Rule Three: Vegetables & Fruits are Heart of Controlled-Carb

We hear much of a healthy diet is from eating fruits and vegetables. Research suggests there is a strong correlation between "good" health and "bad" health over the long-term when comparing the dietary habits of those eating a diet rich with fruits and vegetables to those consuming less than recommended levels.

Diets that strategically restrict carbohydrate are often criticized for lack of fruits and vegetables in the dietary approach. Much like the second rule getting lost in translation, from an allowance of a large variety of meats, poultry, fish, shellfish and game to a requirement to eat "fatty steaks, bacon, brie and cheeseburgers," by those unconvinced a low-carb diet is scientifically supported, rule three is often either ignored in the media and/or used to show how unsustainable carbohydrate restriction is in the long-term for someone to do forever.

How about we take a look, and see what the third rule actually says, and what it "pearls" it contains in both the short and long-term, and where vagueness may lead to misinterpretation:

Rule 3:

• Eat no more than 20 grams a day of carbohydrate, most of which must come in the form of salad greens and other vegetables. You can eat approximately three loosely packed cups of salad, or two cups of salad plus one cup of other vegetables.

First, we know from the published books, that the Induction period is a minimum of two weeks; while one can, and many do, stay within the 20g of carbohydrate beyond two weeks, the above rule is in place for at least the first two weeks.

During this time, the person starting the low-carb diet is tasked with two things in this rule:

1. limiting carbohydrate to just 20g a day and
2. ensuring that most of those 20g carbs are from salad greens and other (allowed) vegetables.

As an example, the rule says this is "approximately" three loosely packed cups of "salad" (note not simply salad greens), or two cups of "salad" (again not simply salad greens) plus one cup of other (allowed) vegetables (without mention of raw or cooked state).

We also know that the plan includes a deduction of fiber, so the amount of non-starchy vegetables (and fruits which I'll get to in an upcoming post) - in cups - that one is expected to consume depends highly on which allowed vegetables are selected in a day. Regardless of which are included, a minimum 10g net (deducting fiber) must come from non-starchy vegetables!

We also plainly see that it is not *mandatory* to deduct fiber per the rule above; however, I strongly suggest folks do deduct fiber as it allows a greater intake of non-starchy vegetables, which are not only low in calories, but nutrient powerhouses. When you deduct the fiber, you're able to consume more essential nutrients than if you don't.

I've previously offered examples of how different selections of non-starchy vegetables may look in a day of eating on a plan allowing 20g net in a day. Once again, I am providing examples to emphasize, even at 20g net carbohydrate, where 10g net is the minimum, a low-carb plan - done properly - meets or exceeds intake recommendation of at least five servings per day in the Dietary Recommendations for Americans for fruits and vegetables.

Example 1

• 1-cup green beans (cooked measure)
• 2-cups Shredded Cos/Romaine Lettuce (raw)
• 4-pieces Crimini Mushrooms (raw)
• 1/4-cup Shredded Red Cabbage (raw)
• 4 Cherry Tomatoes (raw)
• 1-cup Spinach (raw)
• Total Carbohydrate = 18g
• Fiber = 8g
• Net Carbohydrate = 10g
• USDA Servings of fruits/vegetables = 5

Example 2

• 1/2 Avocado (raw)
• 3-cups Cos/Romaine Lettuce (raw)
• 4 Cherry Tomatoes (raw)
• 1/4 cup Shredded Red Cabbage (raw)
• 1-cup Spinach (cooked measure)
• 1/2-cup Broccoli Florets (raw)
• 1/2-cup Sliced Cucumber (raw)
• Total Carbohydrate = 24g
• Fiber = 14g
• Net Carbs = 10g
• USDA Servings of fruits/vegetables = 6

Example 3

• 2-cups Shredded Cos/Romaine Lettuce (raw)
• 1/2-cup Cherry Tomatoes (raw)
• 1-cup Spinach (cooked measure)
• 1/2-cup Asparagus (cooked measure)
• 1/2 cup Sweet Green Peppers (cooked measure)
• Total Carbohydrate = 21g
• Fiber = 9g
• Net Carbs = 12g
• USDA Servings of fruits/vegetables = 6

One can see from the examples above, depending on selections made from those fruits and vegetables allowed in the first two weeks, it is not difficult to meet the recommended intake of 5-or-more servings of fruits and vegatables.

The aim to include a minimum of 10g (of the 20g allowed) from non-starchy vegetables is a "must" in the rule above.

It is also clearly stated as a "minimum," and therefore understood that if you would like to include 12g, 15g or more from non-starchy vegetables in lieu of other foods that have carbohydrate, that is also allowed.

So, if one is cognizant of and desiring more than the minimum intake of fruits and vegetables, they are completely allowed to consume more - with the only restriction being not to exceed 20g net (deducting fiber) during the first two weeks.

Must you aim to consume half your allowed carbohydrate from fruits/vegetables? YES

Can you eat more fruits/vegetables (allowed ones), say 12g, 15g, 18g? YES

Can you deduct fiber? YES

Do you have to? NO (but doing so allows a greater intake of fruits/vegetables and associated essential nutrients)

With all that said, and focus on what all the rules mean for the long-term, I contend that one is expected to continue eating this level (as minimum each day) as they progress toward the long-term eating. I believe that this is one more "foundational" part of carbohydrate restricted diets in the long-term and something intended to be continued as one increases carbohydrate and includes a wider selection of foods, including more vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, legumes, and if desired, even whole grains.

Many folks say a low/controlled-carb diet is a way of life, yet find it difficult to take what they start with - 20g net (deducting fiber), of which most must be provided by non-starchy vegetables, a 10g minimum each day - and maintain that aspect as one solid foundation to build upon as they continue to lose weight and then maintain their weight.

Old eating habits start to creep back with more carbs; habits such as preferrentially selecting sweeter foods or grains (even if whole grain) with consumption of non-starchy vegetables waning as one re-introduces more carbohydrate.

If one takes this rule, and continues to extend it --- fully --- until they reach 40g net carbohydrate each day (deducting fiber), they will be consuming incredibly healthful levels of fruits and vegetables, and will be able to eat a very wide variety of them too. That is, until 40g carbohydrate is achieved in the diet during weight loss, one must always include half those carbohydrates from fruits and vegetables with each incremental increase in carbohydrate. (Beyond that, it is increasingly difficult to continue adding more non-starchy vegetables and fruits due to their bulk; you can, of course - it's just not as easy to do).

Now that isn't exactly stated explicitly in the rule, but it is from my experience and those I've given assistance, one significant contributor to maintenance of weight in the long-term. That's because if you're aware of and including a lot of fruits and vegetables (specifically non-starchy vegetables and low-glycemic load fruits) it is difficult to consume excess calories each day over the long-term.

It becomes much easier to consume excess calories when you "play" the carb game (like many play the "points" game with Weight Watchers) and make choices to stay within a number, rather than focus on quality of choice.

But if you're committed to making sure that, no matter what intake of carbohydrate you reach (60g, 90, 120g or more), that you always are sure you include at least 10g net minimum at the start and then 20g minimum (net) from non-starchy vegetables/low glycemic-load fruits as you continue along, you'll have a favorable calorie intake that helps maintaining weight easier.

As you add back carbs, this rule must remain in your eating habits, even if you only stick with 10g net as minimum (which I don't suggest you do) as you're learning in the beginning - you cannot add back carbs and eliminate or reduce how many vegetables and salads you eat each day and expect to maintain your weight using grains, nuts, fruits, etc. as your primary source of carbohydrate later....you must always maintain a level of carbs from your vegetables and salad greens - even in maintenace.

This rule, like rule two, is taking you "back to basics" - helping you learn, step-by-step, how to nourish your body with high quality nutrients from real foods; over time you're encouraged to include a wider variety of non-starchy vegetables, low glycemic-load fruits, nuts, seeds, legumes and more, and the starting basics for the diet should be extended out for the long-term; that is, establish now, at the start, that as part of your long-term habitual diet, non-starchy vegetables and low-GL fruits will be a large part of your overall diet - your body will thank you!

Rule Two: Back to Basics

Over the last few decades, the population at large, has slowly been indoctrinated to fear dietary fat; to limit intake of dietary cholesterol; and to limit consumption of foods rich with saturated fat like meat, whole dairy, butter and eggs. This happened despite little evidence that such an approach to eating provided a long-term health benefit, or ability to maintain weight. But, with decades of reinforcement in the popular thinking, it's understandable how the second rule in the Rules of Induction is the most misunderstood and maligned of them all.

Let's take a look:

Rule 2:

• Eat liberally of combinations of fat and protein in the form of poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs and red meat, as well as pure, natural fat in the form of butter, mayonnaise, olive oil, safflower, sunflower and other vegetable oils (preferably expeller-pressed or cold-pressed).

Is it any wonder that, when a diet comes along and allows these foods, in complete contradiction to decades of fat phobia propoganda, it is vehemently opposed by the leading health organizations and government agencies? That we're innundated with dire warnings of consequence to health, heaped upon us in a concerted effort to discredit and dismiss anyone who says differently; despite scientific evidence and data supporting not only the inclusion of these foods in the human diet, but their inportant contributions to the human diet!

Ignore the man behind the curtain Dorothy....ignore that in the noble attempts to improve the health of our population, researchers and clinicians were lead astray by what we now know was half-truth data, published in the fifties and sixties.

They know it, we know it, but still it's difficult to come to grips with that fact and reverse direction after decades of building the foundation of a "truth" only to find it terribly flawed. It's often easier to continue on in the lie than face the fact you're wrong; moreso when the entire group and community you exist within endorses the continuation of the established dogma, despite the evidence to the contrary.

It's easier to "kill the messenger" than kill the flawed paradigm that hold these foods are to be limited, heck, even avoided at all cost.

To admit such is akin to killing thyself and the core set of beliefs one holds to be true.

Dramatic license here?

Sure, but it does speak of something critically important one must do for their long-term health when they begin to, perhaps for the first time in their life, establish good eating habits for the rest of their life.

Simply put, the second rule of induction grants us permission to dismiss everything we've been told and taught to hold as truth about eating, macronutrients (carbohydrate, protein, fat) and a "balanced, healthy" diet; allows us to re-learn what it means to be human and eat food; and encourages us to enjoy the experience of truly eating a healthy diet while losing weight and then continue to do so along the way to finally, once and for all, maintain that weight well into the future.

I'm quite the optimist aren't I?

Seriously, don't studies tell us again and again that dieting to lose weight fails, that all we really ever do is get good at losing weight, but we're never quite able to master maintaining our weight in the long-term?

Let's start by examining the very base reason most folks even begin a diet to lose weight - they're overweight or obese and have decided it's time to do something about it.

So they begin, they are off to a good start, they're motivated and continue to be motivated with each incremental decline they see on the scale.

Problem?

Absolutely - the focus is on the scale; the number on the scale matters most and damn the torpedos, no matter how inconvenient, stressful or annoying it is to weigh, measure and count every calorie, the individual is in a battle against their bathroom scale to reach a desired number in the shortest period of time possible.

Millions have mastered this task, only to have to repeat it again and again throughout their life. I apolgize now if this sounds crass, but anyone can lose weight with even just a small level of effort; it doesn't take an Einstein to eat less for weeks or months to reach a number on the scale; most will put up with high levels of discomfort to reach that goal - hunger, moodiness, irritability, stress and counting, measuring and weighing anything they consider putting in their mouth.

In the short-term, such measures do work; in the long-term they fail because the person has been mistakenly led to believe "if only..." they do this, measure that, control this and avoid that over the short-term, somehow that alone will enable them to maintain their new lower weight without much more than keeping on keeping on; except the keeping on part is next to impossible!

That's because the very dogmatic recommendations we're repeatedly told are balanced and healthy to lose weight are scaring people away from the very foods that we need to eat to thrive as humans; this forces an unnatural eating patten across the population due to a deeply flawed fear of dietary fat and cholesterol and leads to failure in the long-term because it is not only unsustainable, it's incompatible with true health in the longer term.

The heart and soul of our metabolism is the endocrine system - when it dysfunctions, a cascade of health problems follow - insulin resistance, high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and other chronic and debhilitating diseases.

Why then are we specifically told to avoid the very foods that fuel the proper function of this system?

The current recommendations not only scare us from healthy food, they make simply eating way too stressful for an average person - measure this, weigh that, watch this, avoid that, don't eat this, that's better, blah, blah, blah - who wants to deal with that much stress each day? Sure, a motivated person, desiring weight loss will submit to such stress to reach a goal - but then what happens? They do what is natural and human - they do what they need to do to relieve the stress and relax, are then an easy target to point to as someone lacking willpower, someone just not commited to sticking with it; someone who simply doesn't care and is lazy!

Anyone who has attempted to lose weight only to regain it can relate - no matter how hard you try to stick with a diet that is, for lack of a better phrase, "high maintenance" to follow each day for the rest of your life - sooner or later you find the "benefit" (weight on scale) isn't worth the time and "stress" (weighing, measuring, going hungry, chastising yourself for wanting to eat, etc.).

As I said in my last post, what if the problem isn't you or your "willpower," but a deep flaw within the recommendations that lead not to success, but failure in the long-term?

Here's the rule again:

Rule 2:

• Eat liberally of combinations of fat and protein in the form of poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs and red meat, as well as pure, natural fat in the form of butter, mayonnaise, olive oil, safflower, sunflower and other vegetable oils (preferably expeller-pressed or cold-pressed).

The short and long-term secrets within this rule include:

1. Eating "liberally" is not the same as eating until you are stuffed and goes hand-in-hand with rule 6, which we'll look at later this week. This rule is also a natural extention to rule 1 to eat regular sized portions.

2. You're allowed to eat animal foods such as meats, poultry, fish and eggs provides you with combinations of both fats and protein - necessary for health, losing and maintaining weight on a carbohydrate restricted diet.

Note that in the rule, no one is told they must eat "fatty meats" or must consume "bacon, brie and oodles of t-bone steaks." No, instead they're to eat foods that provide both fat and protein; they can choose whatever cuts they like, whatever combinations suit their tastes; whatever they prefer.

Want boneless skinless chicken breast? Allowed.

Want a filet mignon? Allowed.

Want some eggs? Allowed.

Want some dark turkey meat? Allowed

Want some salmon? Allowed.

This "allowance" of all things that provide a good fat-protein combination reinforces our mindfullness not to fear food, food is not the enemy!

Adding to this is that using fats and/or oils as part of your meals is allowed - from sources of natural, good fats and oils; with those natual oils being preferentially from expeller-pressed or cold-pressed sources.

Why are the animal products with combinations of fat and protein and the use of natural fats & oils so important?

By integrating both into your meals you are also beginning the process of balancing your essential fatty acid ratios in your eating from the fats found in these sources, and perhaps for the first time, consuming adequate protein, thus adequate essential amino acids.

Important too is to choose quality, eat well and enjoy your food and meals. Don't worry each day about how much fat is in a particular food or meal at this stage, over time you'll be able to "tweak" as you go and learn better how to nourish your body and eat what really is a well-balanced, healthy diet.

With fat and protein providing the vast majority of "essential" nutrients, this liberal approach at the start of your weight loss diet takes you "back to basics" and with time, provides you the opportunity to not only learn how to eat well for the long-term, but to actually enjoy your meals again - without fear that you're killing yourself with every bite!

Establishing Good Eating Habits: Rule One

Odds are, overweight or not, by the time a girl reaches adulthood, she's tried one or more diets to lose weight or not gain weight; with boys, the incidence of dieting in the teenage years is less prevalent. In early adulthood this often continues, with many women and men developing what is termed "disordered" eating habits; skipping breakfast or other meals, relying on meal replacement products, like ready-to-drink shakes, rather than eat food for all meals, eating lots of small things on the run, or going long hours without eating anything, then taking one large meal at the end of the day, in the belief that will keep thier calorie intake lower over the day.

These types of habits aren't necessarily "eating disorders," though they may be part of one; more often than not, they are habits that one develops over time that are counter-productive to developing and maintaining a healthy relationship with food, and can stand in the way of long-term success when one loses weight and tries to maintain that loss over the long-term.

Food, while an easy target of blame in the weight loss game, is not an enemy to be avoided or held in disdain; it is essential to our health and well-being and, in the long-term, it's not simply learning what to eat that helps one maintain weight, but how to eat that sets the stage for long-term success.

With this understanding, it is easier to see why I believe the first rule in the Rules of Induction (for the Atkins diet) is the most important:

Rule 1:

• Eat either three regular-size meals a day or four or five smaller meals. Do not skip meals or go more than six waking hours without eating.

The first rule is straight forward and critically important not only in the first two weeks, but throughout the entire weight loss period, and then for maintaining weight in the long-term.

The reason is simple - it establishes that one doesn't need to eat in a typical three-meal-a-day pattern, but highlights the importance that eating regularly - even simple smaller meals multiple times each day - is a habit to continue with if you're already doing so, or establish now as you begin and continue to learn how to eat properly for the rest of your life.

Without establishing this as habit, you'll leave yourself open to disordered eating habits and continue to view food and eating as something bad or to be avoided. Now is the time to set aside all that disdain for food, eating, portions, and all that and dismiss that thinking so you can begin to learn to love food again!

This is the first step to "get back to basics" - a means to develop a healthy relationship with food and avoid continuing in a disordered eating pattern that is counter-productive in the long-term. In anything you do in life, be it your job, your hobbies, or anything else that requires skill, one thing that clearly sets apart those who succeed from those that fail is the feeling of confidence in ones ability. Few are "born naturals" in a given situation - most take the time and put in an effort to learn and do along the way, to build their confidence and master whatever it is they enjoy.

This is no different; by taking the time to work on this as you start a diet to lose weight, you will develop not only a sense of confidence that food is really not an enemy (since you will be losing weight while you establish good eating habits), you will also learn to listen to your body and take cues based on hunger to learn when to eat in a pattern that is in synch with your body. This is because eating regularly keeps your metabolism functioning and enables your metabolism to hum along nicely.

If you read the rule, you'll notice it says " three regular-size meals a day or four or five smaller meals" which hints at learning how much is enough; stated another way, portion size is important. If you're inclined to eat three meals a day, these meals will be larger than if you are inclined to eat four or five smaller meals.

We know from the various publications written by Dr. Atkins, that Induction is not a license to overeat or stuff ourselves. In my view, this Induction period is an opportunity to learn what a "portion size" means to you as an individual.

So many weight loss diets prescribe specfic weights and measures, claiming such portions are more than adequate for anyone attempting to lose weight.

But let's be honest - how many are truly satisfied after eating a tiny 2-to-3 ounce portion of bonless, skinless chicken breast? If you're one of the few who find this intake adequate for you and you're satisfied and not hungry, great!

If not, maybe the problem isn't you, or as you are often told, your lack of willpower, but instead that you have not eaten enough to adequately provide for your needs.

Listen to that - have some more - and as you begin to feel that sense of "satisfied," not stuffed, but satisfied and confident you've eaten well, without worry that you're going to be hungry again way too soon, then stop eating.

In this period, you are allowed to portion your meals as "regular-size" meals, keeping in mind that you won't eat larger portions just because you can. If three "regular-size" meals isn't your style, you simply adjust to more "smaller sized" meals in a regular pattern throughout the day.

The key here is to develop good eating habits and then maintain them as you move along.

Long-term this rule is the "golden rule" of maintenance. It is the most important rule of all the rules if you ask me!

By the time you reach maintenance, if you have been following this rule all the time - not just in induction - you're not only eating an adequate level of calories, no longer in ketosis and at your goal weight - you're also in the habit of eating portions that are "normal" for you and eating regularly to keep your metabolism working at a steady pace.

You've also learned that skipping meals may lead to eating more when you do eat and that it is best to keep your appetite sated by eating regularly for your particular needs - whether it is three regular meals each day or four or five smaller meals each day; and you may also have learned you're less likely to snack as often because your appetite is sated with regular meals!

This rule firmly establishes that you are tasked with setting the frequency of your eating pattern, sticking with an eating pattern that is regular, and develop a sense of what your needs are, learn what your "portion size" is in meals, and learn how to eat regularly instead of fearing food or your appetite!

Over the long-term you'll set the stage for success with this rule because you're allowing yourself to establish a healthy relationship with food and come to know that food is not your enemy, eating well is not a bad thing, and that enjoying your meals is truly a wonderful thing!

Handing you the Keys to Success

All weight loss diets come with some sort of rules; how much to eat, what to eat, when to eat, how to control portions, etc. The weight loss diet that enabled me to finally lose the excess weight was Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution (1992/1999), and like all other diets had its rules to follow - the Rules of Induction.

While Induction is heavily criticized by many, it is the period I call "back to basics" for the individual just starting out. While one is to carefully count carbohydrate, eating no more than 20g each day, they are also encouraged to view foods once subject to elimination or strict limitation differently; foods like whole eggs, red meat, full fat salad dressings, cream and real cheese are allowed, while "low-fat" products are strongly discouraged.

Within the books published by Dr. Atkins, the list of foods allowed during the first two weeks includes almost any red meat, poultry, fish, shellfish, fowl or game; with caution to limit or avoid nitrates and processed meats. Real whole milk cheese, cream and half & half are allowed within the dairy group, with limits on intake each day if one is consuming them; a long list of non-starchy vegetables and fruits (that is fruits that are fruits that we often don't recognize as "fruit" but are fruits - olives, macadamia nuts, summer squash, cucumber, tomatoes, etc.); all herbs and spices, and finally what to drink and what types and quantity of artificial sweetener is allowed.

One reason I call this the "back to basics" period in the diet is because it is focused on whole foods and provides for the most important essential nutrients our metabolism needs each day - quality protein (essential amino acids), quality fats (essential fatty acids) and nutrient-dense carbohydrates (essential vitamins, minerals and trace elements). The plan also encourages one to supplement with a high quality multi-vitamin (with minerals including potassium, calcium and magnesium; without iron) and provides additional information about other supplements if necessary.

In addition to the basic foods allowed during the period of Induction, the diet focuses the individual to follow what are called the Rules of Induction as a way to help them follow the diet correctly.

The Rules of Induction, from the 1999 publication of Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution are as follows: (they differ slightly from those published online by the company since his death in 2003; to read the updated version, published by Atkins Nutritionals, click here)

1. Eat three regular-size meals a day or four or five smaller meals. Do not skip meals or go more than six waking hours without eating.
2. Eat liberally of combinations of fat and protein in the form of poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs and red meat, as well as pure, natural fat in the form of butter, mayonnaise, olive oil, safflower, sunflower and other vegetable oils (preferably expeller-pressed or cold-pressed).
3. Eat no more than 20 grams a day of carbohydrate, most of which must come from in the form of salad greens and other vegetables. You can eat approximately three cups - loosely packed - of salad, or two cups of salad plus one cup of other vegetables.
4. Eat absolutely no fruit, bread, pasta, grains, starchy vegetables or dairy products other than cheese, cream or butter. Do not eat nuts or seeds in the first two weeks. Foods that combine protein and carbohydrates, such as chickpeas, kidney beans and other legumes, are not permitted at this time.
5. Eat nothing that isn't on the Acceptable Foods list. And that means absolutely nothing! Your "just this one taste won't hurt" rationalization is the kiss of failure during this phase of Atkins.
6. Adjust the quantity you eat to suit your appetite, especially as it decreases. When you're hungry, eat the amount that makes you feel satisfied, but not stuffed. When you're not hungry, eat a small controlled carbohydrate snack to accompany your nutritional supplements.
7. Don't assume any food is low in carbohydrate—instead, read labels! Check the carb count (it's on every package) or use a carbohydrate gram counter.
8. Eat out as often as you wish but be on guard for hidden carbs in gravies, sauces and dressings. Gravy is often made with flour or cornstarch, and sugar is sometimes an ingredient in salad dressing.
9. Avoid foods or drinks sweetened with aspartame. Instead use sucralose or saccharin. Be sure to count each packet of any of these as 1 gram of carbs.
10. Avoid coffee, tea and soft drinks that contain caffeine. Excessive caffeine has been shown to cause low blood sugar, which can make you crave sugar.
11. Drink at least eight 8-ounce glasses of water each day in addition to anything else you may drink, to hydrate your body, avoid constipation and flush out the by-products of burning fat.
12. If you are constipated, mix a tablespoon or more of psyllium husks in a cup or more of water and drink daily. Or mix ground flaxseed into a shake or sprinkle wheat bran on a salad or vegetables.

You may be wondering why I'm posting this here, today, on my blog?

The reason is simple - over the years of following a diet that is controlled-carb, and maintaining my weight loss, I've realized that the above Rules of Induction contain the keys to long-term maintenance. The critical points needed to succeed in the long-term are right there if we look closely and examine why they are in place for the first two weeks, and why they are necessary throughout weight loss and maintenance.

Years ago I wrote an article for a publication that has since gone out of business, and my original copy is long gone. So, without that in hand to simply re-post here, I'm going to re-write it from my longer-term perspective today, some years later, continuing to follow a controlled-carb approach.

In the coming days and next week, I'll take one or two (if they are related) rules and explain why they are critical in the first two weeks, and the lesson I believe they are teaching us for the long-term. I'll begin tomorrow with the first rule, "Eat three regular-size meals a day or four or five smaller meals. Do not skip meals or go more than six waking hours without eating;" and provide data as to why it is important not only in the short-term, but also for long-term success.

As you'll learn in the upcoming posts, each of the rules looks to foster one or more things, including:

1. Your responsibility in what you eat
2. Breaking habits that contribute to weight gain
3. Establishing a solid foundation for healthy eating in the future
4. Providing the tools & strategies you'll need to maintain your weight loss
5. Creating good habits that lead to better health
6. Your health and well-being is in your hands and is your responsibility in the long-term

UPDATE: Thank you to a reader who sent me an archived copy of the original article, which i will link to at the end of the upcoming series, for my readers to compare my changes to with my additional years perspective to add to!

Consumer Protection 101

Sometimes it helps to have reminders that as consumers, we do have protections in place to use if we purchase something and are not satisfied with the purchase, or feel we were deceived in the purchase process, we have recourse.

Below you'll find basic information about ways you can request refunds and report misleading, deceptive or fraudulant claims through various agencies and companies.

If you have a complaint about a weight loss product or service, contact one of the following agencies:

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
The FTC oversees the advertising and marketing of foods, non-prescription drugs, cosmetics, health care services and medical devices exchanged between states.

If you have a complaint, file a Consumer Complaint Form at the FTC's website: www.ftc.gov. Or call 1-877-FTC-HELP.

U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
Postal inspectors investigate crimes, such as fraudulent marketing promotions, that use the U.S. Mail. A crime is considered mail fraud if it originates in the mail, by telephone or on the Internet and is carried out in the U.S. Mail. The United States Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) handles complaints of fraud. If you think you are a victim of weight loss fraud by mail, submit a Mail Fraud Complaint Form to the USPIS online at www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/MailFraudComplaint.htm or file a complaint at your local post office.

Attorneys General
Each state has an Attorney General that serves as a representative of the public interest in addition to providing legal protection to the state's government agencies and legislatures. You can find your state Attorney General?s office information online at www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_table.php.

Better Business Bureau (BBB)
The BBB is a self-regulated organization supported by businesses to provide reports to consumers about companies. The BBB works with law enforcement agencies to stop fraud. You can check on a company, find tips on preventing fraud and file a complaint at the BBB's website: www.bbb.org.

If you make a purchase through PayPal, they have a Buyer Protection Policy that allows you to request a refund within 45-days of purchase.

If you make a purchase using a credit card, you may dispute a purchase through your issuing bank; with a debit card, the bank where you have your account.

Is There a Secret to Success?

Lou Shuler, over at Male Pattern Fitness wrote about the article in Slate yesterday and asked What if Nothing Works?

Weight loss advice almost never helps anyone lose weight.

And yet, something must work. We all know people who've lost weight and kept it off. We've all known non-exercisers who became exercisers. We all know people who've turned their lives around by eating better and exercising more, or at least more effectively.

[...]

Instead, researchers tend to discover, over and over again, that whatever we're doing now just isn't working for most of the people who try it. And sometimes the results are worse than they would've been if the dieters hadn't tried at all.

His observation is dead on if you ask me.

True, I know some people who have lost weight and maintained their lower weight for years (myself included), but I know many, many more who were able to lose weight effectively in the short term, but then as time passed, the weight was regained, sometimes leaving the person heavier than before they dieted to lose weight.

If we look at data from the National Weight Control Registry (NWCR) a self-reported database of "successful losers," we're told they have four similar behaviors post-weight loss:

1. They eat a low-fat diet (23-24% fat) with just 1300-1500 calories a day
2. They eat breakfast everyday
3. They monitor weight frequently with 75% weighing themself once a week
4. They engage in a high level of physical activity - 60 to 90 minutes a day

Me?

None of the above - daily I eat almost twice as many calories each day with a lot more fat; I skip breakfast more often than not; if I remember I might weigh myself once a month and my activity is daily routine stuff, not a formal exercise program specifically to meet certain targets each day.

For me, it's been eating adequate calories to meet, yet not exceed, my active metabolic requirements each day with primary focus on consuming sufficient quality protein - whatever fat that includes, so be it; eating breakfast if I'm hungry, but not forcing myself to do so if I'm not; I weigh myself occasionally and if my clothes feel a bit snug, weigh to see what's up - if I'm a few pounds up, I review what I'm eating daily and make adjustments if necessary; and I maintain a level of activity that really isn't much more than day-to-day things, but I do have to say includes keeping up with an extremely active almost three child!

Which leaves me wondering - how do you maintain weight once you've lost weight?

If you've lost weight and are able to maintain that loss, share here how you've done it...if you've lost to only re-gain the weight, what do you think is the problem?

What's Stress Got to Do With It?

Getting away on vacation is always so relaxing - there is nothing like kicking back and just doing whatever, whenever you want! Not only does getting away from the daily grind of life allow to you unwind and not think about much, it relaxes body and mind, which reduces stress that you often don't realize you have in your daily life. So while I often get emailed asking "you're going away again?" - I can't help but resume my blog posts with a study just published in Nature Medicine, Neuropeptide Y acts directly in the periphery on fat tissue and mediates stress-induced obesity and metabolic syndrome.

As was reported in the Washington Post today, "Scientists reported yesterday that they have uncovered a biological switch by which stress can promote obesity, a discovery that could help explain the world's growing weight problem and lead to new ways to melt flab and manipulate fat for cosmetic purposes.

In a series of experiments on mice, researchers showed that the neurochemical pathway they identified promotes fat growth in chronically stressed animals that eat the equivalent of a junk-food diet. Researchers found that laboratory mice subjected to daily stress and also fed a high-fat diet for a few weeks became obese. (Georgetown University Medical Center) The international team also showed that blocking those signals can prevent fat accumulation and shrink fat deposits and that stimulating the pathway can strategically create new deposits -- possibly offering new ways to remove fat as well as to mold youthful faces, firmer buttocks and bigger breasts.

"It's very exciting," said Zofia Zukowska of Georgetown University's Department of Physiology and Biophysics, who led the research, published online by the journal Nature Medicine. "This could be revolutionary.""

The study findings are being heavily reported in the media and most are highlighting the potential for pharmaceutical development, but few are talking about the real implications of the findings - can reduction of stress in real life lead to lower weight and a decreased risk of developing chronic disease?

Before I delve into that, first let's see what the researchers did in their experiments. The study was an animal model that involved mice. The researchers divided the mice into various groups - some ate a "normal" mouse diet, some ate a high fat, high sugar "junk-food" mouse diet. To see the effect of stress on the mice with each diet, some mice were highly stressed while others were allowed to carry on as mice do in their cages.

Unstressed mice consuming the "normal" diet did not gain weight.

Unstressed mice consuming the "junk food" diet did not gain weight.

Stressed mice consuming their "normal" diet did not gain weight.

Stressed mice consuming the "junk food" did gain weight.

This finding, especially if replicated in future studies, is critically important in our understanding of diet and health. This is because the findings showed that it was not diet alone that stimulated weight gain, nor was it stress alone. It was the specific combination of stress coupled with what researchers described as a "high-fat, high-sugar" diet that led to weight gain.

And not just any weight gain, but specifically fat accumulation in the belly - visceral fat; which we now understand is more detrimental to long-term health than subcutaneous fat which accumulates in places like the butt, thighs or arms. The stressed mice consuming a junk food diet also experienced glucose intolerance, elevated blood pressure, inflammation of the blood vessels and fat accumulation in the liver and in muscle tissue.

Simply put, they developed Metabolic Syndrome.

They did this not consuming excessive calories either - the researchers noted that the weight gain and fat accumulation in the stressed mice consuming the junk food diet was greater than expected given the calories consumed. Yet the mice consuming the same diet who were not stressed did not gain weight.

So it wasn't just the diet that mattered, it wasn't just stress that mattered; what mattered was the stress together with a junk food diet that conspired with each other to disrupt the production and pathways of neuropeptide Y (NPY).

Which leaves me wondering and pondering about many of the different dots still to be connected as we move forward to resolve the "obesity epidemic"...in the coming days I'm going to present additional data and studies to see what dots we might connect and what might be our solutions in the future.

I'll leave you with what Lou Shuler noted in his Male Pattern Fitness blog yesterday:

So, according to news reports, the "breakthrough" is a magic bullet that will selectively reduce fat deposits. Then there's some kind of opposite pill that will put fat on in selected places. If it works out in human experiments, somebody will make billions of dollars off these pills. I'm happy for them -- I wouldn't mind having some extra commas on my balance sheets -- but let's not forget that it'll be years before people will be able to use this chemical liposuction.

Meanwhile, anybody can stop eating junk food now. Today. The FDA doesn't have to give you permission to not enter the drive-through. The U.S. Patent Office doesn't have to put its seal on your decision not to supersize. It's here, it's free, it's open-source. It's dietary Linux. It doesn't discriminate by race, gender, religion, or income.

And it couldn't be simpler: All you have to do is eat something besides junk food.

It's so easy I couldn't even write a book about it. Chapter 1 tells you not to eat junk food. There is no chapter 2.

Why isn't that discovery being treated as the breakthrough, and the possibility of magic pills as an interesting sidebar?

Oh, yes - and as requested in emails while I was away, some pictures from our vacation:

Driving a boat on Norfork Lake, AR:

The big guy, with a mighty big fish:

My little guy, two months shy of his third birthday!

I'll Be Back July 3, 2007

Only the Finest Propaganda will Solve Childhood Obesity

Yes, life sometimes gets in the way of my blog posts; rather than keep you waiting for a fully referenced article I was hoping to post as follow up to the new recommendations to address childhood obesity, issued jointly from the AMA, CDC and HHRS, I'm going to keep this short and point first to a massive, 400+ page, document - Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balance - published in 2005 by the Food & Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) that painstakingly reviewed the evidence published regarding childhood obesity.

When you take some time to read it, you'll notice some critically important statements thoughout:

"Empirical data is lacking..."

"...problem exists, causes less clear..."

"...little clarity about the relative importance of possible causitive factors..."

"...a robust evidence base is not yet available."

"In reviewing the available evidence to inform this report, there was an abundance of scientific studies on the causes and correlates of obesity, but few studies testing potential solutions with diverse and complex social and environmental contexts, and no proven effective population-based solutions."

But that's okay, let's press forward without hard data; the latest AMA recommendations seem to have ignored the above lack of data and even ignored that the IOM document specifically states that within their publication there is "limited literature upon which to base these recommendations..." and chose instead to concentrate on "...parallel evidence from other public health issues..." to side-step empirical data and move forward to modify public opinion anyway.

"Now that the nation has begun to realize the significant health, psychological and societal costs of an unhealthy weight, it is time to re-examine its way of thinking and revise the social norms that are now accepted."

"In the absence of precise understanding of the eitology of the problem, it may be useful to look at the lessons learned from other public health campaigns and to try and determine if these lessons have any relevance for the prevention of childhood obesity."

Their playbook to resolve childhood obesity? Lessons learned from tobacco control, seat belt enforcement, underage drinking, childhood vaccination, and regulation of speed limits; with the most notable precedent examples throughout the section on Lessons Learned from Public Health Efforts and their Relevance to Preventing Childhood Obesity being the stunning success of tobacco control initiatives, that now leave smoking, in the minds of the majority of society, "nearly considered, if not deviant behavior, at least one in private;" and they note the magnitude of the change in public perception of smoking over the years of gradual change, from a time when smoking was viewed as a private matter, to now when smoking is viewed as a moral failing and deviant behavior.

They note, "Culture is not a static set of values and practices," and that programs to prevent and reverse obesity need to balance "the role of coersion versus the individual."

Coersion?

How they fail to see the under-current of shame and moralizing a behavior like smoking is scary. We're going to now do this with children, kids who happen to weigh too much for their age and height? Have we lost our minds?

Oh, it just gets better though.

The 'best practices' to be employed in a national campaign to address childhood obesity:

• Community-wide campaigns
• School-based initiatives
• Mass media strategies
• Laws and regulations
• Provider reminder systems
• Reduce costs to patients
• Home visits

The list includes elements of both formal planned interventions and recognized cultural and social factors. Detailed too are the necessary elements to convince the population at large there is a problem that requires drastic measures:

• A persuasive science base documenting a socially and scientifically credible threat
• A supportive partnership with the media
• Strategic leadership and a prominent champion
• A diverse constituency of highly effective advocates
• Enabling and reinforcing laws, regulations and policies

Notice above, the critically important factors are not solid evidence, but persuation, packaging the message for the media to propogate to the public, repeat the message through advocates and champions, and regulating laws and policies to conform to the pursuasive messages.

That's not science, that's carefully orchestrated propaganda.

"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006

This is what public health experts intend to do to our children.

In stunning clarity, the document provides insights into what we can expect in the coming years:

"Tough choices will have to be made at all levels of society. There will be trade-offs in convenience, in cost, in what's 'easy', in pushing oneself and one's organization, in choosing between priorities, in devising new laws and regulations, and in setting limits on individuals and industries."

The second document I'd like to direct your attention to is from the US Preventative Task Force, published in 2006, Screening and Interventions for Overweight in Children and Adolescents: Recommendation Statement.

It states, "There is insufficient evidence to ascertain the magnitude of the potential harms of screening or prevention and treatment interventions. The USPSTF was, therefore, unable to determine the balance between potential benefits and harms for the routine screening of children and adolescents for overweight."

Now, in 2007 - with no new science and still no compelling evidence, no empirical data, absolutely nothing more than "hope" this will work, the AMA, CDC, and HHRS is jumping in with both feet, and expects all of us to do the same; expects we'll all get on board, full steam ahead with little more than our fear that if we do nothing, our kids are going to die prematurely; anything is better than nothing.

Except that anything is may wind up destroying our children in the long-term.

But hey, they won't be fat, right?

The direction we're now heading in stubbornly and without evidence, reminds me of something Aldous Huxley said in a speech at the California Medical School in San Francisco, 1961:

"There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it ... [through] brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

In the 1953 publication of The Impact of Science on Society, Bertrand Russel penned the following:

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished." "Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."

Oh, Yeah, That'll Work

An article in Sunday's Independent (UK) paints an ominous picture of what may be coming down the pike as a way to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity; simply take these children from their families and place them in care of the state.

"Doctors are calling for the parents of obese children under the age of 12 to be targeted under child protection laws and for their offspring to be taken into care."

Next month a motion will be presented at the British Medical Association (BMA) conference that will include provision for social workers to "treat childhood obesity as neglect" and allow state intervention, including removal from the home.

"Dr Matt Capehorn, who will present the motion on obesity in Torquay, said: "No healthcare professional would want to break up a family unit but this has to be considered if the child's health is being put at risk." Dr Capehorn, a GP, runs an obesity clinic in Rotherham, South Yorkshire."

The motion comes on the heels of our own American Medical Association releasing its latest Expert Committee Recommendations on the Assessment, Prevention and Treatment of Child and Adolescent Overweight and Obesity document on June 6, 2007. Noticably absent - media coverage to highlight its release!

Take some time to read it, I'll be writing more in depth about what appears to be in the works for us here in the United States! I'll note where the evidence stands for the recommendations in the document and point out data that's obviously being ignored in the efforts to reduce the prevalence of obesity in children.

Keep in mind as you read the document, this is from the same organization led by Dr. William Plested III, president of the American Medical Association, who was quoted as saying at a recent Rotary Club meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, “We’re going to pay for this with a generation of ‘fatsos’ with every disease you can imagine.”

Nice, huh?

Summer Reading Picks

For months now, I keep wanting to write up book reviews for a number of books I've read that are worthwhile reads; for one reason or another, such posts fall to the back of the list and don't seem to get written. So, rather than try to catch up with an individual review for each book, I'm going to consolidate them into one post and leave it to you to pick and choose those books you may want to add to your reading list!

Of the few dozen books I've finished since January of this year, these make my cut to recommend reading when you have time:

The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan
While I didn't agree with his "meat as a condiment" contention in a recent article, his book is a compelling look at four uniquely different food supplies in the United States; from factory farmed to hunting and gathering (between the two lie industrial organic and traditional polyculture rotational farming - which may or may not be "certified"organic) Once you read how much corn and soybeans make up the typical diet in the United States, you'll never look at a chicken nugget the same again!

The Great Cholesterol Con, Anthony Colpo
Rich with research and data references to support his review of the scientific literature and conclude that elevated cholesterol and dietary saturated fats are not the cause of heart disease. His meticulous attention to detail leads to his conclusion (p 254), "There is every reason in the world to encourage people to exercise frequently, stop smoking, eat minimally processed foods, and find ways to get a handle on the stresses of modern life. The evidence for low-fat diets, on the other hand, is based on a mixture of erroneous assumptions, half-truths and downright lies." Colpo spends a lot of time detailing the data from well-referenced studies, those often quoted to support the lipid-hypothesis, and uncovers some compelling arguements that the data does not support the theory. I would have liked a better quality printing, but cannot deny the incredible list of references included that makes this one a top pick for me to recommend. Colpo backs his assertions with hard data - truly valuable in today's strange mix of evidence-based talk, followed by the same dogma in the face of contradiction!

The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth, Jonny Bowden, PhD
The editorial review on Amazon.com asks, "Why get your nutrients from expensive supplements when you can enjoy delicious, nourishing foods instead?" Dr. Bowden answers with a refreshing departure from the dogma, by assessing a food's value by nutrient-density and culling out dietitian favorites that are not really our best options. Noticably absent are many foods we're repeatedly told optimize our diet, namely a large number of grains; included are many foods that would make any dietitian start the incessant scolding - whole eggs, grass-fed beef, and even butter (from grass-fed cows). It's an easy read with fantastic photographs, but most importantly, great information and lots of interesting sidebar tidbits to keep you reading! [In the interest of full disclosure, I am quoted in the book and did help with profiling some of the foods that made the final cut; however, I hold no financial interest in the sales of the book]

The Great Cholesterol Con, Malcolm Kendrick, MD
Yes, same title as Colpo's book and subject matter, but that's where the similarities end. Dr. Kendrick is a practicing physician and his writing style is an easy-going, step-by-step, reader oriented approach; one I imagine parallels discussions with his patients to ensure they understand well what he is saying. He takes readers through a thoughtful explaination and examine scientific data in an understandable manner, beginnning first with what heart disease and cholesterol are, why the current treatments are what they are, why they're not necessarily the "fix" we think they are, and then explains what he believes underlies the development of heart disease - stress; more importantly, he connects the dots and explains why he's come to this conclusion with evidence to support his position. I would have liked a bibliography at the end - one that provided all references within the book. But, even with a noticably absent bibliography (or indec), Kendrick does provide enough identifying information about studies he cites, so they are easily found when searched for in PubMed.com.

The End of Food, Thomas Pawlick
I picked this book up on a whim while on vacation last month - it was paperback and fit easily into my bag for reading during our trip. What an eye-opener it turned out to be! What started for Pawlick as disgust over his repeated experience buying beautiful red tomatoes that appeared ripe, but never seemed to taste good or actually be ripe, turned into a quest to understand what is happening in our food supply today and led to his book that details a number of things being done that are impacting not only appearance and taste, but actual nutrient levels in foods like tomatoes.

Survival of the Sickest, Sharon Moalem, PhD
Of all the books I've read in the last few months, this is, without a doubt, my favorite! It too was an "on a whim" purchase - the back cover asked intriguing questions, "Can a person rust to death? Can sunglasses cause sunburn? Who gets drunk faster - Europeans or Asians? And why?" What I thought might just be another whack book, but bought anyway, turned out to be an intriguing look at our genetics and why we have some interesting mutations in some, but not others, in our population of humans; and why some of these mutations aren't necessarily "disease" as we know it, but the result of evolutionary pressure that provided protection that was once critical in survival, but not so much today. This was not only a fun read, but packed with useful information that flips many things we think about our understanding of genetics on its head, and in the process makes you really start to think about things like pharmaceuticals that block particular signals and genes in a whole new way.

Currently on my pile of books to read this summer (no reviews, I haven't read them yet), with similar subject matter:

Rethinking Thin, Gina Kolata
Real Food, Nina Planck
What we Believe, But Cannot Prove, John Brockamn, editor
Animal, Vegetable, Miracle: A Year of Food, Barbara Kingsolver et al
Death to Diabetes, DeWayne McCulley
The Hundred Year Lie, Randall Fitzgerald

Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Program

You may recall the alarming headlines reported here that suggested a high-fat meal was very risky to endothelial function; one went so far as to suggest just one bite of a burger might kill you!

Seems some researchers thought maybe it's a good idea to see what effect a high-protein (low-carb) and low-fat (high-carb) habitual diet might have on endothelial function over a longer period of time - say, maybe a year?

Wonder why you haven't seen any headlines on the latest study - Effects of weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet on flow-mediated dilatation, adhesion molecules and adiponectin - published in the British Journal of Nutrition?

Might be because the researchers found nothing significantly different between the two diets, and noted "weight loss does not improve FMD [flow mediated dialation]."

Paper gets published, media sees it, notes noting to see here, no sexy headlines....not quite juicy enough to waste readers time with (even though it contradicts those one-meal experiements), so let's just move on.

But wait!

Just because the study objective was to see effect (benefit or risk) on FMD, adhesion molecules and adiponectin, was there anything else they measured that did have significance and is worthy of our time to look at?

How about we take a look?

Two groups of subjects were randomized into two different dietary protocols - the first included 13 people assigned a low-carbohydrate diet (40% protein, 27% carbohydrate and 33% fat; 26g fiber daily); the second included 12 people assigned the high-carb diet (20% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 20% fat; 40g fiber daily).

Both groups were weighed, measured, poked and prodded and followed up with a 6-weeks, 12-weeks and 52-weeks. Measurements and testing included weight, BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, insulin, CRP, VCAM1, sICAM1, E-selectin, P-selectin, and total adiponectin. In addition, vascular measurements were taken for blood pressure analysis and endothelium-dependent FMD, along with an assortment of other tests.

The various measurements were duly recorded for baseline and re-measured during follow-ups, and were included in the final paper. Some critically important measures were statistically significant, but not the focus of the study design; thus not highlighted in the abstract conclusions.

We hear a lot about how low-carb diets are bad for cholesterol.

In this study, like others, total cholesterol, LDL and triglycerides were lowered over the course of the year and HDL rose while following the low-carb diet.

Total Cholesterol:
Baseline = 5.3
52-weeks = 4.62
[low-fat group went from 5.7 to 4.94]

LDL:
Baseline = 3.5
52-weeks = 2.69
[low-fat group went from 3.8 to 3.07]

HDL:
Baseline = 1.3
52-weeks = 1.44
[low-fat group went from 1.3 to 1.34]

Triglycerides:
Baseline = 1.7
52-weeks = 1.07
[low-fat group went from 1.4 to 1.34]

Intriguing too was the improvements with glucose and insulin following the low-carb diet:

Glucose (fasting):
Baseline = 5.9
52-weeks = 5.19
[low-fat group went from 5.8 to 5.5]

Insulin (fasting):
Baseline = 16.9
52-weeks = 7.28
[low-fat group went from 12.1 to 5.22]

An interesting finding was that adiponectin, a hormone involved in a number of metabolic processes, including glucose regulation and fatty acid catabolism, "did not change significantly after 12 weeks of weight loss" (p=0.10), but increased (good) at the last measurement, 52-weeks, at the end of the study (p=0.05).

Blood pressure (not high at baseline) improved, from 122/75 at baseline to 115/68 at the 52-week measure; for those on the low-fat diet, blood pressure increased from 122/75 at baseline to 130/74 at 52-weeks.

It's clear in the data that both dietary approaches offered improvements with weight loss in the above measures of risk factors. Something though wasn't "right" to help with, improve, endothelial-dependent FMD. We'll explore potentials in a moment.

Somethign troubling that seems glossed over - the higher blood pressure in those following the low-fat diet - where at baseline their blood pressure averaged 122/75, at 6-weeks it improved to 115/72 and again improved at 12-weeks was similar at 118/70. What happened between the 12-week measure and the blood pressure reading at week 52, when blood pressure was now averaging 130/74?

This is something I would consider worthy of noting, even maybe point out and suggesting additional questions and investigation as to why!

In the discussion section, the researchers stated that "The main finding of the present study was that weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet which brought about reductions in glucose, insulin and LDL-C did not improve FMD either after short-term weight loss or long-term weight maintenance. Irrespective of diet composition weight loss had beneficial effects in the short term on adhesion molecules and blood pressure and in the longer term on adiponectin and P-selectin. There appears to be a delay in improvement in both adiponectina nd P-selection as these molecules did not improve until weight loss had been maintained for a year."

They went on to add, "Lack of change in FMD in the present study confirms our previous finding that weight loss does not improve FMD...One of our goals with the dietary intervetion was a reduction in LDL-C which we achieves, 18% at 6-weeks and nearly 30% at the end of the study with no effect on FMD."

The researchers also noted that "The present study was also designed to achive a reduction in glucose in a 6-week weight loss intervention on a more moderate diet of 6000kJ and we achieved this but with no effect on FMD."

And, "A complex physiological response such as FMD may be related to LDL and glucose cross-sectionally and in post hoc analyses but these may not be casually related but correlate in some circumstances with the real unmeasured mediator of change. For instance, oxidative stress may be a major factor in reducing NO bioactivity but reducing LDL levels may have no effect on this even though the endothielial cell is clearly heathier as judged by a reduced adhesion molecules."

In the end, they concluded that "weight loss on a low-carbohydrate, low-saturated fat diet, does not improve FMD despite improvement in cardiovascular risk factors. The improvement in adiponectin was delayed."

So what was their error of omission?

Well, for one they failed to note the problematic rise in blood pressure observed in the subjects following the low-fat diet. But, let's set that aside for a moment.

They also failed to note that the above failure to improve FMD was also observed in subjects following the low-fat diet; one that happened to be designed well enough to match the American Heart Association recommendations!

Yet even that low-fat diet (20% of calories from fat) didn't help improve FMD, despite their weight loss, improvement in glucose, insulin and cholesterol; but this was left unsaid.

I'm not surprised.

So, what we're left with is the stated null finding of those on the low-carb diet, with no real statement that neither dietary approach did much for FMD.

I hate to say it, but there was also a lack of curiosity as to why this was.

It's pretty much accepted dogma that a low-fat diet improves the cardiovascular system, thus would exert a postive - significant - effect on endothelial-dependent FMD. It didn't, yet the researchers didn't say "hey, wait, this low-fat diet didn't help either" and instead highlighted that the low-carb diet didn't improve FMD in their conclusions.

Some questions really do need to be asked.

First, how did the low-carb diet look compared with the habitual diet?

We know subjects were consuming, on average, 11.4mJ each day (2725-calories) as their habitual diet. The weight loss diet was 6000kJ each day (1430-calories). They followed the weight loss phase of the diet for six weeks and lost 5.8kg, or 12.75-pounds.

Let's do math!

Each day, we're to believe, the subjects were in a calorie deficit of 1295-calories. Six weeks is 42-days, so over the period, a calorie deficit of 54,390 calories - enough to theoretically lose 15.5-pounds. Hmmm....Okay, so it's pretty clear they did not really follow the diet as planned, since it's clear they consumed more calories than was reported. Happens all the time, no biggie.

Except, we have no idea what the excess calories were, so we have a confounding variable here. Did they eat pie? Did they eat broccoli? Did they eat fatty meat instead of lean meat? Did they skip the oatmeal and eat eggs? Who knows?

It's also noteworthy that the low-fat dieters ate a habitual diet of 10.8mJ daily (2581-calories) and were placed on the same weight loss calorie level. So they were in a calorie deficit of 1150-calories each day, or a six week deficit of 48,342-calories. This theoretically would result in a weight loss of 13.8-pounds; they lost 5.9kg (13-pounds). Did they cheat less? Did they stick to the diet more carefully? Who knows?

But, we can be sure we have a confounding variable here - something doesn't add up, and it looks like that something is calorie intake. It appears it was higher than the dietary protocol called for; and an increased calorie intake we have no idea what foods/macronutrients it came from.

So then, is there anything else? Let's see how macronutrient intake changed on the low-carb diet.

At baseline, their habitual diet - 2725-calories - was from 39.6% carbohydrate (270g), 19.6% protein (133.5g) and 36.5% fat (110.5g). We do not know the baseline intake for fatty acids, but do know the dietary protocol was strict - saturated fat 7%, PUFA 6% and MUFA 13% of calories.So, while following the weight loss diet, the macronutrient profile changed to provide 1430-calories each day, of which 33% were carbohydrate (118g), 40% protein (143g) and 27% fat (43g) with 7% from saturated fat (11.1g), 6% from polyunsaturated fat (9.5g) and 13% from monounsaturated fat (20.7g).

The first glaring disparity is the protein-to-fat intake, for every 1g of fat, they were expected to consume 3.3g of protein; this is a highly unusual pattern, heavy with protein and too lean - if you review other studies on "low-carb" diets, the fat intake is usually higher than the level in this protocol and protein typically lower; of note, this intake ratio is next to impossible without some funky planning. I'd like to know how much soy was a part of this diet? How much of the diet was comprised of non-fat dairy? How much fish was allowed, and what type was it? Were protein shakes or supplements part of the protocol? If so, which type of isolate dominated?

Without this specific data, it's difficult to say one way or another if the foods included may have contributed to the null finding or not.

So here, we have a potential confounding variable that is unexplored.

Anything else?

Well, from the data we do know, it seems we find an inadequate level of polyunsaturated fats - with just 9.5g each day; a level at which the subjects are unable to meet essential requirements for omega-6 or omega-3 fatty acids!

I am really starting to wonder why researchers designing diet protocols that are inadequate for known essential nutrients?

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) clearly states in the Daily Recommended Intake documentation, the MINIMUM required each day from omega-6 is 5% to 10% of calories and the MINIMUM requirement each day from omega-3 is 0.5% to 1% - when calories are adequate to maintain weight. In absolute terms - absolute gram minimums - the IOM states that adequate intake of omega-6 fatty acid is 14g-17g for men (depending on age) and 11g-12g for women (depending on age); and that adequate intake of omega-3 fatty acids is 1.6g for men and 1.1g for women.

Combined, the absolute minimum intake for essential fatty acids is between 15.6g-17.6g for men and 12.1g-13.1g for women.

In this study, even if every last gram of polyunsaturated fat was an omega-3 or omega-6, these subjects were deficient for essential fatty acids with only 9.5g of polyunsaturated fats as part of the diet.

So, again, confounding variable - huge confounding variable!

And the researchers question why the diet didn't have an effect on FMD?

Perhaps the researchers haven't read the data showing improvement in cardiovascular health when essential fatty acid intake is optimized to meet or exceed current recommendations?

Recent evidence of the role of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on blood pressure control and hypertension-related complications

Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Role in Cardiovascular Health and Disease

Fish Oil and Endothelial Function

I can't say it enough - I love good data, but studies like this, with macronutrient intakes, as percentage of calories, is highly confounded data. Designing a dietary approach to lose weight or maintain weight, macronutrient percentages are often inefficient and do not meet essential nutrient requirements.

I'd really like to see some researchers start designing studies to ensure adequate intake of essential nutrients within the calorie deficits - until we start to look at the nutrient-quality of weight loss diets, I'm afraid we're not going to make much progress to provide the public with sound, scientifically supported recommendations.

You Asked for It...

After receiving a number of emails yesterday and this morning, asking for some context to where we spent money on our food budget, here is the list:

• Beef - 200-pounds @ $3.40= $680
  [two split-half orders; a split-half is half a cow divided by two families]
• Pork tenderloin 15-pounds @ $5.50 - 20% = $66
• Slab Bacon (uncured) - 16-pounds @ $5.00 - 20% = $64
• Sausage (bulk) - 16-pounds @ $3.50 - 20% = $45
• Brats/Sausage (link) - 20-pounds @ $4.50 - 20% = $72
• Ham Steak - 12-pounds @ $4.25 - 20% = $41
• Spare ribs - 20-pounds @ $2.10 - 20% = $34
• Turkey (2 Heritage birds/year) = $120
• Chicken (26 birds/year) = $234
• Eggs - 78 Dozen @ $2.50 = $195
• Lamb - 20-pounds @ $4.00 - 20% = $64
• Wild Fish & Shellfish = $200
• Other meats (bison, venison, etc.) = $60
• Milk, Half & Half, Yogurt, Cheese = $980
• Butter = $185
• CSA (local, organic produce, April - Nov) = $600
• Farmer's Market & retail (mid-April - mid-Nov) = $100
• Retail Produce, including frozen (mid-Nov - mid-April) = $250
• Oils, Spices, Condiments, Nuts/Seeds/Nut Butters = $247
• Miscellaneous = $75

Total = $4,312; $82.92 each week; $27.64 per person each week.

Had this been any other point in time, compiling the list might have been impossible; last year when we moved here, I started to keep track since our food purchasing habits changed as we joined a CSA and started ordering meat, poultry, eggs and such directly from local ranchers. While we lived in northern VA, I was easily spending $150 a week, but wouldn't be able to break down where the money went by food type. Sorry, I'm just not that obsessive!

Here, living in mid-Missouri, tracking my spending by food type is rote, it's how I order much of what we consume, so understanding where I spend on food is much easier here than in Virginia.

Something that I do need to note: what this does not include: our meals in restaurants or take-out eaten at home (we average once a week, one meal out/take-in); and meals while on vacation or attending conferences.

This, I think, is important to point out because, if this is considered into the above figure, our total cost for food is truly higher, almost double, since we average $25 a week for meals prepared outside our home, and budget $75-100 a day when traveling for meals (with an average 28-days a year on vacation and attending conferences).

If I include that $1300 for meals out/take-in [25 * 52] and $2100 for meals while traveling [28 * 75], we're looking at $7,712 for food each year; $642.66 per month; $148.30 each week; $49.43 per person each week. And, no, I really don't want to do the math to see how much I really spent while we lived in VA - it's too frightening to think about since I know it's significantly more than we're spending here in mid-MO.

So how to reconcile the budget if I did prepare each meal, at home or while traveling, from purchases throughout the year - that is no meals from restaurants or take out, and no need for vacation/conference eating out since all meals are from what we purchase; a more realistic budget of $4920 is needed to maintain our almost exclusive organic/pastured dietary habits throughout the year here in mid-MO.

I arrived at this figure by taking a year - 365-days - and subtracting our current average of 28-days traveling to arrive at 337-days; then took 52-days, divided it by 3 (meals each day) to arrive at 17-days; then subtracted that from 337 to arrive at 320 days - the days of meals provided in my budget above. I then divided the budget [$4312] by 320-days = $13.48 per day for meals we eat from the above budget. I then multiplied that sum by 365-days (in a year) to arrive at what we'd need to spend if we consumed all meals prepared by ourselves without any from restaurants.

So if $4,920 is truly more representative of what it would take to eat all meals, then we're looking at $94.61 each week, or $31.54 per person...to eat an almost exclusively organic/pastured diet; here in mid-MO.

Now granted, the way I do save considerable money requires first, a good, big upright freezer; next bulk purchase of meats/poultry/game (30-100+ pounds at a time) and then enough money on-hand to purchase major quantity when something expensive is on sale (like butter or oils - for example, right now I have close to 25-pounds of butter in the freezer).

Add to this, a membership in a CSA, while over time saving money, requires an up-front payment for the season (or you pay more if you pay with the payment plan; and out here there is no weekly or monthly payment plan - when you use the payment plan of three payments, it increases the total cost for the season by $50).

So, each of my "large sum required" ways to save a lot of money in the long-term makes it next to impossible for someone who is receiving assistance to do the same thing. I think this is one flaw in the current system that can and should be addressed - to me it makes sense to make funds available to allow recipients to utilize local sources, like a CSA or Farmer's Market or rancher, if it's saving more to do so than force the purchase at retail prices each month.

I don't think any of the CSA's in this area are equiped to accept EBT payments; even if they were, the up-front cost for membership would be prohibitive since those receiving assistance cannot "borrow" from future assistance to pay for an on-going source of fresh produce. So while a CSA membership costs about $18.75 each week (32-weeks) for a family of four, and would be a very cost effective way to ensure weekly fresh, local produce to recipients, it's not possible with how the system is structured today.

The Farmer's Markets in and around our area aren't equipped to accept EBT payments either; so while local produce (both conventional and organic) is available in the Farmer's Markets, often at significantly less than retail prices, it too remains a resource that cannot be utilized by those receiving assistance. (Some Farmer's Markets across the country are equipped for EBT payment)

Forget about trying to purchase meat or poultry in a large enough quantity to have a discount extended for bulk purchase; and totally forget about the significant savings when someone is able to buy a split-quarter or half, which makes meats and poultry cheap, cheap, cheap when compared to retail. Again, it's too much money up-front for someone receiving assistance to manage, even though long-term it saves significant sums of money.

Those receiving assistance, even when they have the room for one, cannot use their budget to purchase a freezer - which would enable them to purchase larger quantity at a lower price! The way money is currently made available also makes it next to impossible to stock-up on non-perishable foods (like canned vegetables & fruits, canned tuna/fish, peanut butter, etc.) when sales are favorable to a large quantity purchase, that over time saves money.

Anyway, for those of you who wanted to know how I manage to spend what we do each month on a mostly organic/pastured diet, there you have it.

Final Thoughts on the Food Stamp Challenge

With the weekend to gather my thoughts about our experience last week doing the Food Stamp Challenge, I'm left with more questions than answers, and no solutions that seem realistic to improve the situation where millions are struggling to feed themselves on what seems like a paltry sum - an average $3.00 a day per person.

As I learned, it is possible to feed a family within the budget a varied, nutrient-dense diet and even have food left at the end of the week. When I started to put together a menu and shopping list from the area stores' sale circulars, I thought it was going to be next to impossible to get everything we'd need for the week - I was surprised with the ease with which I did put together a menu, list of things on sale and the rest needed as 'fill-in-the-gap' items not advertised, and was able to buy everything for the week without much fuss. We even had food left at the end of the week - enough to more than start the next week and ease the stress of staying within the budget.

As some have noted in comments and email - I'm at a distinct advantage, I know which foods are nutrient dense and how to plan a menu, so it's not realistic, let alone reasonable, to expect someone without my specific background to be able to replicate my success in meeting the challenge. Some even emailed me links to show how pitiful some did when they tried to do the challenge.

I hate to say it, but posturing politicians aren't a great example of failure to succeed in the challenge. Their success is likely tied to their position on the issue - those who are in favor of increasing the assistance more likely to fail miserably than one interested in maintaining the status quo or reducing the budget. What I found when I poked around the blogosphere is that those without a vested interest either way, like me, were able to stay within the budget constraints during the week and seemed to do well with a little planning. Those who are strongly in favor of increasing the money provided did poorly. Coincidence? Who knows; but had congressman Ryan been trying to live on the DC budget - $31.30 average - and really planned better, he could have fared better than he did. But, that wouldn't have made headlines and would have been counter-productive to increasing the budget to provide more money to families needing assistance.

That's not to say that the assistance currently provided is great; it's not. It definitely does not allow a family (or individual) to buy whatever, whenever they'd like. Heck, without some planning you won't get through the month - plain and simple.

Even with planning you still won't have lots of goodies or all the convenience more money does provide one with.

While I was able to stay within budget, there were no ready-to-eat snacks, beverages (other than calcium enriched V-8), or packaged, quick to grab-and-go foods.

The budget forced planning, creativity and cooking each day - something no amount of money will inspire someone to do unless they see the value of their time as fundamental in managing on their budget.

While it's infinitely easier to grab a bag of pre-cut and washed lettuce than to wash and chop it yourself, the convenience comes at a steep premium - an average bag of lettuce (romaine) weighs 8-ounces and is often on sale for 2-for-$5.00....reality check - that's $5.00 per pound; head lettuce (romaine) goes for anywhere from $0.99 a head to $2.49 a head. Last week I weighed the two heads I purchased - one was about 1.75-pounds, the other 1.25 (green and red leaf respectively), so I had 3-pounds of lettuce that cost me $1.39 a head (total $2.78, or 0.92/pound).

If I purchased the amount of lettuce we ate throughout the week, already washed and chopped for me, I would have needed 6-bags to have 3-pounds of lettuce - at 2/$5 that's $15 - or, put another way, 47.6% of the budget for the week for a family of three.

Doing the washing and chopping myself left $12.22 in the budget for other foods.

So, I'm left wondering, if $21 per person each week isn't enough, how much is? Is it $25? $30? 40? More...? How much is enough?

When I poked around various state websites, detailing program funding in different locations, it's clear where you live matters in how much is provided. For example, here in Missouri and in neighboring Kansas, the average assistance is about $21 per person per week; but in areas that have higher cost-of-living, the amount can be as high as $38.75 per person each week.

What I did find shocking was that, according to Harvesters website, "Harvesters clients who receive Food Stamp benefits indicate that their monthly allotment lasts just 2 ½ weeks."

So, if my math is correct, a family of four - who receives an average of $21 per person per week - receives an average of $364 a month for a family of four.

[The math here = 21 * 4 = 84 * 52 = 4368/12 months = 364]

Based on the Harvesters finding that this amount provided for only 2.5 weeks in a month - are we to believe a family of four needs an average assistance with $582.40 a month instead of the current $364 each month?

[The math here = $336/2.5 = $134.40 per week when it's all spent in just 2.5 weeks; 134.40 * 52-weeks = $6988.80 per year/12 months = $582.40/month]

Do those needing assistance need 60% more each month to feed their families?

I don't know about you, but even we don't spend that much on average over the year, and I'm not exactly what you'd call thrifty when it comes to grocery shopping. In fact, I've heard many, many times from my much-more-cost-aware husband that I'm spending way too much on groceries!

So, I sat and calculated out our food costs, based on actual buying through the year, and between May 2006 and May 2007 we spent $4300 on food, including almost exclusive purchase of grass-fed pastured beef, chickens, turkey, pork, lamb and eggs; dairy from milk of pastured animals (including goat milk products); milk, fresh produce, oils, butter, and miscellaneous purchases at various grocery stores and produce when the CSA and Farmer's Market isn't providing fresh local vegetables and fruits.

That's an average of $82.69 a week for the three of us - $27.56 each per week - $3.93 per day per person. And we eat almost everything organic and grass-fed/pastured - and for less per person per week than the person needing additional help through Harvesters each month! [update 6/5: math error: annual, weekly and individual food budget updated to reflect correction]

Why are we not asking how we can help folks learn to budget better? When the same folks are coming through for additional help each month, maybe it's worth our time and effort to sit and listen, help them learn where they can make changes to their current buying practices to stay within their budget next month? It's easy to call the problem "not enough money" and just give them more money - but seriously, after doing it for a week, I'm not surprised we managed well - what I spent isn't that much less than I normally do on a weekly average!

So, I'm not convinced more money given to those who do need help is going to change much for them, or be the panacea that fixes the very real problems inherent in the existing system.

More money won't solve transportation problems.

More money won't relieve predatory pricing - it may even provide incentive to not only continue predatory pricing, but increase prices to eat up the additional dollars provided just as quickly.

More money won't buy access that isn't already there for fresh fruits and vegetables.

More money won't solve poor dietary habits.

More money won't solve time management issues.

More money won't incline people to cook more from scratch.

And, I hate to say it like this, but more money won't make people better planners - if someone today isn't thinking far enough ahead to budget for meals for a month, more money isn't going to change short-sightedness and failure to plan ahead when it's not in practice now.

After years as an IT professional, I can say with certainty, the saying "throwing more money at system problems makes them worse" is true.

I hate the idea that people are hungry and malnourished in the United States.

We can do better. We need to do better.

But I'm left without any good solutions....

All I have after a week of staying within the budget is questions - lots of questions...

Hunger in America, Are You Up to the Challenge?

Hunger Awareness Week begins tomorrow, June 2-10, and my home state, Missouri, and neighbor Kansas, through the organization Harvesters, are encouraging citizens to take the Food Stamp Challenge for a week.

The challenge includes a budget $38.75 per person each week - guidelines are available online to determine your food budget if you participate, and are based on the maximum benefits available across the nation.

The guidelines note that in Missouri and Kansas the average is approximately $20/week per person; so the budget I worked with last week is closer to the reality here than the higher budget allowed in the challenge they're hosting.

But, that's OK - I think it's a good experience for anyone interested in working within a budget to feed your family, especially when that budget is less than you'd normally spend each week. What I'm not convinced of is that more money each week/month is the solution - but that I'll get to in a later post.

The Week in Review

First, a correction - when starting the week and shopping, I didn't know that those receiving assistance do not pay tax on food purchases. So my going over budget wasn't actually $4.93 as I originally thought, but was $1.99 - that I'm now sure was due mostly to my purchase of spices and condiments it's been argued elsewhere most would have some of on hand, since it's rare someone is starting with absolutely nothing in the pantry.

So, then, the next question is, after a week, do we have anything left to start off next week and not start again from scratch? Let's take a look:

• 1/2 jar sweet relish
• 3 cans Van Camp Pork & Beans
• Baby spinach (enough for one small dinner salad)
• 1 can chunk light tuna
• Mustard (almost full)
• Mayonnaise (about half full)
• Ketchup (almost full)
• Spices (all ginger, some garlic, pepper, sesame seeds)
• Salt (box almost full)
• 5 carrots (from 2-pound bag)
• 2 celery stalks (from one bunch)
• 1/2 bag sunflower seed kernels (from 1-pound bag)
• Mixed together, a handful of walnuts and almonds
• 1 can black olives
• Tea bags (about half the box remains)
• 1 can red kidney beans
• 1-pound ground beef
• 12-oz package frozen sole
• 1/2 bag frozen cut green beans
• V-8 juice - about 1-cup remains in bottle
• Salad, about enough for two small side salads
• Unopened 1-lb package chicken/pork franks

Bigger question - did the food eaten during the week meet nutrient requirements?

You can see from the FitDay tracking, that with the exception of Vitamin D, I met all nutrient requirement RDA's. This time of the year, for most Americans getting out into the sunshine sans sunscreen, vitamin D isn't an issue - we make it in our skin from exposure to ultraviolet rays from the sun.

I did lose three pounds during the week, yet wasn't hungry!

In reviewing my macronutrient intake I found my calories were lower than usual - I ate an average of 2,330-calories each day, when I need about 2,600 a day to maintain my weight.

The calorie deficit of 270-calories each day explains about a half-pound of the weight loss (1890-calories over seven days) and I'd speculate the remaining 2.5-pounds was the dual effect of water loss and a higher than usual intake of protein, with the protein boosting the thermic effect of food consumed. Whatever the reason, three pounds? I'll take it!

Carbohydrate intake each day averaged 97g carbohydrate, with 24g fiber, so 73g net carbohydrate; and my protein was higher than usual, averaging 142g protein each day. I usually eat about 100-125g of protein each day, so the higher protein intake is also likely to be a contributor to my satiety with less calories.

Low-Carb Increases CRP?

Last month the Journal of the American College of Nutrition published a study, Low Carbohydrate, High Fat Diet Increases C-Reactive Protein during Weight Loss, that I'd set aside to write about when time permits.

I'm also a strong believer in not re-inventing the wheel, so when someone else writes a good analysis, I'm inclined to point you in that direction rather than repeat what's been already said.

Cassandra Forsythe is a PhD Fellow at the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and works with Dr. Jeff Volek; her studies include exercise and nutrition.

Her blog is Female Fitness and Nutrition Scientist, and yesterday she posted her analysis of the study and its findings.

Into the Home Stretch

Well, we're into the home stretch - vegetable omelets for breakfast with bacon; tuna salad (celery, onion, mayo) on a bed of lettuce, cucumber, shredded carrots, walnuts and dressing; with dinner to end our day - a dinner salad (baby spinach, romaine, shredded carrots, cucumber, tomato, dressing) and chicken chili, topped with a dallop of sour cream and shredded cheddar cheese. And yes, in the picture, my son's hand is reaching for his additional item on the side - some cantaloupe.















My use of chicken for chili started a few years ago, when a dinner out included a cup of chicken chili - a medley of vegetables, spices, beans and chicken - unlike any chili I'd had before...it was insanely delicious!

I don't have any particular set recipe to make it - it's just basics that I start with and is a great way to use up leftover vegetables that sometimes collect in the refrigerator throughout the week.

You know what I'm talking about - the two tablespoons of spinach, the half-cup of broccoli, the scant onions and peppers, etc. - the veggies you won't bring yourself to toss while clearing the table from dinner (and shouldn't), but the amount isn't really enough for a side at another meal.

I use these leftover vegetables often, in omelets, but even that doesn't always get them eaten fast enough. So, chicken chili (or other "stew-like" dish) is a great place to add them and boost nutritional value of a meal without much fuss.

When I make dishes like this, I usually start with more fresh ingredients, but since I was working with what was on hand for the week, here is what I wound up doing to make the meal.

The small 3-pound chicken went into a pot of water to cook slowly. This provided not only the meat for our chili, but also provided a rich stock for future use.

When the chicken was done, I simply removed it from the water and let it cool while I started another pot (the stock was also set aside and cooling).

The burner was on medium heat and into the pot went a can of diced tomatoes, a jar of picante sauce, 1/2 packet of taco seasoning, 1/2 onion chopped chunky, 1 carrot diced really tiny, the green pepper tops I'd saved from when I made the stuffed peppers - chopped medium/chunky, 1-cup V-8, the leftover zucchini, tomatoes and onions from the night before, and 2-cups frozen green beans.

After stirring that all together to simmer and cook, I took all the meat off the chicken and diced it up. After I waited about 15-minutes for the vegetable mix to simmer and cook, I added about 2/3 of the chicken meat to the mix, along with one can of drained, well-rinsed red kidney beans and left it to simmer and cook.

When it was ready, it was served with grated cheddar cheese and sour cream for topping.

What's great about this recipe is that it's not dependent on any particular vegetables, other than the tomato base - whatever vegetables are on hand are used and you can let your imagination go - it's all good!

Today's breakfast is eggs and bacon with a side of strawberries (the last we have for all of these foods), and lunch is going to be leftover chicken chili.

So that wraps up the week, and we do have food left. I'll follow-up with some thoughts later.