, causing osmotic damage.
Let’s end instead by pointing out that even trending sugars can be junk. That includes agave, maple syrup, dates, and acai berries.
Getting away from fructose is a wise and healthful course of action. Because it may be difficult, though, cutting back on fructose could be seen as the final frontier in conquering sugar addiction.
Save
