The New Way to Lose Weight

Everyone burns fat differently. So how do you know which method will work for you? Our special report on finding a diet that's just your size.

The search for the perfect diet has never been more frenzied. Eat low-carb! No, eat low-fat! But beyond the hype, and the billions spent on weight-loss products, a revolutionary idea is catching on with researchers: the notion that no two individuals lose weight the same way. Each person has a hidden key to weight loss.

Some people find this key on their own. Steven Wallach, for example, spent most of his 40s gaining weight after an injury sidelined him from exercise. At 47, he was, literally, fed up -- with pasta, potatoes and bagels -- and more than 30 pounds overweight. "I didn't look or feel as good as I wanted to," admits Wallach, a jeweler in the New York City suburbs. He buckled down to a strict Atkins diet plan, cut out his beloved starches and within five months dropped 30 pounds. Another five came off when he took up running. A year later, his weight has stabilized and he considers himself a lifelong convert. "I could eat this way forever," he says cheerily as he digs into his scrambled eggs.

For Katie White, 27, a San Francisco bookkeeper, the weight-loss process was entirely different. She didn't want to eliminate whole food groups, so decided instead to reduce her portion sizes. She swapped fast food for simple home-cooked meals that she'd learned from her mother and grandmother while growing up in Brooklyn. White snacked on fresh fruit and was "religious" about her daily regimen of sit-ups. She dropped 20 pounds her way -- a way she could live with and not feel deprived.

It's possible that neither Wallach nor White would have succeeded on the other's diet plan. They are living proof of what diet experts are coming to believe: One diet does not fit all. Each of us has markedly different indicators that influence how quickly we gain weight, and how hard it will be to lose it. In addition to the basics, such as height and age, scientists now realize our gender, genetics, metabolism, muscle mass, ethnicity, willingness to exercise, lifestyle, attitude and even where we live all come into play. This idea runs counter to what most diet-book authors or pricey weight-loss centers preach: that their plan is the key to the kingdom of the slim. A custom-fit diet not only makes sense, it's also good news for the dieter who couldn't lose weight on this year's fad, or who took off pounds quickly and then gained them back (and more).

That message couldn't come at a more opportune time, as Americans continue their climb toward universal pudginess. Since the '70s, obesity rates have doubled and fully two-thirds of the country is overweight. Even more alarming: The number of fat kids has tripled in the past 30 years. The problem reaches beyond vanity, since diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and some forms of cancer are associated with obesity.

The individualized approach to dieting has powerful proof at the Weight Loss Registry, a roster of successful long-term dieters started 12 years ago. To be included, members must have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for at least a year. At 4,800 members, the Registry is now the largest collection to date of long-term weight-loss data, says its cofounder James Hill, PhD, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center and co-author of The Step Diet Book. The Registry's key finding, he reports, is that "there are a lot of different ways to lose weight." The Registry entrants did "low-carb diets, low-fat diets, diets based on the food pyramid, the grapefruit diet, the beer diet ... it's amazing how many different plans worked."

Even the venerable weight-loss program at the Duke Diet and Fitness Center in Durham, North Carolina, which recently had only a single low-fat, low-salt plan consistent with American Heart Association guidelines, now gives patients choices. "As of last year, we offer a wider range of options, including three different versions of low-carb diets," says Howard Eisenson, MD, the center's director. "There has been emerging research showing that some people do very well with those plans."

What Kind of Car Are You?
While all of us require regular fueling and maintenance, just like cars, we're made to different specifications. Some of us are trim, fuel-efficient Hondas; others are wide-bodied, gas-guzzling Hummers. "Eventually we will be able to identify dozens of different types of obesity, and therefore dozens of ways of treating it," says C. Wayne Callaway, MD, an endocrinologist and weight specialist at George Washington University. In his practice, he sees people who have insulin resistance (a condition in which the body becomes less sensitive to insulin and begins to overproduce it to compensate); genetic variations in the autonomic nervous system that favor storing more abdominal fat; and people whose metabolisms have temporarily slowed while dieting. While some of these patients might need one of the few FDA-approved prescription weight-loss drugs, many will benefit from a diet that works with their body and lifestyle.

The human machine also contains a computer (otherwise known as the brain) that supplies the other half of the weight-loss equation. Eating is an emotional, cultural and personal experience, not just fuel.

What type of diet should a person choose? That question hit home with Gary Foster, PhD, clinical director of the Weight and Eating Disorders Program at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who compared low-fat and low-carb regimens. Though still a firm proponent of low-fat "heart healthy" diets, Foster found, in a recent study he headed, that after one year of adherence, the two diets offered equal benefits in pounds lost -- but those on the low-carb plan had greater improvement in some heart-disease risk factors such as cholesterol levels. (Experts caution, though, that the long-term safety of low-carb, high-protein diets is unknown.)

"On a low-fat diet there's a lot of counting calories, fat grams, fiber, sodium," says Foster. "But some people like the freedom it provides to choose what to eat as long as they keep track of it. Others would prefer a simpler plan like Atkins, where you just count one thing: carbs."

7 Tests for the Perfect Diet
How do you find a healthy way of eating you can live with long-term? Experts suggest an inventory of physical and psychological factors, based on the following easy self-exams:

The Glycemic Index
If you tend toward abdominal fat, crave starches and sugars, and have a fasting blood- sugar count of more than 100 (measured in a routine blood test), says Callaway, you may be insulin resistant. You'll probably respond best to a low-carb diet, because cutting back on simple carbohydrates -- especially sugars and starches -- can often help stabilize blood-sugar and insulin levels.

The Exercise Equation
Active people, says David Schlundt, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at Vanderbilt University who specializes in weight disorders, might consider a low-fat diet that includes complex carbs. "You need glycogen for athletic performance, and it's harder work for your body to take in a lot of protein and convert it to glucose," he advises.

One thing all researchers agree on, however, is that everyone who wants to lose weight should get some exercise. "In our studies," adds Schlundt, "people who exercised as well as dieted lost more fat and less muscle." The one similarity among dieters catalogued in the Weight Loss Registry, says James Hill, is that they all combined dieting with regular exercise.

The Meal Monitor
Do you hate breakfast? Avoid lunch? Skipping meals or undereating slows your metabolism and blurs the chemical signals for hunger and fullness. "You can stabilize your neuropeptide Y levels, the 'hunger' chemical, by eating at least a third of your calories at breakfast and another third at lunch," says Callaway. Complex carbs are good, especially early in the day. They rev up the metabolism, replenish the body's need for glycogen and they digest slowly, which keeps you feeling full longer.

The Broccoli Barometer
What foods do you love and hate? You can't disregard this factor or you'll never be able to live with your diet. Vegetarians, for instance, will have a hard time following Atkins because of its reliance on meat. You'll do better with a calorie-controlled, low-fat diet that allows for fruits, vegetables and complex carbs. On the other hand, if you'd rather give up pasta than steak, pick a low-carb option.

The All-or-Nothing Question
Some people do best depriving themselves of foods they crave, so they aren't tempted, which may be why some bread and cereal lovers are converts to a low-carb plan.

The Stress Test
If you feel hungry often and like to snack, or if you tend to use food for comfort, consider a low-energy-density plan like the one endorsed by the Mayo Clinic. Although suitable for anyone, this diet is particularly good for people who are emotional eaters, explains Donald Hensrud, MD, a weight-management specialist at Mayo. "People eat until they're satisfied or full," he points out, and you can eat more in terms of volume on this plan. The Clinic has come up with its own Healthy Weight Pyramid, emphasizing fruits, vegetables and whole grains. An emotional eater, says Schlundt, will also do better reaching for low-energy-dense snacks like fresh fruit, a treat that might be off-limits for a low-carb dieter.

The Convenience Quiz
The Mayo Clinic is also studying a Slim-Fast-based diet to see if busy people will do better on a simple, ready-made plan. If you want a no-brainer diet, a meal-replacement regimen or a system like Jenny Craig's could be right for you.

Remember that gender makes a difference too. "Men tend to have an easier time losing weight because they usually have more lean muscle mass, which means they burn more calories," says Hensrud. This can be frustrating, Schlundt points out, if a couple diet together, and he loses weight faster. Another truth, Hensrud adds, is that women who are dieting seem to enjoy group support like a Weight Watchers program, while men may prefer being tough and doing it on their own.

The Diet for the Future
Will this new research lead to the end of dieting as we know it? It might loosen the stranglehold of the mega-diets like Atkins and South Beach. In any case, the Weight Loss Registry points out that although people lose weight by all different methods, they tend to keep it off in remarkably similar ways. Overwhelmingly, Hill says, successful dieters follow four rules in their maintenance phase:

• Eat breakfast.
• Eat a calorie-aware, moderately low-fat diet that includes complex carbs.
• Get plenty of exercise at moderate intensity. Walk!
• Self-monitor through frequent weigh-ins and a food and exercise diary.

Sound doable? You may have just caught a glimpse of a slimmer future.
From Reader's Digest, January 2005

Health Quackery: Spotting Health Scams

You see the ads everywhere these days — “Smart Drugs for Long Life” or “Arthritis Aches and Pains Disappear Like Magic!” or even testimonials claiming, “This treatment cured my cancer in one week.” It’s easy to understand the appeal of these promises. But there is still plenty of truth to the old saying, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!”

Quacks — people who sell unproven remedies — have been around for years. Today they have more ways than ever to peddle their wares. In addition to TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, infomercials, mail, and even word-of-mouth, they now can use the internet — websites offer miracle cures; emails tell stories of overnight magic. Sadly, older people are often the target for such scams. In fact, a government study found that most victims of health care fraud are over age 65.

The problem is serious. Unproven remedies may be harmful. They may also waste money. And, sometimes, using these remedies keeps people from getting the medical treatment they need.

What Do Quacks Promise?

Unproven remedies promise false hope. Often they offer cures that are painless or quick. Why do people fall for these sales pitches? After all, at best these treatments are worthless. At worst, they are dangerous. One reason health care scams work is that they prey on people who are frightened or in pain. Living with a chronic health problem is hard. It’s easy to see why people might fall for a false promise of a quick and painless cure.

You may see unproven remedies in products for:

Anti-Aging. Claims for pills or treatments that lead to eternal youth play on the great value our culture places on staying young. But, aging is normal. A product may smooth your wrinkles, but no treatments have yet been proven to slow the aging process. Eating a healthy diet, getting regular exercise, and not smoking are your best bets to help prevent some of the diseases that occur more often with age. In other words, making healthy lifestyle choices can increase your chances of aging well.

Arthritis Remedies. Unproven arthritis remedies can be easy to fall for because symptoms of arthritis tend to come and go. You may believe the remedy you are using is making you feel better when, in fact, it is just the normal ebb and flow of your symptoms. You may see claims that so-called treatments with herbs, oils, chemicals, special diets, radiation, and other products cured arthritis. This is highly unlikely. Individual testimonials alone do not guarantee that a product is effective. Instead, scientific studies proving that a treatment works are needed. While these products may not hurt you, they are costly and aren’t likely to help much either. There is no cure for most forms of arthritis, but rest, exercise, heat, and drugs can help many people control their symptoms. If you are thinking about a new treatment, talk with your doctor first.

Cancer Cures. Quacks prey on people’s fear of cancer. They promote treatments with no proven value — for example, a diet dangerously low in protein or drugs such as Laetrile.
By using unproven methods, people with cancer may lose valuable time and the chance to receive a proven, effective treatment. This delay may lessen the chance for controlling
or curing the disease.

Memory Aids. Many people worry about losing their memory as they age. They may wrongly believe false promises that unproven treatments can help them keep or improve
their memory. So-called smart pills, removal of amalgam dental fillings, and brain retraining exercises are all examples of untested approaches that claim to help memory.

How Can You Protect Yourself From Health Scams?

Be wary. Question what you see or hear in ads or on the internet. Newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV stations do not always check to make sure the claims in their ads are true. Find out about a product before you buy. Don’t let a sales person force you to make a snap decision. Check with your doctor first.

Remember stories about the old snake oil salesman who traveled from town to town making claims for his fabulous product? Well, chances are today’s quack is using the same sales tricks. Look for red flags in ads or promotional material that:

$ Promise a quick or painless cure,

$ Claim to be made from a special, secret, or ancient formula — often only available by mail or from one sponsor,

$ Use testimonials or undocumented case histories from satisfied patients,

$ Claim to be effective for a wide range of ailments,

$ Claim to cure a disease (such as arthritis or cancer) that is not yet understood by medical science,

$ Offer an additional “free” gift or a larger amount of the product as a “special promotion,” or

$ Require advance payment and claim limited availability of the product.

http://www.niapublications.org/engagepages/healthqy.asp

Vitamin C and DNA Damage: Real Danger or False Alarm?

24 July 2001
by Wyn Snow, Managing Editor

http://www.supplementquality.com/news/vitaminC_DNA.html

Once again, headlines are suggesting that taking vitamin C supplements could pose a health risk, but surprisingly, behind the headlines is the fact that this "health risk" is based on the results of one study (published in Science on 15 June 2001). Here's how major media outlets played the story:

Vitamin C Supplements May Be Harmful -- from ABCnews.com

Vitamin C Can Damage DNA, Study Shows -- from Reuters Health (Yahoo news)

Vitamin C Found to Promote Cancer-Causing Agents -- from Reuters (Yahoo news)

Vitamin C May Be Two-Edged Sword -- from HealthSCOUT.com

and even that source of all the news that's fit to print, The New York Times, said:

Vitamin C Pills Tied to DNA Risk -- from NYTimes.com

It seems a safe bet that most Americans saw at least one of these reports. But are the headlines right? Are we risking DNA damage by taking vitamin C supplements?

Study looked at vitamin C in test tube

It turns out that the Science study is of general interest, if only for the way it shows how vitamin C behaves in a test tube under unusual conditions. But that has almost no relevance to what happens inside a living body.

The study's lead author, Ian Blair PhD, tried to calm the media reports. In an interview with Better Nutrition magazine, Blair said, "The study is being over-interpreted. I've been trying to de-sensationalize the paper by referring people to other studies that have not found direct evidence of vitamin C supplementation preventing cancer." Also, Reuters said that Blair told them, "Absolutely for God's sake don't say vitamin C causes cancer."

To answer concerns raised by these headlines, SupplementQuality.com went to the world leaders in vitamin C research: the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University. They had already posted an analysis of the Science article on their website. We summarize their points here. (See also the link to their full analysis in our list of Sources, below.)

Test tube results not always relevant to living cells

The Science study created an environment in a test tube -- combining vitamin C with rancid (oxidized) fat molecules. Any test tube situation is relevant to human biochemistry only insofar as it mimics the conditions inside a living cell. The test-tube setting of this study varied significantly from in vivo conditions in several important ways:

The study used a concentration of fat molecules that is approximately 10,000 times more intense than has ever been found in a living body.

Living cells also contain enzymes that change rancid fat molecules into harmless "alcohols" within a fraction of a second -- which means that the fat molecules are no longer "there" to react with any vitamin C that is also in the cell. (In the Science study, the interaction between vitamin C and fat molecules was conducted over a two-hour period.)

Perhaps most telling of all, studies at the Linus Pauling Institute have shown that fat molecules in blood serum don't become rancid until vitamin C has been exhausted. In other words, vitamin C protects fat molecules from becoming rancid in the first place -- so they never coexist!

Similar controversy emerged in 1998

In 1998, a team of British scientists at the University of Leicester gave 500 mg of vitamin C to 30 healthy subjects every day for six weeks. They then examined two markers of DNA damage in the blood of their subjects -- finding that one went up while the other went down -- and published this finding in the Correspondence section of Nature on 9 April 1998. This report also made headlines as "Vitamin C Can Cause Cancer" -- and was soon heavily critiqued by other vitamin C researchers.

The controversy exists because vitamin C -- like other antioxidants -- becomes a weak free radical (or pro-oxidant) right after it neutralizes a dangerous free radical. At this stage, vitamin C and other antioxidants do have the capacity to damage DNA. However, antioxidants work together to restore each other back into fully potent antioxidants, so this weak free radical stage is very brief.

Many methodological problems were present in the research reported in Nature. At the very least, there are roughly twenty markers for DNA damage that are appropriate to examine. Of the two that the British researchers looked at, the marker that went down is some 10 times more dangerous than the one that went up. Also, the methodology they used to extract DNA from the cells is known to produce false results!

Bruce N. Ames, PhD, of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the world's most distinguished scientists, bluntly characterized the Nature research as "bad science." Ames also notes that roughly half of all chemicals, both synthetic and natural, cause DNA damage -- including compounds found in most fruits and vegetables. However, the friendly chemicals in these substances far outweigh the dangerous ones; the preponderance of research finds that eating more fruits and vegetables is beneficial to our health.

Evidence leans toward vitamin C as cancer-fighter

According to the Linus Pauling Institute, many animal and cell culture studies have shown anti-cancer effects of vitamin C. The vitamin has also been used therapeutically in human cancer patients with some apparent benefit.

Diets rich in vitamin C lower the risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke and other chronic degenerative diseases. Also, the body does not distinguish between vitamin C from fruits and vegetables and the synthetic form found in supplements.

The bottom line? Evidence indicates that you will do yourself a lot of good by taking vitamin C supplements, and certainly no harm!

Vitamin C is one of the safest supplements. How much to take, however, is a controversial question. The RDA is set at 90 mg/day for men and 75 mg/day for women. According to the federal Institute of Medicine, healthy adults can safely consume as much as 2,000 mg/day; some experts believe the safe upper level is considerably higher.