Nutrition Journey Part 2

Welcome Back!

Last week we discovered how one product's nutrition facts can still contain the same numbers, but can be presented in totally different methods in order to make those numbers on the back of the box look a little more friendly.  This week we will take a look into how those same companies are able to actually leave some of those numbers off their products making those numbers even more skewed in their favors.

As I said in my previous post, the FDA allows companies to alter the numbers you read on the nutrition facts, if said numbers meet certain requirements.  If the serving size totals 5 calories or less the company may round the total calories down to zero.  If the total fat/protein/carbohydrate content totals .5 grams or less they may also round those down to zero.  So what dose this mean when you are reading the labels to determine which product you are planing to purchase?

FDA Rules of Rounding Down

First we must understand at a very basic level, what a fat/protein/carbohydrate break down to calorie wise. 1 gram of fat, no matter the type, yields 9 calories.  1 gram of either a protein or carbohydrate yields 4 calories.  Obviously, when you take a look at the labels and do a little math you can see how the total calorie content is reached, but there may be more calories in that box you hold in you hand then you may think.

If a company can shrink their serving size down enough to have their total fat/protein/carbohydrate content per serving size reach at least .5g or the "insignificant amount" as the FDA refers to it as, then they can make those numbers disappear.  Big deal it's only .5g of either one of those macro nutrients, what's that going to hurt?  The big deal is, when you take a look at the serving sizes and then add the "insignificant amounts" there will be a few more calories that are hiding in plain sight.

Keeping in mind the .5g of fat equals 4.5 calories and the same number for protein and carbohydrates is 2 calories we can see that this product (non-stick spray) seems to have zeros down the board.  Non-stick sprays are comprised mostly of oils which are pure fat and we know 1g of fat contains 9 calories so how can these products have zero calories?  The serving size is 0.4 seconds. Unless you are a sprinter, 0.4 seconds is a very tiny amount of time to measure and of course offers a very small amount of spray that comes out of the can, but since the serving size is 0.4 seconds all of the numbers that can fall into the "insignificant amount" range have with the company's selected serving size.  Ultimately, that means the total amount of fats/proteins/carbohydrates must have been no greater than .5g per serving, thus allowing the company to round those numbers down, which also means the calories have disappeared.

I chose non-stick spray because it is an easy example that we all have used at one point in time.  I will say that non-stick sprays are pretty number friendly when it comes to this rounding down business.  I would estimate that one solid second of spray time for most non-stick sprays would equal to about 6 calories or so, which in a single use is not that drastic of a number since most of us are not going to town with the stuff (I hope), but it still is a number that exists and if you used it 4 times a day that could wind up being 24 or so more calories than you thought you were taking in. 

Rounding down often occurs in, but not limited to; toppings, dressings, "diet" products and many other flavor enhancers.  Some companies are more open an honest than others about their use of rounding down, but again it's the sales game, so many follow suit and fight fire with fire.  I will be adding a bonus post midway through the week, which will discuss the ingredient lists and what you can take away from them when it comes to the make up of the product and also discovering if a company has rounded down their numbers.  Next weeks post will combine all the information from the past posts as we take a look at an example of one product I am discovering is a wolf in sheep's clothing; zero calorie butter sprays.

Stay tuned for more!


"Learn what you are,and be such" -Pindar, Greek poet

*I am not a registered nutritionist or dietitian. The information presented is for education purposes only and the product is fictitious in nature.

Nutrition Journey Part 1

Hello!

For my latest post I will be breaking it into three parts.  The first part will contain information about food labels and how to understand the fine print companies use to sell their product.  The second will consist of ingredients and the amount of each in a product. Finally we will look at products through educated eyes and see that what they tell us may not be what is actually in their product.

In recent years people have become much more aware of what the numbers on the nutrition facts mean in terms of fat, carbohydrate and protein content, as well as understanding the total calories that are in said product.  It is my theory that many companies are now exploiting serving sizes in order to buffer the numbers on those nutrition facts.  What do I mean by buffering?  Well, first we must understand that companies need to sell their product by advertising to the approptie group that they want to buy their product.  If they wish to sell calorie friendly foods to those watching their calories, then their main goal is to advertise their product as having less or better yet, no calories compared to their competitors. The government has a strict set of rules that companies must abide by when they label their product, however there are many loopholes that allow a company to "hide" numbers so they may better advertise the product as the most appealing one on the shelf.

Servings are where one of these the loopholes can occur.  When you read the numbers on the nutrition facts, those are the numbers that exist in the serving size the company based its results on.  This number however, dose not necessarily make up the entire content of the containter of food.  Let's look at an example:

As we see the serving size is one ounce.  That means in 1 ounce of this food the numbers that are presented are what you put into your body.  But, look closely, the servings in the bag are 4.  That would mean multiplying every number by four if you were to eat the entire bag of whatever this product is.  That may seem like a lot to eat, but think about this; if this was a label to a popular rainbow colored candy(which it is not) I doubt many of us would be eating only one ounce of the bag and thus, eating all four ounces doesn't seem to be so much.

Let's look at this label. Notice anything? It is in fact the same product as above, but the difference is the serving sizes.  Rather than showing one ounce per serving and having four ounces per container, this time there is only one serving, but the same product is in the box.  I have multiplied the above numbers by four, which would give you the numbers you see here.  Same product as above, just not divided into multiple portions, which now seems like a lot more at a first glance.

Now, when I pick up label A and compare it to label B, even though they may be similar products and in essence contain the same exact numbers, product A looks a little less calorie dense to the untrained eye.  Companies know this and this is how they begin to sell their product off as the better of the two.  Pay attention and notice some serving sizes that seem to be very odd, like 8 chips or 2.25 ounces or the phrase "about".  That makes up one serving and we know that there may be many servings per container.

Legally the company has followed the FDA guidelines when labeling their product, however, they have used a little deduction to help their product stand out.  Now that you know a serving size is really only one part of the equation you also know those numbers may need to be multiplied to truly show the exact values.  In the next post we will also talk about the other two loopholes companies use to get around and make their food more appealing, but the scary things is it may not be the exact numbers you put into your body.  Stay tuned for more.

"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" -Wayne Gretzky 

*I am not a registered nutritionist or dietitian.  The information presented is for education purposes only and the product is fictitious in nature.

Poll Results: Fiber

The answer to the poll question is to be determined as of this date.  Previously I was under the impression that current recommended intake was 25g-30g per day, but the USDA and Mayo Clinic have again changed the daily recommended intake from 30g-38g for men and 21g-26 for women (age adjusted of course).  Once again proving that this field is ever changing and what you may think is the norm one day may be changed the next.

Fiber Table

Fiber is broken into two catagories; soluble and insoluble.

Soluble fiber becomes a gel like substance once disolved in water and it can help lower cholesterol and even glucose levels. Insoluble fiber can help move materials through your digestive tract preventing constipation. In any case fiber is an important part of our diet because of it's vast health benefits not to mention it's effect on those cutting their calories.

Here is a link from the Mayo clinic and another to an article about the health benefits of fiber and a little more detail about it's make up and food sources.

Food Sources

Fiber Info

Health benefits of dietary fiber (article)


Thank you for taking the poll.  Another will be available soon enough!

The "Right" Style of Training Pt. 2

Greetings!

Last week I talked about the "right" style of training and came to the conclusion that only through proper modifications, assessment, research and trial and error could you really ever find the right method.  I also chimed in the conversation with the fact that I myself use a lot of functional training not only for my own workouts, but also with many of my clients.  I wanted to talk a little about why I use this style of training keeping in mind that, I at no time proclaim that functional training is the best and most useful method of training because as we already discovered that would be a lie.

Looking at functional training purely from a everyday usage view, it seems that the results from this style of training offers a more direct application of the strength, balance, stability and cardiovascular endurance to everyday life as opposed to the traditional method. The days of bench pressing a house are no longer as important as being able to get out of bed ache free and be able to not worry about hurting yourself bending over to get the paper. Although great strength and endurance can be achieved through traditional training, it seems the best way to apply the gains from working out are to train the body as it it would be used in everyday situations, as a whole unit.

When getting out of a chair we generate a lot of muscular activity from the calves to the thighs (quads/hams) up through the hips/glutes, then the core activates to keep use stable as our hands, arms and upperbody begin the assist the legs (assuming your using the arms) all while the neck and certain shoulder muscles keep our head upright.  That's just an overview of muscle activity that occurs in a basic movement such as that.  I could detail the actual muscles that are being activated during that process, but it would have to be it's own blog.  The point is just getting out of a chair, our body works as a team incorporating multiple muscles to accomplish this movement.  If I want to make this harder for myself, then yes I would try not using as many muscle to assist, but our bodies like to naturally operate at it's most efficient and it works best when using the old '"strength through numbers" idea, because why would I only use half of the available resources to help me with my goal when I can utilize them all?

Through traditional training I could help train a person get out of a chair by strengthen their muscles and movement patterns through squats, dips, bench pressing, sit ups and many other exercises, which in theory can be very effective and to some may be the best method for them, but my professional opinion is that training individual movements (they are complex movements so they are still incorporating multiple muscles groups, but in a single movement) dose just that, train individual movements.  I have no doubts that through the movements above a person could very well get in and out of a chair with ease overtime, but perhaps not at their greatest potential. As illustrated getting up from the chair incorporates, not only multiple muscles, but multiple joints and planer movements as well.  As much as training one movement in one plane can be effective toward reaching the end goal, why not train multiple movements in multiple planes?

Through functional training we can take the same individual (assuming proper assessments have been conducted and proper muscle imbalances and anomalies  have been corrected to be sure they are able to perform these exercises) and begin strengthening all the muscles that they are used to get out of a chair in multiple exercises all while training multi-planer balance, core stability and cardiovascular activity as well.  Now, this individual can perform and tri-lunge (side to side to front) while throwing a medicine ball and maintaining an upright position for one set working multiple muscles as opposed to doing one set of squats, one set of bench press and one set of sit ups and achieve similar results.  I say similar because obviously, the results will not be the same as another method of training, but if the end goal is being achieved more efficiently and appears to be getting the most bang for the buck, then it is all relative. With just this one exercise I have been able to incorporate not only the same muscle groups as the traditional style would, I am also working them all at once, which is how the body works everyday for almost every big movement we perform, thus training our body as we use it in the real world.

By training multiple muscle in multiple planes and incorporating stability, balance and other movement patterns into each exercise, functional training has become a very effective and adaptive method of training, which I for one view very highly of.  It seems to not only get the most out of each exercise, but it's movements are more practical and adaptable into real world application in theory (again not saying it the right way).  I still find and use many traditional methods of strength training quite regularly, when I feel it is needed, but functional training has emerged as my method of choice.  Another reason I prefer functional training is it's non- reliance of  big equipment and space friendly.  The movements are easily modified and can be made more challenging by adding a simple variable.  Finally, functional training is a whole lot of fun not to mention when working with a partner or group!

Thanks for reading!

"Action is the foundational key to all success"- Pablo Picasso

Is There a "Right" Training Style For Me?

Hello!

For my first post I have decided to illustrate the argument between traditional strength training and functional training.  Many of us are so very confused with what type of workout style is right for us and we find ourselves reading magazines, books and countless Internet sites to determine which is the correct route to take.  I'll start with the first secret...there is no "right" way.

You heard that correctly, there is no right way.  You see, the only person that can determine which style of training is the correct one is none other than yourself.  What seems to work for one person may not work for the next and one persons success could be another's failure.  The right way can only be determined through trial and error of one's own training and deciding on which aspects of the workouts seem to yield the greatest results and which aspects do not.  This could lead to an endless debate of personal experience and clientele testimonials, but we will save the philosophies of exercise and training for another day.

My point is, just as everybody is a unique individual, every body responds to a unique style of training and exercise.  Following someones advice can be great to get started or perhaps to keep things fresh and new, but only we can decide what style/method/frequency offers us the best path to reach our goals.  This leads us to a very hot topic; Functional Training.

Functional Training has been on the rise over that last decade or so and really booming these last few years.  With kettle bells, suspension training systems and countless other multi-tasking equipment, functional training is becoming more and more prevalent.  Let's face it with just four or five pieces of equipment you can travel from location to location developing unique and challenging workouts without the restrictions of waiting for machines and the advantages of making any place your training area.  The other selling point to functional training is that it is the best way to deliver optimum results by; engaging the core throughout workouts, keeping heart rates to desired levels and multi-planar actions which have multi-muscle activation during most exercises. You would may be led to believe that functional training is the best way to train, based on the multiple benefits of it's style, but again I ask; which style of training is right for you?

The study I have posted looks into the results and effectiveness of functional training versus traditional training (machines/free weights).  The overall conclusion is quite simple; both control groups had similar results when it came to increased strength, flexibility, balance and muscular growth. Functional Training vs Traditional Training (link)

Why post an article that seems to dispute the very style of training I base my philosophies around?  When I told you earlier that there was no right way to train I meant every word.  As this article illustrates, you may have been led to believe that functional training is the optimal training method from various articles and websites, but it seems the traditional training group yielded almost the same results as it's counterpart.What works for one person may not work for the next and vice versa, remember? The one thing this article left out were the goals and desired application of training results to the real world of the test subjects.  If we view this study through the common eye then it is true, neither style of training seems to be the more efficient one, but without goals and the personal needs of said training we wind up back at square one.  Even a personal trainer cannot just write up a workout for an individual and expect it to work without proper assessment, modifications and advancements such as periodization or simple trial and error.  This happens more than you may think and as a trainer I avoid writing up workout plans and letting someone go free for the sake that I know what I feel is right for an individual at the start may not be in six weeks and thus, the never ending circle of modification begins.

Are you looking for weight loss?  Perhaps preparation for a 5k or trying out for a sports team.  Maybe you would like to be able to rock climb or or maybe just to be able to get up off the floor without help.  How about, are the workouts fun and unique?   Maybe your goals and needs change a few months into the program and then what? These are the types of questions that are the basis of starting most workout programs and begin the process of determining which style of workouts are the right one for you and from there deciding if/when/how to modify.

 In my professional opinion, I will attest to the point that functional training has been a very effective method of training for myself and my clients because of not only meeting their personal goals with great success with enjoyment, but the results they gain through functional training are often applied to everyday tasks and activities more efficiently then traditional training, making tasks less challenging and lowering the chance of harming themselves performing the simple tasks.  Will I say functional training is the be all end all method of training? Of course not, but with personal experience and the testimonials of multiple clients I feel functional training is the style that is right for myself and those who meet certain criteria based on their goals and needs.  That's not to say I do not mix in aspects of traditional training, which I do, if I feel a particular set of movements is potentially the best method to achieve a goal, but there is no way to determine that without a hypothesis and testing. Let's put it like this, I probably wouldn't have a bodybuilder training solely with functional training based on their goals, however that is not to say that some functional training couldn't help them is certain areas, just as certain aspects of bodybuilding could very well help in my training, which I do incorporate into my workouts often.

Finding the method of training that will lead to achieving your goals is not an easy one.  With so many styles out there and recommendations it may seem very daunting, but with proper goal setting, physical assessments(future blogs for sure to come) and a lot of trial and error you will be able to piece together the never ending "right" way to train, and yes I whole heartily feel that to properly train"right" is to always try new things and compare results.

As this blog progresses we will dig deeper into philosophies of training and many other aspects of the exercise/wellness industry. Although I will weigh in with my opinions, I will not leave out any research that I may find on the subject whether it supports or contradicts my views. Thank you for reading!

"Circumstances rule men, men do not rule circumstances" -Herodotus