You Ask, I Answer: Skinny Bitch

What do you think of the book Skinny Bitch?

-- Jamie Pierce
Salt Lake City, UT

Skinny Bitch advertises itself as "a no-nonsense tough-love guide for savvy girls who want to stop eating crap and start looking fabulous!"

While I do give the book credit for rightfully criticizing the treatment of farm animals and dedicating a Marion Nestle-inspired chapter to the politics behind the approval process of artificial sweeteners and other substances, I summarize it as "an often inaccurate, wannabe-"shocking" nutrition book that sometimes spouts crap and is under the impression that insulting the reader is fabulous!"

Skinny Bitch claims to "finally tell you the truth about what you're feeding yourself."

However, despite its "hip" title and grrrrl-power writing style that launched it to the top of the New York Times bestseller list, it is riddled with faulty facts, hyperbolic pronouncements, and silly suggestions.

One of the authors is a former agent for Ford Models. First red flag.

Why do people who have never studied nutrition science consider themselves authorities? Would you trust a dentist who never studied dentistry? Would you trust a surgeon who never set foot in medical school? I certainly wouldn't. So why take nutrition advice from someone who hasn't dedicated time to studying it -- especially someone who works in an industry obsessed with unhealthy body shapes?

Author number two is a former model who holds a Masters degree in Holistic Nutrition from Clayton College of Natural Health. Not surprisingly, the quality and reputation of this institution are highly questioned.

There's two red flags before you even open the book.

In any case, Skinny Bitch makes the argument that the only way to be healthy is by becoming a vegan who shuns alcohol, white flour, and caffeine.

The authors repeat this over and over and particularly enjoy cursing at the reader for ever thinking they could be healthy by including any sort of meat or dairy product in their diet.

Even more disturbingly, they prey on readers' body image fears by making the case that not only does any amount of meat and dairy make you sick, it also makes you -- gasp! -- fat.

Allow me to share some passages that resulted in an "ugh!" and an eyeroll from me.

* "Soda's high level of phosphorus can increase calcium loss from the body, as can its sodium and caffeine."

While phosphoric acid in soda has indeed been linked with leached calcium from bones, it is only an issue for individuals who are not getting sufficient amounts of calcium in their diets.

Have these two ever bothered to look at the nutrition facts on a can of soda, though? Soda is very low in sodium.

A can of Coca Cola, for example, contains 35 milligrams (that's 1.4% of the suggested daily maximum intake). Ironically, the frozen vegan burger products the authors endorse contain as much as 500 milligrams of sodium per serving!

As for the caffeine-calcium link -- that's also weak, at best.

* The authors make several references to drinking 8 glasses of water a day. As I have explained in the past, this recommendation stems from a huge misunderstanding by the mainstream media.

* "One study even links caffeine to an increased susceptibility to diabetes."

Bad science alert!

Had the authors bothered to thoroughly research the literature on caffeine and diabetes, they would have discovered that caffeine consumption is linked to a lower risk of diabetes among healthy individuals. The studies they refer to are ones suggesting that people who already have diabetes may benefit from cutting back on caffeine in order to improve their blood sugar levels.

* "Acidic foods cause your body to produce fat cells..."

They apparently believe in one of the biggest -- and off-base -- nutrition myths. Lentils, blueberries, and chickpeas, for example, are categorized as "acidic foods." They now make you fat? Wow, and to think silly uninformed me considered them healthy all this time!

* "When we eat fruit with other foods... it rots and ferments in our stomach."

Not surprisingly, that ludicrous statement is not attributed to any source. Right, because it's science fiction!

* "We have food rotting, decomposing, and fermenting in our intestinal tracts and colons, hence the need for colonics."

Did the author with the Masters degree ever take a human physiology course? Clearly not! Otherwise, she would know that nothing can cling to the colon and "rot away" since the cells that line that organ slough off several times a day.

* "You don't see many tigers getting colonics, do you?"

No. Fortunately for them, rip-off artists don't exist in their species.

* "Your body can't handle animal fat, so it settles like lumpy shit all over your ass, thighs, sides, arms and stomach."

I'll let that ridiculous quote speak for itself. Is this what holistic nutritonists are being taught? Sigh...

* "If you want to get skinny, you've got to be a vegetarian."

Before I comment, let me remind you that I am a pescatarian who follows a strictly vegetarian diet 90% of the time. I am by no means a meat enthusiast, nor do I have stock in the beef industry.

That said, the idea that vegetarian = skinny is ludicrous. After all, vegetarians can eat ice cream, cakes, cookies, muffins, pizza, french fries. They can consume more calories than they need and, consequently, gain weight.

Once again, I can't help but wonder: THIS is the nonsense that passes for a #1 New York Times bestseller these days?

* "Dairy products produce mucus."

Another myth these authors clearly didn't research.

* "[Dairy products] are the perfect thing to eat if you want to be sick and have a diseased body."

As much as I dislike the narrow-minded notions that dairy products are the only way to get calcium and absolutely necessary for human health, I am also irritated by the frantic and inaccurate warnings that dairy products are equivalent to chugging Draino.

* "Consuming high amounts of dairy blocks iron absorption, contributing to iron deficiency."

Ugh. The same can be said about phytates in whole grains. In fact, the extremists folks at the Weston A. Price Organization make that very argument -- which, like this one, has very little relevance.

There is severely faulty logic at work here. Yes, calcium inhibits iron absorption, but this applies to all sources of calcium (i.e.: broccoli, bok choy, mustard greens, and tempeh) -- not just dairy.

* "Eggs are high in saturated fat."

Absolutely untrue. One egg contains approximately 1.5 grams of saturated fat -- that's 0.4 fewer grams than a tablespoon of olive oil!

* "You will pee in your pants when you see how much weight you lose from giving up dairy."

If you give up any food and don't replace the calories with something else, you will obviously lose weight. If, however, you replace the 91 calories in a cup of skim milk with 91 calories from soymilk, don't count on any changes.

* "Do you really believe milk can be made fat-free? Get your had out of your ass. Milk = fat. Butter = fat. Cheese = fat. People who think these products can be low fat or fat free = fucking morons."

The f-word! How "edgy"!

First of all, there is no such thing as low-fat or fat-free butter, so that particular example makes no sense.

Additionally, skim milk is not a mythical food item that only exists in supermarkets operated by unicorns and mermaids. So, yes, milk CAN be made fat-free.

* After pages upon pages of criticizing processed foods and sugar, the authors go on to recommend a variety of frozen vegetarian burgers, soy ice creams, and tofu hot dogs. HUH? Frozen vegetarian foods, like other frozen items, are high in sodium. Vegan hamburgers are processed food. Soy ice creams, like dairy-based ones, contain added sugars.

* From the FYI chapter: "Donate blood. You can save a life and lose weight at the same time."

I think that was when my eyebrows hit the ceiling.

Alas, I could go on (trust me, I could!), but I think you get the point.

To "make up" for their verbal abuse at the reader, the authors conclude the book with positive-thinking mantras lifted right out of The Secret ("every day in every way my stomach is getting flatter") and a clearly-tacked-on-by-a-public-relations-friendly-editor reminder that, despite the title of the book, unrealistically thin illustrations on the front and back cover, and constant references to weight, "they couldn't care less about being skinny."

In The News: Oh, Look... Calories!

CNN is reporting the findings of a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine comparing the efficacy of four diets -- high-carb, low-carb, high-fat, and high-protein.

Although not based on popular diets (the high-protein diet, for instance, does not provide the same distribution of nutrients as Atkins), the four eating plans had their particular distinctions (i.e: one offered 35 percent of calories from protein, while another increased the amount to 65 percent of calories from protein).

The conclusion? "All produced weight loss and improvements in lipids [as well as] reduction in insulin. The key really is that it's calories, not the content of fat or carbohydrates -- just calories," summarizes study co-author Dr. Frank Sacks of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Or, as the study itself beautifully encapsulates it: "reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize."

No matter which of the four diets the 811 overweight participants were on, they all "had a[n average] 750-calorie reduction per day."

Not surprisingly, they all lost weight.

Note that even the higher-in-fat diets followed American Heart Association guidelines (mainly sufficient fiber intakes and limited saturated and trans fat intake).

Let this be even further proof to the "saturated fat is the healthiest fat; everyone is lying to you!" camp that diets rich in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat do indeed lead to improved lipid profiles and weight loss.

Adding to the uniqueness of this study is that it is one of the few that tracked participants on these diets for two entire years.

How will "calories don't matter, it's all about limiting carbohydrates"enthusiasts explain yet another study showing weight loss can be accomplished while eating a substantial amount of carbohydrates?

Thud, Thud, Thud...

Oh, don't mind me. That's the sound of my head hitting my desk repeatedly.

Why? Oh, I just found out about the latest diet book making the Internet rounds -- The Lemon Juice Diet.

Really? Yes. Really.

I'll let the publisher's description speak for itself.

"Instead of just suggesting dieters drink a concoction of lemon juice, cayenne, and maple syrup, The Lemon Juice Diet starts there and then integrates lemon juice into a healthier, easy to maintain, long-term plan. Lemon is a natural powerhouse; its great flavor makes it an easy addition to your diet and its low glycemic index provides a steady stream of energy, without the sugar high and subsequent crash we get from high GI foods."

Oh, it gets better: "Lemon juice, when taken regularly first thing in the morning, acts as a tonic to the liver and stimulates it to produce bile making it ready to digest the day's food."

Anyone else in favor of a 100-year moratorium on any diet plan that suggests any beverage that combines lemon juice with cayenne pepper?

In The News: Another One Bites the Dust... Yay!

Those of you who watched my YouTube video on appetite suppressants know how much I loathe them.

So, as you may imagine, I was pleased as punch to find out today that multi-national giant Unilever has canceled negotiations with Hoodia supplier Phytopharm to use the plant extract in Slimfast products, despite plunking down $25 million in research and developments costs over the last four years.

Unilever's official statement is very PR-friendly: "the extract would not meet our safety and efficacy standards."

In other words -- the whole thing is bunk and they want nothing to do with it. Good!

By the way, Hoodia was one of the "magic indredients" in TrimSpa. We all know how THAT ended.

For those of you unfamiliar with Hoodia, it is a plant native to the Kalahari Desert in South Africa, which Natives have supposedly eaten for centuries to keep hunger at bay while on long treks.

The "magic" apparently occurs due to a molecule in the plant known as P57, which allegedly shuts off appetite by targeting the hypothalamus.

Mind you, there is absolutely no evidence that Hoodia works. All we have are anecdotal accounts (generously provided by companies selling the product, of course.)

It's also silly to assume that processed parts of a plant, either in powder or capsule form, yield the same results as consuming it in unadulterated ways.

That's like someone hawking fruit juice concentrates in pill form and claiming they offer the same health benefits as a piece of raw fruit.

Even if Hoodia did work, appetite suppresants are the worst thing you can do for long-term weight loss.

They don't teach new behaviors and can have risky side-effects (remember, the term "appetite suppresant" is a euphemism for "amphetamines.")

How about a pill that makes consumers immune to diet scams, frauds, and "magic bullets"?

The Skinny on Appetite Suppressants

The latest Small Bites YouTube video concerns the multi-million dollar appetite suppressant industry.

These supposed magical pills are marketed everywhere (most have a higher advertising budget than individual fruit and vegetable boards), promising effortless weight loss.

Despite the fact that some of these supplements are simply scaled down versions of amphetamines and others have absolutely no scientific evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, consumers continue to seek out these products in hopes of shedding pounds by simply popping a pill.

I explain why appetite suppressants are a big waste of money -- and suggest one productive place that cash can go.

You Ask, I Answer: Raw Diets & Calories

I've heard that part of the reason raw foods seem to aid so much in weight loss is because they take more energy to digest.

[Meaning], a raw carrot will, in the end, give you less caloric energy than a cooked carrot because it takes more energy expenditure to chew/breakdown/digest when raw?

Is this legit or bogus?

-- Lizzy
Via the blog

Yet another bogus claim from raw food enthusiasts.

It's not that raw foods in and of themselves aid in weight loss, but that by opting for a raw lifestyle, you are cutting out a significant number of foods, thereby reducing your total caloric intake.

This is akin to low carb diets, where you can have all the butter and oil you want, but just not on bagels, dinner rolls, or pasta.

What are people supposed to do at a restaurant? Refuse the bread basket and instead nibble on pats of butter?

Since that's not an appetizing option, people end up eliminating bread AND butter from their restaurant meal, saving themselves as much as 300 calories!

Although many raw restaurants are able to create high-calorie dishes by creatively using nuts, seeds, coconut, and other ingredients, it is hard to produce these labor-intensive meals at home.

Try out the following experiment, if you're interested.

Plan to go raw just for one day.

Live your life as you normally would (going to work, running errands, etc.) but shun cooked foods (this includes items you may not immediately think of, such as breakfast cereals, milk, yogurt, roasted peppers, and corn chips).

You'll be surprised at just how many less calories you'll be consuming compared to your non-raw days (lunch and dinner at raw restaurants will be considered cheating).

Yes, nuts are high in calories, but you can only munch on so many before you're sick of them.

Say What?: Japanese Dieters Go Bananas

And you thought the Master Cleanse diet was as ridiculous as it could get?

CBS-3 in Philadelphia is reporting that Japan's "morning banana diet" fad has led to shortages of the yellow-skinned tropical fruit.

What exactly does the morning banana diet entail, you ask?

Oh, just the usual nonsense.

Apparently, you can eat whatever you want --in unlimited quantities, no less -- for lunch and dinner (although dinner should preferably be no later than 6 p.m.) as long as you consume one raw, unfrozen banana for breakfast.

That's right, feel free to wolf down cheeseburgers, fries, and milkshakes -- the bananas will magically help you lose weight!

Two other rules -- you may only drink water and exercise is completely optional!

The diet's "official website," which credits a "white-collar worked named Hitoshi Watanabe" as creating the diet, provides some laughable theories as to why this weight-loss plan "works."

My favorites?

* "Bananas contain enzymes that assist in digestion, speeding it up and thus reducing the amount of time the intestines need to work to digest food, resulting in a metabolism more suited to losing weight. These enzymes only exist if the bananas are eaten in their raw state."

Oh, look, the digestive enzyme myth again!

Humans already have necessary digestive enzymes; we do not need any from our food supply.

Additionally, speeding up digestion sounds like a dieter's nightmare, as it would mean faster gastric emptying (and thus feeling hungry more quickly!)

* "Laying off the manditory[sic] exercise and allowing afternoon sweets reduces stress, which would otherwise lead to overeating."

There's a new one! So popping bonbons at four in the afternoon creates as many "feel good" endorphins as lifting some weights or jogging?

Who knew nutrition could be so comical?

In The News: Quick & Dangerous

Weight loss centers in Istanbul are coming under scrutiny after a 19-year-old patient in one of these establishments died after losing 33 pounds in six weeks.

"Turkish Dietetic Association Chairman Sacide Gümüşel stated that unqualified dietitians can easily find work in Turkey, which presents a serious public health threat."

This is precisely why looking for the right credentials is key when seeking professional help for health and/or weight management issues.

In the United States, the best thing you can look for is a Registered Dietitian credential (or, as I like to refer to it, the Real Deal credential.)

Of course your mileage may vary depending on which Registered Dietitian you work with (like in any other field, there are excellent RDs, average RDs, and not-so-great RDs), but you can count on them having a basic scientific understanding of nutrition that keeps your health in mind.

The article quotes the American Overseas Dietetic Association's Turkey representative who states that "numerous institutions in Turkey, from beauty salons to pharmacies, are able to write up a plan for weight loss [without consulting a dietitian]."

Anyone promising more than 8 pounds of weight loss in a 30 days or a "secret" weight-loss ingredient in pill or powder form should raise a "Caution!" sign in your mind.

You Ask, I Answer: Weight Loss & Support

When the year started, I was at my highest weight ever [25 pounds overweight.]

I tried to diet as a New Year's resolution, but it was really strict, almost no carbs except for salad vegetables, and it was hard to keep up. I was eating about 950 calories a day, it was so hard.

A few months later I tried again, but healthier.

Since May I have lost 18 pounds and I'm really happy. I'm mainly doing it by watching portions of a lot of foods I like, so I don't feel deprived of anything. I'm eating about 1,700 calories a day and I also go to the gym a few times a week.

What is hard now is that I feel I am not getting much support from my boyfriend and my friends.

Over the past month, my boyfriend has been buying me lots of sweets and chocolates, which I don't like to have in my house because it's hard for me to watch my portions.

I met him about two weeks before I started dieting (May 2nd) and lately it's as if he wants me to gain weight again. It's weird.

Some of my friends also comment on what I eat when I am at restaurants, too. Like if I choose to eat a salad as an appetizer and then an appetizer for my entree there are two friends of mine who will always be on my case about how I'm probably starving or something.

I don't know if you answer these sorts of questions, but what should I do about this?

-- Natalie (last name withheld)
(city withheld), VT

Natalie -- and everyone else interested in this question -- please watch the latest video on the Small Bites YouTube channel (also embedded below):

In The News: Adolescent Nutrition (And Small Bites!)

Last week, Terri Coles of Reuters.com contacted me to see if we could briefly chat about the nutrition status of teenage girls in the United States.

This has gained status as a "hot topic" due to a new government program called Bodyworks, which sets to teach healthy eating behaviors to female adolescents across the country.

Read her excellent article (published today) summarizing the issues, and our conversation, right here.

You Ask, I Answer: "Negative Calorie" Foods

What do you think of negative calorie foods?

Can someone lose weight if they eat well over their recommended calories of just negative calorie food?

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

I don’t believe “negative calorie foods” (foods that, some folks like to think/desperately wish, contain less calories than our bodies use to digest them) exist.

Have you ever seen a list of supposed “negative calorie foods?”

You'll find a handful of vegetables (i.e.: asparagus, cucumbers) and fruits (i.e.: strawberries, blueberries.)

Forget "negative calories," these simply happen to be foods so low in calories that they can be eaten in fairly large quantities without much of an effect on your weight.

It’s not that cucumbers result in a caloric deficit, it’s more that it takes TEN cups of sliced cucumbers to reach the 160 calorie mark (it takes just HALF a cup of Haagen Dazs to consume that same amount.)

Bottom line -- every food contains calories. Yes, even iceberg lettuce (a basically non-existent 8 calories per cup, but they are there.)

These diet gimmicks are the creation of slick business people looking to tap into what I call the "desperate" demographic. These are people willing to believe ANYTHING that doesn’t call for a slow and steady change in their eating patterns or more structured/careful thinking about what they are eating.

Also, my dear "anonymous," there is no “recommended caloric amount” of negative calorie foods.

The key to losing weight is to cut down on caloric intake (and if you can increase physical activity simultaneously, particularly with weight-resistant exercises, you’re down an excellent path.)

Doing so in a healthy, tasty, permanent way that leaves you feeling satisfied while meeting your nutritional requirements isn't always quite so easy, which is one reason why this blog was created.

An Experiment to Remember

In November of 1944, Physiologist Ancel Keys and some colleagues at the University of Minnesota conducted a fascinating study known as The Minnesota Experiment.

It consisted of 36 healthy anti-war young males in good mental and physical health who were put on starvation diets to the point of losing a quarter of their body weight, and then refed.

Although the original intent was to examine how starvation, and subsequent refeeding, affected World War II soldiers, this study shed fascinating light on what happens on semi-starvation diets.

For the first 3 months, participants consumed 3,200 - 3,500 calories a day (the amount needed to maintain their weight at the time), eventually cutting down to 1800.

The last 3 months, men were assigned different caloric levels to observe what changes the body undergoes during refeeding.

Keep in mind that throughout the entire study, regardless of how many calories they were taking in, the men burned approximately 3,000 calories a day.

By the way, when these men significantly cut their caloric intake -- resulting in losing a quarter of their body weight, as evidenced by photos in which their ribcages stick out -- their diet consisted mainly of carbohydrates, including white bread, potatoes, and jello.

I would love to hear how Gary Taubes and his fervent low-carb supporters explain this within their framework of "carbohydrates make you fat, calories are irrelevant, and exercise has nothing to do with weight loss."

Anyhow, back to reality.

The results of The Minnesota Experiment were published in 1950 in a 1,385-page tome titled The Biology of Human Starvation.

It clearly demonstrates the immense psychical and psychological toll that starvation diets took on these men.

Anemia, edema, dizziness, guilt, self-inflicted harm, shoplifting, loss of sex drive, and "semi-starvation neurosis" were experienced pretty much across the board.

The more repressed food was, the more it was on these men's minds, to the point of unhealthy obsession.

It took at least a year for most of the participants to truly feel physically and psychologically recovered.

For more information on this fascinating study, I highly recommend reading this summary.

You Ask, I Answer: Health Consequences of Master Cleanse

Amidst all my warnful cries, my coworker and two friends, like martyrs, trudged their way through Stanley Burrough's ten day "cleanse".

One friend reported to me on day 9 that she almost fainted on the subway, and had to get off only to ensue in dry heaving on the platform.

I naturally suggested she eat something, to which she declined. [She instead] went home to rest.

She said she has 50+ bruises all over her body. I asked if she thought it had anything to do with the cleanse, and possibly being malnourished.

What are your thoughts regarding this bruising issue, iron deficiencies, etc?

-- Brooke Green
Brooklyn, NY

Oy.

I can't say I'm too surprised that your co-worker felt nauseous and weak after subsisting on nothing but water, maple syrup, lemon juice, and cayenne peppers for 9 consecutive days. Who wouldn't?

Of course, the people who profit from the Master cleanse (none of which have any nutrition credentials, of course) claim that fainting is normal, simply a consequence of your body going through the "detox" process.

No. Fainting is a consequence of your body not getting enough nourishment, plain and simple. If anyone tells you otherwise, run away. Fast.

What's truly disturbing about the Master Cleanse and similar "regimens" is that many people with a variety of health problems (i.e.: hypoglycemia, diabetes) go on it without ever consulting a physician or dietitian, thereby exacerbating their conditions.

Even people in perfectly good health, for whatever reason, think that those four foods will perform some sort of magic on their internal organs.

In any case, as I have explained before, the Master Cleanse is deficient in almost every nutrient, and the weight loss incurred from it is due to loss of water and muscle mass.

Losing muscle mass and consuming such few calories results in metabolism slowing down, thereby making true weight loss even harder.

There is absolutely nothing about the Master Cleanse that I find even remotely healthy, valid, or sane, and I can't believe millions of people are being deluded by such quackery.

However, as I have been learning with this blog, people will hold on to unsubstantiated nutrition ideas no matter how much evidence or reasoning you attempt to provide.

As for her bruising, I don't attribute it to the cleanse because iron-deficiency symptoms do not show up after 9 days of low iron consumption.

If her iron intake has been low for several months, it very well may be coincidental timing.

In any case, she should definitely get some bloodwork. The sooner, the better.

Over in Oprah Land....

Time to see what Oprah's blog reveals about her ongoing 21-day vegan diet (remember, she's also shunning sugar, gluten, alcohol, and caffeine).

Last Friday, Oprah stopped by Tom Cruise's Telluride home, where she was met with a "ribs and chicken" (marinated in some sort of Scientology-friendly sauce, I'm sure) lunch.

Granted, this was no vegan-friendly meal, so Oprah opted for salad, corn on the cob (no butter, of course) and kale.

Which brings me to a very important point. Well-balanced vegan mealplans need to be researched and planned.

I believe a vegan lifestyle can be healthy, but it must be looked into carefully prior to taking the plunge.

If anyone reading this is considering going vegan, be my guest -- but speak with a Registered Dietitian or, at the very least, read educational materials (preferably written by RDs) on how to meet your nutrient needs with meat and dairy alternatives.

Becoming familiar with vegan alternatives and always being prepared (i.e.: carrying a source of protein like nuts or seeds in your bag in a small Ziploc bag) sets you up for success.

Otherwise -- especially when attending an event at a non-vegan's house who is not familiar with your "diet," -- you run the risk of piling up on side dishes.

Oprah's lunch offers very little protein, zinc, iron, and fat. Nibbling on corn and greens is simply not nutritious -- or filling!

The next day -- Saturday -- Oprah is in Vegas and begins her entry with the following:

"Tal [the vegan chef 'assigned' to Oprah and her team] has Fed-Exed food to Vegas, so we have egg-less omelets for breakfast and lasagna for the plane ride home."

Alright, I cry foul. Come on -- anyone can do a 21 day vegan/sugar/wheat/alcohol/caffeine cleanse if a vegan chef Fed-Exes them meals!

I would have liked to see Oprah "keep it real" and traverse the meat-laden obstacle that is Las Vegas.

In that same posting, Oprah proudly mentions abstaining from having a celebratory glass of champagne.

I still don't understand how the shunning of alcohol (or gluten or sugar, for that matter) relates to becoming a more spiritually aware being.

Besides, any dietary plan that has you obsessing over certain foods and beverages (the "I would like a drink but I am on this clease so as good as that would be I am just going to have seltzer and lime" sentiment has appeared a few times already) needs to be examined more closely.

Sure, alcohol can be a source of empty calories, so although two drinks a day is not a good idea, not allow yourself one drink two days out of the week?

The next day, a pooped Oprah mentions the vegan chef dropping off gluten and wheat-free waffles at her house just in time for breakfast. Oh goodie, how convenient!

It frustrates me to think that viewers of Oprah's show will blindly follow a similar diet, oblivious of some very necessary nutrients they may miss out on.

Additionally, this idea that wheat and gluten are evil is misleading and completely subjective; it is only a problem for someone with a gluten allergy or celiac disease.

This is a perfect example of something applicable to a small percent of the population being heralded as "general nutrition advice"

Allow me to repeat my plea. Oprah, enough with the fad dieting. You're a smart, accomplished woman with an immense fan base.

Next time you want to tackle nutrition, why not invite a panel of Registered Dietitians to share information, debunk myths, and give people practical information they can apply to their daily lives?

Celebrities -- They're Just Like Us! They Follow Senseless Fad Diets!

During a long wait at the doctor's office today I picked up a recent issue of Us Weekly.

Lo and behold, I came across this weight-loss piece.

Turns out that former dancer Tracy Anderson -- who now trains Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow; the three are pictured alongside this post -- has created a "perfectly healthy" (her words, not mine) diet plan that promises a net loss of 20 pounds in just 6 weeks.

Anderson claims that "signature strategy" helps women achieve the "teeny-tiny dancer type" body so many of them desire.

Allow me to pull out my huge red flag.

Anything that promises readers to achieve a dancer's physique should make your BS detectors light up.

Talk about unrealistic expectations! Dancers achieve their bodies through years of intense training.

Let's not forget, too, that the dance world has very high rates of eating disorders. That figure is not just about eating grilled salmon and steamed veggies for dinner every night.

Someone carrying 50 extra pounds on their frame who does not exercise regularly should not be promised such an unrealistic result.

Oh, but wait, that's right -- Anderson claims to have independently tested 100 women (what a conveniently round number!) over the past 5 years.

Therefore she must know what she's talking about, right? Wrong.

Her "signature strategy" is nothing more than an alarmingly drastic caloric reduction (which we'll get to in a bit).

The plan strictly forbids processed foods, dairy, and spices. Red flag number TWO.

Anderson, who as far as I know is not a registered dietitian and has not studied nutrition, claims that dairy and spices result in bloating and upset the digestive system, thereby resulting in fat storage.

If she DID study nutrition, where did she get her degree? Bizarro University?

Spices are wonderfully healthy -- they offer a variety of nutrients, antioxidants, and phytochemicals.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence linking spices to bloating or fat storage.

As for dairy, unless someone is lactose intolerant, I don't see any reason for avoiding it, particularly fat-free dairy, which is a wonderful source of protein and calcium.

The second week of the plan mostly eliminates snacks, leaving dieters with three paltry meals.

One Wednesday, for instance, suggests:

BREAKFAST

1 cup nonfat rice milk
1 poached egg

LUNCH

1 slice whole wheat toast
2 strips veggie bacon
1/2 cup tomatoes
1/2 cup spinach

DINNER

3 - 5 oz. grilled seabass
1/2 cup steamed spinach

That adds up to approximately 850 calories! Well, yeah, you're bound to lose weight when you basically starve yourself.

Whatever happened to that "perfectly healthy" quote? This is anything but.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone telling you to eat sushi rolls without soy sauce needs to have their head checked (not to mention, why is sushi part of a plan that only allows whole grains?).

I know people do not turn to Us Weekly for the latest in health and nutrition research, but there needs to be some accountability here.

A meal plan such as this one -- very low in calories and nutrients -- should not be glamorized. This is basically a semi-starvation diet with two big celebrity names attached.

The three meals listed above contribute approximately 10 grams of fiber -- less than half a day's worth!

That day's worth of food only offers one serving of whole grains, very little vitamin E, not enough potassium, very little calcium, no Omega-3's.... I could go on and on.

As much as it often irritates me, I can accept the fact that celebrity mags will never shed the weight-loss pieces (they entice a lot of readers at the newsstand), but is too much to ask that they turn to respectable sources, like Registered Dietitians?

Or, at the very least, do 2 minutes of fact checking on whatever meal plan is being offered?

Donna Summer and Barbra Streisand were right -- ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Down with Diets: Part 2

Another video has been uploaded to the Small Bites Nutrition Channel on YouTube.

This time around, I'm sharing more of my concerns surrounding mainstream diets; in particular, why they often cause more harm than good.

Rather than go "on" a diet (and, thereby, go "off" at some point), it is much more effective to embark on a journey of fine tuning eating habits and behaviors.

This latest video discusses diets with stages and phases, the problematic overgeneralizing most diets fall prey to, and how the convenience of delivered diet-friendly meals can be a catch-22.

Watch the video by clicking here or view it underneath this sentence!

A Stroll Down Diet Lane

It may seem like a new diet is introduced to the masses every other day, but many of these are reheated versions of oldies.

I recently came cross a brief timeline of fad diets (dates and names only) compiled by The American Dietetic Association last year.

It's quite interesting to see many current bestsellers showing up in previous centuries!

The first documented low-carbohydrate diet, for instance, appeared in Jean Brillat-Savarin's Physiology of Taste back in 1825.

The no-frills (and no-nonsense) counting of calories was first written about in in Lulu Hunt Peters' 1917 book, Diet and Health, with Key to the Calories.

Food combining -- the idea that mixing carbohydrates and protein in the same meal results in weight gain -- originated in the 1930s.

The ever-popular grapefruit diet? It first appeared in the 1950s.

Then there are the truly bizarre fad diets.

My favorites?

There's Horace Fletcher's 1903 low-protein diet plan which urged dieters to chew food 32 times before swallowing.

Not surprisingly, he quickly became known as "The Great Masticator."

In 1925, the Cigarrette Diet came along, in which tobacco companies happily advertised the appetite-suppressing powers of their magic cancer sticks.

One such phrase? "Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet."

1961 brought along Dr. Herman Taller's, don't laugh now, Calories Don't Count Diet.

According to the good doctor, all you had to do was eat as much as protein as you wanted (he claimed these calories literally "didn't count") and immediately follow that meal with one of his special vegetable oil pills.

The Sleeping Beauty Diet, which promoted heavily sedating patients so they slept for several days and therefore did not consume any calories, emerged from some sicko's mind in 1970.

The ridiculousness is far from over.

Just last year, Rhonda Byrne's The Secret claimed two keys to weight loss were ridding yourself of the belief that food makes you fat and taping a piece of paper with your ideal weight on it over your scale's display screen, in order to allow "the universe" to create a new reality for you.

Dieter Beware!

Forget The Hills, Grey’s Anatomy, and Gossip Girl – there is some intense drama happening on the World Wide Web.

It all revolves around a diet known as Kimkins.

Long story short, a woman known as “Kimmer” on various low-carb diet forums created her own version of Atkins, despite having no background in nutrition, science, or medicine.

Her diet, a very-low calorie, low-carb, and low-fat one dubbed “Kimkins,” quickly gained a strong following.

The hook? Apart from promising “no exercise” and “super fast weight loss,” Kimmer cited this “way of eating” as one that helped her lose a staggering 198 pounds in just 11 months five years ago -- and maintain it ever since!

As “proof”, her website featured a before and after photo of Kimmer, as well as pictures of other successful dieters.

In June of 2007, Woman’s World Magazine featured the diet on their cover, describing it as “better than gastric bypass!”

Membership sales climbed through the roof! In fact, it is estimated that over a million new members signed up in the month following that issue’s release.

A few things were beginning to “stand out”, though.

For one, Kimmer balked at the magazine reporter’s request for an in-person meeting, claiming she was “too shy.”

She instead submitted a photo of her new figure.

Additionally, some members began reporting disturbing symptoms after following the diet for several weeks, including dizziness, fainting spells, hair loss, and cardiac complications.

Finally, over the course of several months, the truth came out.

Kimmer’s “after” photo (as well as most of the other testimonials’) was actually lifted from a Russian “mail order bride” website.

Kimmer’s real identity? An obese woman (heavier than in her “before” photo) named Heidi Diaz.

This was the woman telling people who forked over $59.95 to join her website and follow her diet that they needed to “follow her example” and eat approximately 500 or less calories a day.

Diaz insisted time and time again, even when challenged, that she lost 198 pounds -- and maintained that loss -- solely because of Kimkins.

She even provided “tips” of low-calorie snacks she “loved” to eat whenever she got cravings (i.e.: a lettuce leaf topped with a slice of ham and a drizzle of mustard).

According to recent reports, Diaz recommended on her own website's forums that people take laxatives and not drink water to speed up weight loss (in what was dubbed “the plan behind the plan.”)

In some postings, she claimed that “starvation” does not exist.

According to Diaz, overweight people don’t even need calories because their bodies can get energy by “melting fat.”

Diaz often defended her diet’s safety, claiming it is what bariatric surgery patients are put on after their interventions.

She failed to mention that these people are also closely monitored by an entire medical team.

This saga is filled with all sorts of deceit, lies, and fraud.

If you are interested in learning all the details (I have but barely skimmed the surface in this posting and, trust me me, it is juicy), please visit this blog.

A quick YouTube search also pulled up a story Good Morning America did on Kimkins this past January.

As of this posting, a class action lawsuit has been filed against Diaz. I sincerely hope she is prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

While we are at it, here are some excellent guidelines for identifying unhealthy diets and diet scams.

Remember, your health comes first!

Down with Dieting

Over the next few weeks, I will share tips on establishing healthy eating protocols on YouTube.

Installment one is up (and featured at the end of this post).

In it, I summarize my concerns with most diets, and instead focus on fine tuning your eating habits and behaviors to make reaching your goals a healthier and more realistic process that takes into account hunger, food shopping, and emotional states.

By the way, in this video, I mention calorie tracking websites. One I highly recommend is My Calorie Counter. Free and very easy to use!

Enjoy and feel free to leave comments on this post or the YouTube page.

Celebrity Diet Secrets: Mariah Carey

Us Weekly's feature on Mariah Carey's "back to her teen body" diet left me thinking, "Forget copy editors. Magazines should really consider hiring nonsense editors."

As great as it is to have copy editors catch spelling, grammar, and syntax errors, someone needs to step in, look at nutrition-focused articles and say, "Are you KIDDING me?"

Those are precisely the words I sighed when I read that Mariah's diet (the one behind her "hotter-than-ever body") "prohibits eating carbs and protein together."

Okay, first of all -- Mariah is a megastar. Does she really need to pick up Suzanne Sommers' weight-loss hand-me-downs to promote her new album?

I was even more surprised to see a quote from Registered Dietitian -- and New York University graduate -- Keri Glassman apparently lending credibility to the silly idea of "food combining" by saying:

"To digest [protein and carbohydrates] you need different enzymes. The theory is that if you eat them separately, you'll break down more foods more effectively and increase weight loss."

It is my opinion -- and sincere hope -- that Glassman was merely asked what her thoughts about food combining diets were, and the magazine erroneously attributed her support to them.

Anyway, it gets worse.

We then get a sample of Mariah's daily diet.

First up -- breakfast.

On the menu? Plain yogurt, sliced fruit, and a banana.

Is this a joke?

Let's go back a few lines and reread the following: "Carey's diet prohibits eating carbs and protein together."

Yogurt contains protein AND carbohydrates. Hello???

And this is no one-off typo.

Her lunch also mixes protein (grilled chicken) with carbohydrates (zucchini, squash, and spinach). As it should!

Food combining fanatics forget that the vast majority of foods are all a combination of fat, proteins, and carbohydrates.

This is no secret -- read any food label!

You will see that pasta, milk, and bread contains carbs and protein.

Chickpeas and kidney beans, meanwhile, contain fat, carbohydrates, and protein.

The article finally -- about fifteen paragraphs later -- gets to Carey's weight loss "secret": cutting calories.

Turns out she takes in approximately 1,000 - 1,200 calories a day and eats less of her greasy favorites like mac 'n cheese and pizza.

Oh, dear, how... how... common!

I am increasingly becoming more irritated with the amount of deception and unnecessary complications surrounding weight loss and management in pop culture.

I guess "cutting calories" isn't A-list enough.

Instead, people are bombarded with inane advice like count your carbs, don't mix carbs with protein, get a coffee enema once a week, don't eat after 6 p.m., sprout your chickpeas, eat only raw foods, eat nothing but red fruits on Mondays while standing on your head and wearing polka-dotted socks .

Oh, please! Throw all that advice into the "macroneurotic" pile and start living life.

I am not going to sit here and claim to know "a secret" to weight loss.

I also refuse to start dictating obnoxiously high-maintenance rules you must follow to follow to achieve your weight and health goals.

I believe a dietitian's main responsibility is to help people develop strategies in order to make positive, feasible lifestyle changes. Nutrition is not -- and should never become -- a calculus 101 class with laws, rules, and inane theories.

That said, I'm off to make dinner: Peanut-ginger tofu (protein!), sweet potatoes (carbs!), brown rice (more carbs!) and avocado (fat!)

And I have the audacity to author a nutrition blog?