Exercise is Important, But Beware of Claims that it causes Weight Loss (Unless Extreme)


Feb 7 2017

CBS Local Pittsburgh – It’s possible that weight loss isn’t directly pushed by

exercising, according to a study conducted by Loyola University of


Working out promotes good health across the board but not necessarily

weight loss. Losing weight includes burning calories, but when the body

burns more calories, the hungrier it gets leading those lost calories being

replaced. Studies have also confirmed that notion as well as burning

calories through exercise doesn’t make up the majority of your body’s

calorie burning.


“Our study results indicate that physical activity may not protect you from

gaining weight,” said Lara Dugas, lead author an assistant professor of

public health at the Loyola.

The study examined 2,000 people from five countries over three years.

They were measured by weigh ins and activity monitors.

“Researchers did not find any significant relationships between sedentary

time at the initial visit and subsequent weight gain or weight loss,” a press

release from the University stated. “The only factors that were

significantly associated with weight gain were weight at the initial visit,

age and gender.”


A new study found that not getting enough shuteye may cause us to eat nearly 400 calories more the following day


Reprinted from Huffington Post– Please read!  I have definitely experienced this myself!!

A new analysis of existing research found that not getting enough shuteye makes us eat more the following day ― nearly 400 calories more. And we tend to choose less healthy foods, too.

Over the long run those calories add up, according to Gerda Pot, the study’s author and a lecturer in the Diabetes & Nutritional Sciences Division at King’s College London.

“If long-term sleep deprivation continues to result in an increased calorie intake of this magnitude, it may contribute to weight gain,” Pot said. “And ultimately to obesity and [being] overweight.”

The new analysis pooled data from 172 people in 11 different studies that investigated how short sleep affected calorie intake. On average, the analysis found, people ate an additional 385 calories on the days after they hadn’t gotten a full night’s sleep ― ranging from 3.5 to 5.5 hours ― compared to days when they slept at least seven hours.

What’s more, when sleep deprived, people tended to eat more fat and less protein. That’s problematic because fat contains more calories per gram than protein and protein keeps you fuller longer ― so eating poorer quality calories therefore could be leading people to eat a higher quantity of calories overall, Pot said.

There are likely several reasons we tend to eat more when we don’t get enough sleep. One simple idea? “We simply have more hours to eat ― so more time to eat,” Pot said.

There is also evidence that short nights of sleep cause the body to produce more ghrelin (the hormone that tells us we’re hungry) and less leptin (the hormone that helps regulate energy and food intake and tells you when you’re full). And not sleeping enough throws off our circadian rhythm ― our body’s internal clock ― which also helps regulate when we’re hungry and when we eat.

The researchers acknowledge that the 400 extra calories our overtired selves eat per day (according to this study) may even be an underestimate because they only looked at lab-controlled experiments. So this data may not account for other real-life factors that affect how much we eat after a poor night’s sleep (we’re looking at you impulse, mid-afternoon pick-me-up brownie).

But the lab studies do allow the researchers to make a straightforward (and accurately measured) comparison of sleep time, calories consumed and calories expended.

And beyond this lab research, other studies have shown that being sleep deprived may make us more inclined to choose bigger portions and choose foods higher in calories and carbohydrates, too ― and make less healthy choices at the grocery store.

The bottom line: there’s likely several reasons we’re more likely to eat more when we’re overtired ― so it doesn’t hurt to pay extra attention to food choices if you know you’re not well rested. And feel good about catching all the Zs you need ― they could be helping prevent weight gain and obesity (and all the complications that come with both).

Sarah DiGiulio is The Huffington Post’s sleep reporter. You can contact her at


Neuroscientist Explains Why Diets are Fattening


I am delighted that Sandra Aamodt, Ph.D, a neuroscientist whose Ted Talk I have recommended many times, now has written a book called, Why Diets Make Us Fat.

It is great to have a common sense approach to eating and dieting supported by Dr. Aamodt.

For those of you who may have had doubts about my advice, check out her Ted Talk on YouTube

And remember:

  • Dieting makes you more likely to be heavier over time.
  • Dieting doesn’t work – 78.6 million Americans are OBESE and many of these obese people got there by yo-yo dieting.
  • Stress causes your body to release hormones that are related to weight gain.  Diets cause stress…. Hmm..

I created my workbook to guide you through the transition from diet mentality to healthy thin mentality. (Available on this site)  Also, please:

Subscribe to my YouTube channel for  for an upcoming series using my WorkBook as a guide. YouTube Page for an upcoming series using my WorkBook as a guide.

Help spread this message by sharing this page!



How Obeying Nutrition Research Backfires All The Time

scientist with money

For 25 years, I ignored my own body and listened to the the “expert of the day” to decide what to eat,  when to eat to and how much to eat.

Do not do this to yourself.

What seems like a simple, and harmless action– restricting calories, replacing food you love with “clean food” and ignoring hunger, is not harmless, it is destructive.

It fundamentally changes your relationship with food, eating and your body:

  • You become less able to “hear” hunger and satiety because you ignore it.
  • You reject your body’s ability to guide your eating and instead eat according to some stranger’s advice.
  • Instead of a stress-free relationship with one of life’s greatest pleasures, eating, you agonize over food, you weigh yourself before and after you pee, and you have several sizes of jeans in your  closet.

Why did I, (and why do you) put yourself through this?

Because we are trying so hard to do the right thing, to get healthy, to have a lean body we can proud of, to lose that baby weight, to get back into that pair of jeans, that we get desperate:

So we listen to advice that is propped up by a massive revenue machine: the diet industry.

But diet/nutrition research is flawed because researchers frequently have a corrupt agenda for the results they seek.   This leads to the ever changing “magic food” of the day- a la Dr. Oz.

  • They may truly believe that fats are bad and seek to prove that and ignore contradictory results
  • They may benefit financially for supporting a food group
  • Lobbyists for food/diet industries PAY for research and influence interpretations-yes even FDA research (See the Men Who Made Us Thin – BBC documentary of YouTube- 4 part series- eye opening…)

So your good intentions to follow smart scientists leave you, ironically, subject to bad advice.   If you doubt this, read this:  (It is also reprinted at end of this post)

And the vast majority of testimonies you see are not real.

Don’t swallow a testimony from a highly-paid celebrity!  They are paid millions!  She may have had weight loss surgery, liposuction, cool sculpting etc., and credit some diet because they are paying her millions.

So, may I “bottom line” this for you?

It is not reasonable to ignore your body’s voice to get to a healthy weight, a healthy relationship with food, and to enjoy eating.

In fact, respecting your body’s voice is the way to get there!  

It is in you, buried under a layer of deep diet mentality.  People, if I can get rid of mine, you can get rid of yours.  Mine was so so powerful.

I created a book and workbook to guide you through this.  Believe me, I am not doing this to make money off of you.  This is a passion for me.  I put it together to mimic how I made the transition.  It is the best gift you can give yourself.  I am starting to put it out on YouTube too.-  I will go through it week by week.  So, if you don’t want to spend money on the book- check out YouTube Diets Are Fattening.  But I do think that it is helpful if you use it in conjunction with the vids, I think it would be more powerful.

I will post on Facebook, Twitter and  when I have new vids up.

I am screaming this message! Below I have reprinted the article from The Washington Post that I mentioned earlier.


This study 40 years ago could have reshaped the American diet. But it was never fully published.

By Peter Whoriskey April 12

It was one of the largest, most rigorous experiments ever conducted on an important diet question: How do fatty foods affect our health? Yet it took more than 40 years — that is, until today — for a clear picture of the results to reach the public.

The fuller results appeared Tuesday in BMJ, a medical journal, featuring some never-before-published data. Collectively, the fuller results undermine the conventional wisdom regarding dietary fat that has persisted for decades and is still enshrined in influential publications such as the U.S. government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans. But the long-belated saga of the Minnesota Coronary Experiment may also make a broader point about how science gets done: it suggests just how difficult it can be for new evidence to see the light of day when it contradicts widely held theories.

The story begins in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when researchers in Minnesota engaged thousands of institutionalized mental patients to compare the effects of two diets. One group of patients was fed a diet intended to lower blood cholesterol and reduce heart disease. It contained less saturated fat, less cholesterol and more vegetable oil. The other group was fed a more typical American diet.

Just as researchers expected, the special diet reduced blood cholesterol in patients. And while the special diet didn’t seem to have any effect on heart disease, researchers said they suspected that a benefit would have appeared if the experiment had gone on longer.

There was “a favorable trend,” they wrote, for younger patients.

Today, the principles of that special diet — less saturated fat, more vegetable oils — are recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the government’s official diet advice book. Yet the fuller accounting of the Minnesota
data indicates that the advice is, at best, unsupported by the massive trial. In fact, it appears to show just the opposite: Patients who lowered their cholesterol, presumably because of the special diet, actually

suffered more heart-related deaths than those who did not.
The higher rate of mortality for patients on the special diet was most apparent among patients older than 64.

The new researchers, led by investigators from the National Institutes of Health and the University of North Carolina, conclude that the absence of the data over the past 40 years or so may have led to a misunderstanding of this key dietary issue.

“Incomplete publication has contributed to the overestimation of benefits and underestimation of potential risks” of the special diet, they wrote.

“Had this research been published 40 years ago, it might have changed the trajectory of diet-heart research and recommendations” said Daisy Zamora, a researcher at UNC and a lead author of the study.

The new research drew quick criticism, however, especially from experts who have been prominent in the campaign against saturated fats.

“The bottom line is that this report adds no useful new information and is irrelevant to current dietary recommendations that emphasize replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat,” Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at Harvard University, said in a blog post from the school. “Many lines of evidence support this conclusion.”

He characterized the new analysis of the old experiment as “an interesting historical footnote.” ***
[Related: The rapidly evolving science on dietary fat]

The new research will agitate the debate over one of the most controversial questions in all of nutrition: Does the consumption of saturated fats —the ones characteristic of meat and dairy products — contribute to heart disease?

It is, without doubt, an important question. Heart disease is the leading cause of mortality in the United States, and Americans eat a lot of red meat and dairy foods.

The federal government has long blamed saturated fats for health troubles, and it continues — through the Dietary Guidelines for Americans — to recommend that people limit their intake.

Indeed, the Dietary Guidelines continue to embrace the principles advocated by the Minnesota researchers from 40 years ago. The book advises Americans to limit their intake of saturated fats and to replace them at least in part with oils, just as the Minnesota experimenters did 40 years ago. More specifically, it advises Americans to consume about five teaspoons (27 grams) of oils per day, mentioning canola, corn, olive, peanut, safflower, soybean and sunflower oils.

“Oils should replace solid fats rather than being added to the diet,” it advises.

But the idea that spurning saturated fat will, by itself, make people healthier has never been fully proved, and in recent years repeated clinical trials and large-scale observational studies have produced evidence to the contrary. Whether cutting saturated fats out of your diet will make you healthier depends, of course, on what you replace them with.

“What this research implies is that there is not enough evidence to draw strong conclusions about the health effects of vegetable oils” Christopher Ramsden, a medical investigator at NIH and a lead author of the study, said in an interview. While urging caution in drawing conclusions about the new analysis, he said the research suggested

saturated fats “may not be as bad as originally thought.”

Ramsden and colleagues discovered the missing data during their research examining the potentially harmful effects of linoleic acid — a key constituent of most vegetable oils — on human health. Preliminary research suggests a link between linoleic acid and diseases such as chronic pain, Ramsden said, and humans have been consuming it in larger quantities than their bodies may be prepared for. Before the advent of agriculture, humans got 2 to 3 percent of their calories from linoleic acid, according to the new paper; today most Americans, awash in cooking oils and oils added to snack foods, get much more.

It’s not exactly clear why the full set of data from the Minnesota experiment was never published.

As research efforts on diets go, the study was rigorous. Funded by the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Heart Institute, it involved more than 9,000 patients who were randomly assigned to one of the two diets. Detailed measurements of blood cholesterol and other indexes of health were recorded.

Willett, the Harvard nutritionist, faulted the experiment because many of the patients were on the special diets for relatively brief periods – many were being released from the mental institutions. But about a quarter of the patients remained on the diet for a year or longer, and why such an apparently well-done study received so little fanfare is mystifying to some.

Wonkbook newsletter
Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.

Sign up

The results of the study were never touted by the investigators. Partial results were presented at an American Heart Association conference in 1975, and it wasn’t until 1989 that some of the results were published, appearing in a medical journal known as Arteriosclerosis.

The lead investigators of the trial, noted scientists Ancel Keys and Ivan Frantz, are deceased.

Steven Broste, now a retired biostatistician, was then a student at the University of Minnesota and used the full set of data for his master’s thesis in 1981. He interacted with the researchers. Part of the problem, Broste suggested in an interview, may have been limits on statistical methods at the time. Computer software for statistics wasn’t as readily available as it is today. So, at the time of the study, it wasn’t as easy to know how significant the data was. Broste completed his thesis several years after the last patients had left the trial, but it was not published in a journal.

Broste also suggested that at least part of the reason for the incomplete publication of the data might have been human nature. The Minnesota investigators had a theory that they believed in — that reducing blood cholesterol would make people healthier. Indeed, the idea was widespread and would soon be adopted by the federal government in the first dietary recommendations. So when the data they collected from the mental patients conflicted with this theory, the scientists may have been reluctant to believe what their experiment had turned up.

“The results flew in the face of what people believed at the time,” said Broste. “Everyone thought cholesterol was the culprit. This theory was so widely held and so firmly believed — and then it wasn’t borne out by the data. The question then became: Was it a bad theory? Or was it bad data? … My perception was they were hung up trying to understand the results.”

Peter Whoriskey is a staff writer for The Washington Post handling projects in business, healthcare and health. You can email him at ! Follow @PeterWhoriskey

The Post Recommends

A tax on your burger? Indian state of Kerala announces country’s first ‘fat tax’

In pioneering this fat tax, Kerala could serve as a model for other states in the country.

Kiandra Richardson brings Whitney Houston to life in Arena Stage’s ‘Born for This’

Kiandra Richardson cashed in her “American Idol” golden ticket to play one of her real-life American idols.

Business Rx: Drink this juice and your landfill will thank you

A start-up juice company looks for help getting the word out about its social mission.



Scientific Studies on Nutrition are often Contradictory…

mit-scientists-jump-rNow scientists are reporting that a low calorie lifestyle is NOT related to longevity?

Remember a few years ago when it was widely reported that there was a causal link between a low calorie diet and living longer??

My point is this:

The scientific community has come up with very few recommendations on nutrition that have not been subsequently changed.

So how does this effect us, the thin mentality people?

If you live with a thin mentality, you don’t pay attention to that stuff anyway.  You are in touch with your own wisdom- your body’s instincts.  That is what drives your food choices, not the “nutrition wisdom of the week.”

But here is something I have noticed about myself, and I would love to know if anyone else has noticed this.

Nutritionists traditionally recommend eating every meal with adherence to the food pyramid or some food rules.

Well, I absolutely do not eat that way.  I have noticed that I tend to crave one kind of food at a time.  I will crave meat, and eat a meal that is “meat-heavy.”  Then another meal I will crave pasta and eat a meal that is “pasta-heavy.”  Then I will crave vegetables and eat a meal that is “vegetable-heavy.”

In other words, my nutrition isn’t balanced at every meal, it is balanced over several meals.

And I feel great.

It is important for you to listen and learn about how your body drives you to “nutritious choices.” And may I remind you that if you don’t think your body will talk to you, you are incorrect.  You don’t hear it now because you have shut down your inner voice for a long time.

Get quiet and really focus on listening.  You will not be good at this at first.  But every time that you make the effort to listen to your body, you will get better at it.   And your long-ignored instincts will slowly but surely start making more noise.

I wasn’t good at it at first either.  Now, I am.  I am not special in this way.  I am normal.  And normal has been trained out of you by all the dieting you have done in your life.


We Are All Different, Only A Thin Mentality Respects That

quote-we-don-t-need-sugar-to-live-and-we-don-t-need-it-as-a-society-mehmet-oz-140657I watch Dr. Oz to get fired up about how ridiculous food rules are.  He is always trying to get rid of some food that I enjoy.  Like sugar or bread…

He was interviewing a doctor who wrote a book saying that American wheat is poison.  (This is a topic for another day.)

To prove his point, he had 5 women eat some whole wheat bread one day and the next day they ate a candy bar.  They measured spikes in blood sugar after each.

So interesting…   Dr. Oz, is ALWAYS saying how simple carbs (like in candy bars) spike your blood sugar.  I would have thought he  would have based this on some kind of evidence.

Instead, he said that he didn’t think anyone had ever done this simple experiment before.  WHAT??  He constantly pushes whole grains to keep your blood sugar steadier, yet he never had any scientific proof of that???  Maddening!

The results showed that in 2 or 3  (sorry can’t remember) of these women, the whole grain bread spiked their blood sugar more than the candy bar!

I was not surprised.  Do you know why?  Because that is how it is for me.  I can feel it.  (Because I am paying attention to my body.)

What conclusions can we draw from this?

That food rules are irrelevant because they assume that there are minimal differences in:

1.  What kind of food individuals might require
2.  How much food individuals require
3.  How individuals metabolize that food.

Da da da…. we are different!

There is even a lot of variability within a person.   Some days you need more protein, some days more carbs, some days it is fat.  Whatever!

So why do we go on diets or pay attention to “experts” like Dr. Oz who advocate magic formulas that don’t respect these differences?

Some people need more food than others.  Some need more protein.  Some need more fat.  It is just the way it is.  You all know someone who can eat more and not gain.  Well, some people are tall and some are short.  What are you going to do about it?

You aren’t going to do anything about it.  You are going to say to yourself, “I have this body.  It requires a certain amount of food.  Maybe less than my friend, maybe more than my sister.  Whatever.  I am going to listen to my unique body to know what to eat and when.  And I am not going to pout because my friend gets to eat 200 calories a day more than me.  I have prettier feet.  So what…”  🙂

People!!! It is the money!!

If they don’t come up with “new” ideas, they don’t have a TV show.

And we are like sheep, following and paying.  Ugh Ugh Ugh

There is one truth that you can rely on.  Whatever created us took into account that we needed to have signals to know what to eat and when.  Otherwise, we would eat rubber and food  that had spoiled, or never eat, or eat too much.  We were given “senses” to guide us.

And we have thrown them in the trash and tuned into the “handsome” doctor instead!

And his pockets, and the network, and the pine nut, ginseng companies are all enjoying our money.  Meanwhile, we are NOT enjoying our lives as much as we could be because we are obsessed with our weight and eating.

And that obsession, instead of making you thin, is making you fatter.

You know it.  Your efforts bring you nothing but short term success or up and down weight control at best.

Eat in harmony with your body.  It is delightful.


Go Ahead and Google It

Screen Shot 2013-11-22 at 4.16.58 PM

Go ahead and google- “do diets work” or “diets don’t work” and you will find studies like this:

In case you don’t have time to read it, I pulled out some quotes from the study that you might find alarming:

  • “We concluded most of them would have been better off not going on the diet at all.”
  • “Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the majority of people.”
  • “Several studies indicate that dieting is actually a consistent predictor of future weight gain,
  • “One of the best predictors of weight gain over the four years was having lost weight on a diet at some point during the years before the study started,”
  • “83 percent gained back more weight than they had lost.”
  • “We asked what evidence is there that dieting works in the long term, and found that the evidence shows the opposite”

This kind of information isn’t “pushed” to you like diet ads.  But if you look for it, it is out there.

So ironic, alongside these articles are tons of “diet ads.” Ugh!  Be too smart for this.


Do You Think You Get Sugar “Crashes?”

I've done this...

I’ve done this…

I used to think I got sugar “crashes.”

Now, my body handles sugar just fine.

This is my theory on how this transition has occurred.

When I used to eat sugar, it was a “binge.”  I would go for long periods of time being “good,” eating very little sugar etc.  But when I finally “cracked,” I would over do it.  Instead of eating a normal amount of sweets-  say a couple of cookies, I would eat ten.

Yea, and that is a lot of sugar for my body to handle, especially since I hadn’t eaten sugar in weeks.  That made me think I couldn’t handle sugar.  Silly!!  I just couldn’t handle bingeing on sugar.

Your body is meant to handle normal amounts of food, including sugar.  And I was betraying my body by overdoing the sugar after depriving my body of sugar for weeks.

After reconnecting to my normal hunger rhythms and my normal cravings for all kinds of foods, my body happily metabolizes what I eat very nicely, including sweets.

I bet yours will too…


Remember What Your Real Choices Are

chart of rebound weight 600

Does this sound familiar?

You say to yourself, “This “diets are fattening” idea is interesting,  I will give this a try, but if it doesn’t work and I pig out or something, I will have to diet again..”


If you say that to yourself, you are dooming yourself to failure here.

The reason?

If say to yourself that you will go on a diet if you don’t lose weight by developing your thin mentality, you have given yourself an “out.”

But really, there is NO OUT!

What do I mean?  I mean that you must remember what your real choices are.

1.  Stop dieting and learn to behave, and then become, a naturally thin person.

2.  Give up completely and continue to gain weight

3.  Diet and have yo yo weight gains for the rest of your life.

Notice, that “diet and keep the weight off” is not there.  It is not there because it is not going to happen!  How do I know?  Well, if you are reading this, you have already tried this many many times.  And it hasn’t worked.  You have NOT kept it off.

Stop blaming yourself.  You are struggling under a flawed paradigm.  That is not to say you aren’t responsible for you.

I am just suggesting that you “keep it real!”   And that means no fooling yourself into thinking that if you just find the right diet, your problems will be solved.

So use today as a stepping stone to get closer to having the thin body you were meant to have.  And do this by 100% committing to eating as mother nature intended, in response to hunger.

If your body knows that you will feed it whenever it is truly hungry, it will relax and stop sending you “pig out” signals.    There is no joy in overeating when you can eat whenever you are hungry.  There is no joy in shoving a whole gallon of popcorn down the hatch at a movie when you ate exactly what you wanted at dinner.

Try it, stay committed and you will see…


Taste bud wisdom



Take a bite of something when you are not hungry.  Notice how it feels.  There is no big spark of taste bud happiness, is there?  It may still be “good,” but there are no fireworks, are there?

At this point, if I eat when I am not hungry, or hungry enough, I know it immediately because the food almost feels foreign in my mouth.  LIke my body is saying, “Hey, what the heck is this?”

Honestly, I remember a time when I would have said that life would be so great if I could just eat what I wanted.  I imagined myself eating tons of food and being slim.

Okay, well here is the thing:   With a thin mentality, you do eat whatever you want.  But the catch is, that you don’t end up eating as much as you thought you would.  That is the whole crux of it.

I know you may not believe me.  I would not have thought this was true either.  But, free yourself from the good food, bad food dieting tyranny that has crippled your ability to eat normally.  You can get normal eating back.  And when you eat normally, for your specific body, and body type, your weight returns to normal for you.

If you want to be super skinny, you are gong to have to eat abnormally.

But if you want to be normal/thin, rebuild your normal relationship with food.