The Pantry

The more I read, the more I think. The more I think, the less I know. The less I know, the more I read. This has been the cycle. Read, think, ponder, question, read.... Slowly, out of the background, a thought has been forming, peeking through the questions and the research, until it finally came to a head and just kind of hit me today.

Yet another friend of mine posted something on facebook about a new low-calorie treat and how excited she was about it, but it's filled with naughty ingredients. I realized how focused our society is on calories. I know I've alluded to this many times, especially in my most noted Weight Watchers article (see this also), but today it just really struck me - when did it become all about calories? I'm using calories here, but for the point of the argument I also mean carbs, fat, protein, fiber, etc. The term calorie was first defined in 1824 by Nicolas Clement, so for 5,800+ years, people got along just fine without worrying about how many calories they were consuming. The obesity epidemic didn't start to become a big issue until the mid 20th century, so clearly the lack of importance on caloric intake didn't cause problems with being overweight. Shouldn't we follow history's lead here?

Our society today spends so much time focusing on how many calories were consuming, how many grams of fat and which kinds of fat, how many grams of protein, how many grams of fiber vs. how many carbohydrates, and the list goes on and on, and yet we're the most obese culture in the world (and I might go so far as to say here: we're the most obese culture in the history of the world). Is this system really working for us? If we do manage to figure out the magic formula for all the right proportions, how much of our time will be spent looking at the side of the box, adding and subtracting, tallying up our totals for this and that? To be honest, that sounds time consuming, mind-numbingly boring, and rather stressful.

The main thing our society overlooks is ingredients. There has been some push toward this mindset recently, which has led to an increase in organic and all-natural products on the shelves. But for the most part, our society still completely misses the point. We have completely over-complicated something I believe was originally intended to be quite simple.

The Creator of the Universe was extremely intentional in every last detail that went in to His Creation. With that in mind, it is clear that He had a specific plan for nutrition. That is why He filled the earth with healthy foods for His people to eat. God has stocked our pantry full of the foods that He knows are best for our bodies. And if anyone knows what's best for our bodies, it's the One who created them and understands their anatomy and physiology better than anyone.

What then did He put in The Pantry? He supplied us with fruits and veggies, grains, nuts and seeds, and animals which supply both meat and dairy. Foods that have been created in a laboratory or genetically modified are not supplied by God, they are man's attempt to do something better then God. That idea will never work. We cannot be better than God. It's no wonder that the foods man created have made man fat and unhealthy.

I've worked through a lot of questions I've had about how this concept works. For instance, marijuana comes from a plant. Is that part of The Pantry? Honestly, I think that might be part of The Medicine Cabinet. Or how about how much processing did God intend for us to do to His supply? To this, I've looked to history. I'm not sure what the diet was like thousands of years ago, but I do know that they didn't go to the supermarket to buy their food. And the first establishment that resembles our modern day restaurant didn't show up until the 11th century, so for 5,000+ years, people got along without supermarkets or restaurants. This tells me if it's something that you can conceivably garner from The Pantry and process yourself, then it's probably ok. For example, butter is simply milk that has been churned for quite a while. I have made butter before. I could conceivably go milk a cow or a goat, churn the milk, and eventually get butter. Obviously, we don't live in a society where we can spend all day making butter, but if I'm going to look at the store for it, I'm going to find the one that's only ingredient is milk. Any other ingredients in butter (save for salt which isn't necessary and salted butter should be avoided) are man-made and not from The Pantry.

So that's it, that's my philosophy that has been burgeoning for quite some time now. Whole, fresh foods from The Pantry God stocked for us, buying processed only when necessary and only for something in which you could conceivably make yourself if you had the time. No need to worry about the biochemistry of the foods found in The Pantry - the calories, fat, protein, etc. - because the Creator supplied foods that are good for our bodies (I will not say they are foods that will automatically make us skinny, because no where in the Bible do I find a call to be skinny, only a call to take care of our bodies as they are a temple for the Lord). And He gave us a body that, when we get in tune with it, tells us when to eat and when to stop. I have completely stopped looking at the Nutritional Information table and only look at the ingredient list. That tells me all I need to know.

Venting Some Frustrations...

I've not been sure of what to write lately. This week I became paralyzed by the overwhelming amounts of information that's out there and from trying to decipher what is true and what is to make a profit. The desire to keep trying to wade my way through the masses and get to the bottom of the health mystery and the desire to throw my hands in the air and give up duked it out, and unfortunately, this week the desire to get healthy was on the losing side. Because of my knee injury, I haven't been able to do a lot of exercising the past few weeks, and that led to a backward slide in my nutrition as well. My sweets intake skyrocketed this week and I had an insatiable craving for "snacks" all week long. And, as expected, I didn't feel well for much of the week - sluggish, weak, headaches, bloated, stomachaches, etc.

In the Introduction to his book, Food Rules, Michael Pollan voices nicely what I find so frustrating. In talking about the Western diet, and the Diet and Nutrition Industry's desire to pinpoint the exact problem in the Western diet (carbs? sugar? salt? calories? etc.) while ignoring the entire diet as a whole, he says: "There's a lot of money in the Western diet. The more you process any food, the more profitable it becomes. The healthcare industry makes more money treating chronic diseases than preventing them. So we ignore the elephant in the room and focus instead on the good and evil nutrients, the identities of which seem to change with every new study. But for the Nutritional Industrial Complex, this uncertainty is not necessarily a problem, because confusion is a good business." (Emphasis mine.) He goes on to say that every time the industry discovers the "real problem," the food manufacturers can go back and tweak their products to reflect these findings, and then everyone across the board can make another round of profit without caring if they actually improve anyone's health - in fact, they may even aim NOT to improve health so that they can continue to "fix" the problem. This perfectly articulates the problem which I find so MADDENING when I try to do any research - why it all contradicts itself, why there is no clear answer, why you can try a lot of different things and still not lose weight or improve health conditions.

One obvious point that jumps out after changing how I think about food: what we eat isn't actually food. Pollan uses the term edible foodlike substances. Every time they tweak something to fit the new fad, it becomes less food and more product. There are a lot of things I loved about his book and I'm sure to reference it again, but in the meanwhile, I highly recommend you buy a copy for yourself. It's very short and consists of straightforward, common sense rules.

So I guess the point of this article was just to vent some frustrations... I'm ready to dive back into the mire and will continue to use my common sense approach to try and decipher what is actually helpful and what is not. Stay tuned... (hopefully) exciting stuff to come...

There's Always More Where That Came From

I have this awful tendency to stuff my face full of food, well past the point when I'm full, because I love food. This is probably my primary hindrance keeping me from a healthy weight. I've increased my workout activity by quite a bit and decreased my inactive "couch potato" time as much as possible; I've made drastic changes in what I eat, and have even done well reducing my portion size - I often use one of my daughter's toddler plates. The problem is I go back for seconds. (To be fair, I have to have made some improvement here as I used to go back for seconds with my normal overly large adult dinner plates and now I go back for seconds with Emerson's itty bitty toddler plate, but it's still seconds. The initial serving is actually an accurate serving - I don't need more.)

As I mentioned, part of the problem is that I just love food. I could never be anorexic because I love the taste of food way too much. I really thought about how this impacted my eating habits and I realized this causes me to eat for the wrong reason. I usually eat because I want to taste something and not because I'm hungry. And all that causes me to do is want to taste it again... and again... and again. For me, satisfying my desire to taste something doesn't satiate the desire, but augments it instead. I have to have more.

This leads me to the next part of the problem. Did you know that the American culture is one of the only cultures that uses an external cue to indicate when we should stop eating? When our plate is cleaned, when the tv show is over, when the lunch break ends, etc. Almost all other cultures use an internal cue to alert them when it's time to stop eating - when they feel about 80% full. The reason they stop at 80% is because it takes about 20 minutes for the effects of fullness to be manifested. Do we as Americans have any idea how to even tell when we're about 80% full? Would we stop eating then even if we did?

For me, historically these answers have been 'no.' I am not in tune with my body so I have no idea how full I am until I'm about to pop and have to unbutton the top button on my pants just to be comfortable. (Just in case you're wondering, that is a really bad thing!) And given the fact that I often keep eating even after I feel completely full because I liked the taste of what I was eating, I'd have to say I probably wouldn't stop eating at 80% either. (Again, that's a really bad thing!)

Lately I've been trying to remind myself of one large American (or any first world) blessing: There is always more where that came from. I am beyond blessed to live in a place where there really is more where that came from. I don't have to try and eat it all at once in case there isn't any more later. Sometimes this reminder works, sometimes it doesn't. Hopefully over time it will work more and more. For now, I'm trying to serve myself only one serving for whatever I'm eating and then wait 20 minutes before deciding if I want more or not. Generally, giving myself a 20 minute hiatus is enough to break the need for just one more bite (just one more!). After that pause, I can honestly judge whether I'm full or not.

And the added benefit of allowing myself to have leftovers is that there actually will be more the next day! And it saves money!!

Let's Think About What We Know About Processed Foods

I apologize for my brief disappearance. After a crazy week, which included me taking a 4ft. x 1ft. mirror 2 inches into my knee (and the resulting ER trip, stitches, knee brace and crutches), I am finally back on blogger! Last time, I talked about using common sense to think about things we know to be true about produce. Today I want to do the same for processed foods.

Another reason for the delay is that this next topic is pretty involved, with the capacity to include a large variety of food and beverage products. To be exact, food processing is anything that is done to food before it is made available for us to eat. This could be anything from freezing a food, to prepackaged meals found on the shelf. Obviously that's a wide range of products, so it's not possible to give an opinion one way or the other on the group 'processed foods.' For the purpose of this article, I want to zero in on packaged foods with preservatives added to extend their shelf life.

Let's go back to what we know about the human body. Our body is an organism made up of several systems working in congruence to keep us healthy and alive. One of these systems is the digestive system. The definition of digest is to break down food in the stomach and intestines. In essence, digest is the exact opposite of preserve. So why would we want to put foods designed not to break down into our bodies which are made to break things down? That doesn't make any sense. The obvious result of this idiotic setup is that these kinds of foods hang out in our bodies (my body's hangout spots are my hips and thighs) while our bodies work overtime to try and break them down (possibly at the expense of other important functions?). This is where I can see the advantage to doing some kind of detox - to give the body time to catch up and digest all the preservatives I've loaded into it over time. If I just keep adding more and more preservatives, my body will always be behind. But if I do a detox, I'll give my body an opportunity to get back on track. This concept has been festering in my mind for a while now, but I am still researching. There are several different kinds of detox programs and I don't feel I know enough to start one in particular yet. So stay tuned, more on detoxes to come.

In the meanwhile, cutting out preservatives will be a big help. This is much easier said than done though. The list of different preservatives is quite long and can be as innocuous as salt or as dangerous as TBHQ. Very likely, any ingredients on the side of the package that you can't pronounce are preservatives. I found this fantastic list which has the vast majority of preservatives you're likely to find, and also indicates whether they're linked to hyperactivity, cancer or asthma. An easy guideline to go by though is the longer the shelf life, the worse it is. If something does not go bad, it should not be eaten.

This burger from McDonald's has been sitting out for 6 months:
It looks about the same as it did on day one. I've seen other pictures, though I can't find any at the moment, of fast food burgers that have been sitting out for more than a year or two with no change! Is that REALLY what you want to put in your body??? Do your body a favor and only give it foods and beverages that will make it easy to do its job. Your health and your waistline will thank you for it!!!

Let's Think About What We Know About Produce

Last Spring, I was fortunate to go on a cruise around the Caribbean. During one of our days at sea, the spa & fitness center had a seminar on toxins and I decided to attend. My eyes were opened wide during the one hour lecture and I've given the information presented a lot of thought ever since then. For the most part, they didn't share anything that I didn't already know, but they put it all together in a way I'd never really considered. So let's talk about what we know. This article is the first in a series and will just cover produce.

What do we know about some of the produce we eat? Produce is sprayed with pesticides or herbicides to keep pests from destroying it before it can be harvested or to keep weeds from growing. The suffix -cide is from the latin verb 'caedere' meaning to strike down or to kill. We know that these are designed to kill the "pests/weeds" but what are the pests or weeds? Living organisms. What do we know about the human body? The human body is a living organism. Our produce is treated with substances designed to kill living organisms which includes our own bodies.

You may be thinking, 'but I wash all my produce first so the chemicals get washed away.' The truth is, washing our produce doesn't do much. First, pesticides can seep down in to the fruit or vegetable through the skin making it impossible to just wash off. Second, most of the time, the pesticides are protected. Let's think about this using apples as an example. Have you ever picked an apple straight from the tree? This is what it would look like:

Does it look different from a store-bought apple?

The apples on the tree are a little more dull, not quite as shiny as the store-bought apples. That is because apples in the store have a waxy coating added to them to make them look more desirable (to encourage you to buy them). But what does that wax coating really do? What does it do to a car? When you wax your car, it makes water droplets just roll right off it. It's no different with the apple. When you wash the apple, it just cleans off that waxy layer, which unfortunately, is protecting all the pesticides that were applied first underneath. And, just so you know, it's probably not just a couple times that it's been sprayed. The research I've done varies, but it's mostly consistent to the fact that produce can be sprayed up to 30 times with different pesticides which first seep into the produce and then may be locked in under the wax. That's a lot of pesticides that we're ingesting, which are then stored in the colon where they slowly poison the body (the living organism where they ultimately end up).

Waxy appearances aren't the only trick used to encourage you to buy. Have you ever bit into what appeared to be a red, juicy strawberry only to have it taste awful? Chances are, the strawberry you just ate wasn't ripe when it was picked and the red coloring was added to it to make it look appealing. This trick is used a lot for produce that isn't in season. Aside from the dangers of artificial coloring, which can constitute an entire article unto itself, eating unripened produce is not exactly healthy. If it hasn't had time to complete its growing cycle before being harvested, then it hasn't had time to reach its full nutritional value.

The absolute best option is to grow your own produce, where you know and control exactly what goes on it. I have two large dogs and an extremely black thumb (I even killed a cactus once - that takes a special kind of black thumb!) so I'm still working on this in my own life. For now, Farmers Markets and Greenling are my best alternatives. Organic produce is a third option, but most organic produce is treated with organic pesticides. Common sense should tell us that even a natural pesticide is still designed to kill living organisms, which is a category that still effects our own bodies. If Organic is your best option, the EWG has their Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 which rank various produce on their levels of pesticides so you know which are the most important to buy Organic.

Up next: Processed Foods

Weight Watchers is Not Evil.

After reviewing the original article and all the feedback from the last post, and retracting my claws - I'm admittedly really bad at "agreeing to disagree" - two things have stuck out at me. 1) From a writing standpoint, my thoughts did not come out nearly as cohesively as my brain presented them, and by the end, it started to resemble a jumbled up mess. The writer in me is deeply horrified. 2) In my excitement for my topic, I inadvertently hopped up on an imaginary soapbox that I don't even necessarily stand by and didn't do the program justice. For that I apologize and I intend to do better in the future. I do not want to alienate any readers, I just want to present information in a way that will make you think. No one said anything that made me want to retract any of my statements from yesterday - I still stand by everything that I wrote - but it did make me want to clarify my position and add to what I wrote by giving credit where credit is due.

Here is what I think Weight Watchers has going for it:

• I think it is a valid starting point. If you know absolutely nothing about nutrition, this program can teach you about fat, calories, carbs, etc. You can then use this information to begin to make good choices.
• If you attend their meetings, they have good accountability and more opportunities for learning about what you should and shouldn't eat.
• They do not encourage deprivation. Contrary to what some people believe, I do not encourage deprivation either. I agree that it will lead to binge eating because it will make you focus on what you're going without. This is especially true if you're going without in order to lose weight; while this effect is still present, for me at least, it's significantly smaller now that I've switched my focus to whole health.
• My friend, Leann, did inform me that if you do the online option, you have access to an online coach who can help you choose healthier options and teach you what to stay away from. (I went back to their website to make sure I didn't miss something, but even on the second try, I still do not see online coaches listed anywhere.)
• They do have access to good recipes and workouts on their website and you have the option of choosing which you like and which you don't. You don't have to follow an exact eating and workout plan. 

Here is where I think Weight Watchers misses the point:

• Many of the Weight Watchers' food products are not very healthy for you. You can view information on specific items here. This site, Good Guides, ranks items on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being bad and 10 being good. They rank more than just health, they also rank the product's effect on the environment and society, but for our purposes, just look at the health scale. Admittedly, some of their products are in the green range, but as you move through the pages, orange and red become more and more prominent (green=good, orange/red=bad). This is partly because they have ingredients in them, that while lowering the calories or fat or whatever, are still really bad for you. They are chemicals designed to make the "healthy" (ie. low-fat, sugar-free, etc.) option taste like the original. It is a far healthier option to eat the product with the fewest chemical modifications even if it is a little more fattening, or for Weight Watchers, costs more points. 
• While they encourage physical activity with activity points, it appears that they seem to use it as a way to either eat more, or eat worse. Friends of mine on the program have told me that there is no daily or weekly activity points goal as there are daily food point limits. This is not a healthy way to look at eating and exercise. Exercise should not be used as a punishment for eating poorly earlier, nor should it be used as an excuse to eat poorly later. Consider this: if, in addition to your regular diet and exercise, you decide to eat a candy bar that has 100 calories in it and you then burn an additional 100 calories for the day, does it cancel out the candy bar? How do you know it doesn't cancel out the banana you had with breakfast? Does canceling out the calories of the candy bar automatically mean you've canceled out the effect of the fat, sugar, etc. that came with it? 
• Weight Watchers focuses entirely on weight. Shocker, I know. Going back to my Weight is Just a Number post, weight is not the whole story. If you're building muscle and losing inches, your body fat composition has dropped even if your weight hasn't. In the past 3 weeks, I have lost .1 pound. One-tenth. That's next to nothing. That's so minuscule that many scales wouldn't even register it. But I have lost an inch on my bust, 2 inches on my waist, an inch on my hips, 2.25 inches on my thighs, and half an inch on my arms. I am definitely in better shape now than I was three weeks ago even though the scale doesn't reflect it. 
• Weight Watchers focuses entirely on weight. Do I sound like a broken record? Let me remind you of what blog you're on - this is a blog about the adventure to Whole Health. This is not a blog about losing weight. With that in mind, while I think the points are a good guideline, I do not recommend for them to be used as a hard and fast rule. To the point of the whole article yesterday, I have come to agree with my friend who did not want to "waste" her points on the super-healthy fruit drink, but ONLY IF she was hitting her fruits and veggies goal for the day. Then I could see not wanting to spend points on fruits and veggies. But if she's struggling to hit that goal, I think she should definitely use a few points to reach it before she uses points on indulgences. 
• Anything can be assigned a point value, and the point value is based solely on fat, carbs, protein, and fiber. It does not take ingredients in to account (of course, the user has the option to do that, but the points program does not factor it in). Therefore, by not discouraging unhealthy options, it essentially says they are ok. Several people have tried to use this as their defense for indulging. As I mentioned, I definitely support the indulgence method as long as it's done smartly. Homemade cookies are a better option than an Oreo. (If you're craving an Oreo and that craving was made worse by me mentioning it just now, search Pinterest or Google it, I'm sure there are homemade Oreo recipes in which you can control the ingredients.) Chocolate Covered Kate is a blog full of chocolate recipes that she herself has created using natural ingredients. That is the best way to indulge. I'm not saying cut out chocolate or cut out ice cream (even though I have cut out ice cream for this year, I'm not saying everyone should do that); I'm just saying be smarter about how you consume it. Kate eats her chocolate creations at least once, usually twice a day but her health (nor her weight) is being effected by it. 

Remember that processed foods are full of additives designed and utilized by companies to make you addicted to their products in order to increase their profits. The foods you love (which Weight Watchers claims you will not have to give up) are likely to be full of these additives which is why you don't want to give them up in the first place. When you look at it this way, it is easy to see that our addiction to the additives is every bit as powerful as a smoker's addiction to cigarettes, or an alcoholic's addiction to beer. My friend Mike gave me this analogy which I just love: If you were to help a drug addict with their addiction, would you recommend for them to only do drugs every once in a while as an indulgence for being so good the rest of the time, or so their deprivation doesn't send diving headfirst back into drugs? Would you recommend that they try a different drug that's not as bad for them? Or would you help them get off all drugs for good? Food is not the enemy, the additives in processed foods are. I do not believe it is healthy to indulge in these naughty ingredients even if it's just every once in a while. 

Finally, I think it is worth noting a few things: 

• The very first Weight Watchers' Spokeswoman was Lynn Redgrave. Sarah Ferguson was one of her successors. Both of these women gained some of the weight back after going off the program and Lynn ultimately died from breast cancer. (Not to start another controversy, and I'm certainly not trying to say that Lynn contracted breast cancer as a result of what she ate, but if you don't think what you eat has an effect on cancer, please keep reading my blog. This topic will be covered in detail.) 
• In the British Journal of Nutrition, Michael Lowe reports his findings after following 699 participants for 5 years after Weight Watchers. 95.3% of these participants were women. After 1 year, 79.8% of participants had succeeded in keeping at least 5% off their weight loss off. (This could also read as 21.2% of participants had gained back more than 95% of the weight after only 1 year). After 2 years, 71% of participants maintained at least 5% of their weight loss, and by year 5, 50%, only HALF of the participants, had maintained at least 5% of their weight loss. And that is only 5%!!! It doesn't even mention those that maintained 100% of their weight loss, although it does give results for those that maintained a weight below their goal weight: By year 1, that was only 26.5%, at year 2, it was down to 20.5%, and by year 3, it hit 16.2%. As much as people have tried to argue otherwise based on their own personal success, statistically this program does not show encouraging long-term results if 1 out of every 2 people on the program will not see success 5 years later. View the entire report here.
• Finally, of my friends who read and commented on the article, the ones who agreed with what I said are easily the healthiest, and maybe not coincidentally, skinniest people I know. They are the people I turn to when trying to make healthy decisions, which makes me feel that I might not have been as far off the mark as many people would like to believe. 

A Fat Free Twinkie is Still a Twinkie

When I was in fifth grade, I was friends with a girl who was rather large - as in, she was probably already well into the obese category at that tender age. At one point she decided she was going to lose weight and so she started eating fat-free twinkies at lunch time. She was convinced this would help her because they were fat-free!

I was reminded of this story today when I almost got in a debate with a good friend. She stated she was hoping to get a full 6-8 servings of fruits and veggies each day and I suggested the Machine drinks by Naked (Blue Machine, Green Machine, Red Machine.) These particular drinks are full of fruits and vegetables, some in juice form and some pureed from the whole fruit/veggie. They easily have 6-8 servings of fruits and veggies in them and have no naughty ingredients. Other than being high in sugar (from the natural fructose found in the fruits), they are extremely good for you. However, this friend is on Weight Watchers and these drinks are worth 4 points each (probably due in part to the juices added which aren't as good for you as the whole fruit or veggie), and so she said she couldn't drink them.

This thought greatly confused me as some other women in our same circle had been discussing just the day before how great it was that a boxed cake mix mixed with a can of Diet Coke or Sprite made a dessert that was barely any points. It struck me that this summed up my problem with points systems quite nicely - they encourage you to eat things that may not be good for you (as I assure you a boxed cake mix most certainly isn't!) because they are low in points but discourage you to eat anything that is high in points even if they are really good for you.

In all fairness, I hadn't ever looked into what exactly Weight Watchers stands for, so before I made up my mind too firmly, I decided to research it some. My first problem with the program is that there was very little I could find out from their own website without signing up for the program. I also have a problem with paying to get healthy, but I do recognize that it can be a motivator for weight loss for some people.

I decided to do their free assessment which brings me to my next problem with the program: they claim

You don't have to give up any of your favorite foods to lose weight! 

I actually have two issues with this statement. First, what if my favorite foods are McDonald's, pizza, ice cream, chips, and cookies. Really? I don't have to give up ANY of those to lose weight? And second, the goal shouldn't be to lose weight, the goal should be to be healthy. In order to become healthy, you have to give up unhealthy foods, many of which top most people's list of favorite foods. 

Finally, I have a problem with the accountability of the program. They say they encourage healthy options, but unless you regularly attend their meetings, the only accountability is in the Points system. They use this picture to show how you can eat more if you eat better things (sounds suspiciously like trading in your "favorite" things):

 

But when I look at this picture, my only question is what's to stop you from eating the meal on the left? They're both worth 11 points, so why should I eat the rather disgusting-sounding pasta salad and soup when I can enjoy the childhood favorite of PB&J with chips? What if the meal on the left was 10 points? Would that make it a better option than the meal on the right? Unless there is a goal for how many fruits and veggies to eat each day, how much meat and dairy and grains (remember the Food Plate from last week?), people could stay within their points range every single day and still gain weight. Because I'm sorry, but if you're struggling with your weight, I can almost guarantee you that you'll have to give up at least something in order to see any success. A 2-point chocolate cupcake with Diet Coke is not better for you than a 4-point organic fruit and veggie drink. A fat-free Twinkie is still a Twinkie. 

One thing I think they do have right, they incorporate exercise into the program, although, to what extent I'm not sure. 

To be fair, there may be more that I have missed, but as I stated, this was the most I could learn from their own webpage without signing up for the program. To their credit, I do think they have really delicious recipes, but as it turns out, you can make them even if you're not on the program.

****UPDATE****
Due to some of the immediate response I got, let me clarify a few things:

1. I don't want to discount anyone who follows this program the way it is designed to be done and sees results. I'm sure if you follow it exactly as recommended, you can see results if your goal is weight loss. However, my goal is Whole Health, and for that, there are things I have to give up. For example, is it ok for me to eat carcinogenic ingredients as long as I only do it every once in a while as a treat?  I really don't think so. This program may teach you about fat, protein, carbs, portions, etc. but does it teach you about healthy ingredients? Personally, I feel that things with poisonous - I refer to these as naughty - ingredients should not be allowed, not just take up  more points. My point with this article is that unless you're going to their meetings, the accountability relies on the Points. The accountability to follow their recommendations and guidelines depends entirely on your will power, making it no different than than just watching your portions and eating a well balanced meal. That you can do on your own, you shouldn't have to pay for that. Having someone tell us what we should and shouldn't eat in order to lose weight is not what the problem is for most of us. The majority of people are probably aware that an Oreo is worse than an apple. We - or at least I - don't have to pay for that.

2. If I had gone in and met with one of their specialists, I may very well have learned more about their program, but I feel if they're going to offer an online option, then you should be able to learn everything you need to know online before signing up.

3. I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that I recommended cutting out entire groups of food - I am not saying to cut out carbs or dairy or anything like the sort. And I do think that total deprivation of something you like, on the path to weight loss, will lead to binge eating and mess up your "diet" even more. Let me make this perfectly clear: I AM NOT ON A DIET. I am on an adventure to find Whole Health. So yes, allow yourself a treat, just make sure it doesn't have naughty ingredients in it that may kill you no matter how thin you are.

4. I suppose I should not have started with a program called WEIGHT watchers, but as far as I'm aware, there is no program called HEALTH watchers. If weight loss is your goal, and you have the will power to make the right choices on your own, then I'm sure you will succeed with this diet and that it will be sustainable over the long run, in part because of their incorporating indulgences into the program. If you have seen results using Weight Watchers, congratulations!

****UPDATE 2****
Please read Janis' comment to this post. She is a Weight Watchers success story but is still able to help clarify what I'm trying to say. Maybe it will seem less offensive or judgmental if it's coming from someone who has not only done the program, but seen a lot of success with it. I'm not trying to say you can't lose weight with this program, all I'm saying is that you can lose a lot of weight with it without necessarily getting any healthier.

I do know, from my own mother who is currently on the Weight Watchers program (as is my grandma - I'm not against people on the program!!), you can apply a point value to anything using only the fat, carbs, protein and fiber. The actual ingredients do not matter. So when they encourage you to indulge every once in a while so as not to feel deprived, you can turn to Oreos or Chips Ahoy. By not discouraging these foods, they in a way do encourage them as an option for your indulgences. It'd be far better to indulge in a homemade cookie than a prepackaged cookie. What's worse, they do encourage low-fat or sugar-free or low-calorie alternatives, which as Janis very clearly stated have a much naughtier ingredient list than their slightly more fattening counterpart. Points are a good guideline, but should not be the determining factor. No one should look at a healthy fruit drink and think of it as "wasting points." Follow the points, but also look at the ingredients and know what you're eating. 

****UPDATE 3****
Instead of posting a new update, I decided to completely re-do the whole article in an attempt to better clarify what I'm trying to say, as well as give the program credit for what I like and some statistics about the program. View it here.

Frenemies, Surprising Allies, and Wolves in Sheep's Clothing ROUND ONE

Frenemy #1: While researching the best healthy snacks, one thing stood out: nuts and nut butters (peanut butter, almond butter, etc.). I get it - nuts are a healthy fat, are a great source of protein, and leave you feeling full. But they make my Frenemy list because, while it's healthy, they're still high in fat. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I lost 12 pounds during the first trimester just because I was too queasy to eat much. My OB was relatively unconcerned about this until midway through the second trimester when I still hadn't started to gain any weight. At that point she told me I needed to increase my peanut butter intake. Let me just say I didn't have any problem with weight gain after that (over the next 4 months, I gained 40 pounds!!) So while it is healthy and full of protein, it might not be the best if weight loss is your goal. I now severely limit my nut and peanut butter intake (which stinks because I love peanut butter with fruit or on toast  or with chocolate or by the spoonful....).

Surprising Ally #1: Chocolate milk is rapidly moving toward the top of everyone's favorite healthy post-workout snacks. Chocolate milk, when compared to plain milk or most sports drinks, has almost twice the amount of carbohydrates and protein which are essential to refuel your muscles after a workout. This also gives your body something to metabolize after your workout which extends the effect your workout has on weight loss. Plus, it's super yummy!! I drink Mootopia (a lactose-free brand from HEB) and in one glass, there are 150 calories, only 4.5 grams of fat, 13 grams of carbs and 12 grams of protein!!! Note: You can lose up to half of your workout if you do not eat within a half an hour after finishing, so don't wait too long!

Wolf in Sheep's Clothing #1: Many people think that protein shakes or energy bars are an excellent choice when picking a healthy snack, especially for a post-workout snack. The truth is, the vast majority of these items aren't really good for you - they're simply candy bars or milkshakes disguised to be healthy by having added protein. Yes, the protein is great, but the rest is not. A far better alternative is to make your own fruit smoothie and add some protein powder. If you like the idea of an energy bar, check the ingredients and nutritional information very carefully. Pure bars are an excellent choice - while a little high in fat due to the nuts (Frenemy #1!!), they are made with all organic and/or all natural products and are a great source of protein.

Run, Forrest, Run

Contrary to what I used to believe, and what many people still believe, running is your friend. If you don't believe me, let me throw out some startling results. In the past 3 weeks, using the Ease into 5K program for Android (very similar to the Couch to 5K program on iTunes) I have run/walked more than 28 miles. (Did I mention I have another challenge of running 365 miles in 2012?) Much more exciting, I have lost more than 2 inches on my thighs! My pants are feeling and looking looser and my legs are feeling much stronger. My endurance has also greatly improved, but that is kind of the point of the program.

Do these sound like results you'd like to see?

Running has some really positive effects on your body, but you need to make sure you're doing it right. After only 2 weeks, my knees starting hurting pretty badly. At the suggestion of several runner friends, I went out and bought new running shoes today. I went to a store just for runners (Luke's Locker in Austin, TX, but I'm sure every city has at least one running shop) and spent more money than I'd ever spent on any pair of shoes (including my most prized Steve Madden stiletto pumps), a whopping $125. But it was absolutely worth it! The experts at the shop looked at how I walked and then recommended specific shoes based on what they saw. Apparently, my feet roll inward slightly with each step that I take and so they recommended a shoe that will stabilize the movement of my foot. (The shoes I ended up with are Mizuno's Wave Inspire 8.) I went for a run as soon as I got home and I could definitely tell the difference! My feet were a little sore on the outside, but I assumed it was a result of the correction of the new shoes, and a few of those runner friends confirmed that. By my second run, my feet were feeling much better. Best of all, my knees weren't hurting!! I was skeptical that my shoes could make that much difference, but they really did. So if you want to get serious about running, start by having an expert help you pick new shoes.

The two programs I mentioned above are excellent programs for beginning runners. C25K on iTunes is a 9 week program, while Ease into 5K for Android is an 8 week program. I'm sure there are programs you can find online, but I like having it on my phone because it literally tells me when to walk and when to run. Just as their names suggest, they are designed to slowly take you from being a couch potato to being able to run a 5K. They do this with running/walking intervals - the first week they have you run for about 30 seconds and then walk for about 30-40 seconds. The second week they increase the length of each interval. And then slowly, over the course of a couple months, they increase the running and decrease the walking until you are able to run for at least a half an hour without stopping. It's certainly not easy, each progression is a challenge that pushes you past what you were able to do before, but it is definitely doable. I recommend finding a 5K race in your area within a week or two of the end of your program for the added motivation - if you've paid a registration fee for a race, you're much more likely to complete the training. I have 2 5Ks coming up in February, a 10K at the end of March (C25K is followed by Bridge to 10K), and then a 10 mile race in April. This time last year I could barely run a mile and now I'm registered to run a 10 mile race! EEK!!

Finally, let's talk about form. The following pictures explain the proper form for running pretty well:



You may notice one of these says to land on the ball of the foot and one says to land between the heel and midfoot and roll forward to the ball of the foot. I'm not sure what to tell you here... I've found a few sources supporting both positions. This might be one that is different for everyone, maybe not. I've tried both and while it works the calves more to land on the ball of the foot, neither one causes any pain.

One final note: running is not only great for fat loss and building your endurance, but it's also great stress management. If you're feeling particularly upset about something, go for a run and I promise you'll be feeling at least a little better. If you are anything like I used to be and feel there's no way you could be a runner, let me leave you with two thoughts:

Let's Get Reading

I've spent most of the day reading in order to prepare for my book club meeting tonight. Last fall, I started a book club and so as the leader of the group, I felt it was probably best if I had actually read the book by the time I was supposed to be leading a discussion on it. But having invested most of my free time in this blog over the past couple of weeks, I lost track of my days. This morning I woke up and realized I was only on chapter 2 of the book I was to have read by the end of the day. I spent 5 hours this afternoon hurrying my way through it and actually managed a pretty decent discussion.

Since today has been entirely devoted to reading, I didn't have much chance to think about what I wanted to write. After the meeting was over and everyone had left, I sat down at my computer to finally squeak out a post for today. But no matter how hard I tried to switch gears, my mind remained firmly affixed on reading. (Remember, I warned you that I was an avid reader.) So I started pondering if a post about reading belonged on this blog. While it doesn't have much to do with fitness other than providing a form of entertainment while on the exercise bike or treadmill, I strongly believe that it is vital to health. And since this blog is about whole health, and not just fitness, here I sit writing a post on reading. 

I love the outlet that reading offers - it can be so therapeutic! When I'm having a bad day, I can easily slip into a book and become someone else. I can read about someone going through something similar to my situation and learn from what they did, good or bad. Or I can become someone else entirely and forget about my own trials for a little while. It also gives me the opportunity to be all the things I don't have time to be. I have sincerely desired to be an astronaut, a meteorologist, a doctor, (this could go on) none of which I will ever see come to fruition. But within the cover of a book, I can be whomever I want to be, even if just for a short while. 

In addition, reading also stretches my imagination, extends my knowledge, and expands my vocabulary, all of which enable me to become more articulate and increase my intelligence. Therefore, I feel reading is important on the path to whole health. With this in mind, I'm proposing the first Challenge of this blog. (I love challenges and will probably present them often.)

This year, challenge yourself to read at least 1 book per month (that's only 12 books this year for the mathematically challenged). 

*Bonus Challenge #1: Choose your books from 12 different genres and branch out from what you would normally read.

*Bonus Challenge #2: Try to join a book club. If you can't find one near you, start your own. 

If you are an avid reader like myself, and 12 books sounds like a great weekend to you, please comment with a number that you think would be a good challenge for you to complete this year!

Planned Attack, Part 1

I had looked at all the numbers and was at the starting line, again. Oftentimes in the past, as with many people, I would want to go down one of two paths. At times I have said I will exercise 5 times a day if it means I can still eat whatever I wish; and then at other times I have said I will adhere to a strict diet as long as I never have to exercise ever. Both of these fitness personalities gave me some results in the beginning, but they were limited, didn't last long, and neither are a truly healthy approach to fitness. Instead I have to take a three-pronged approach.

You may be wondering at the three prongs. What else is there besides diet and exercise? Technically, on the path to fitness, there are only the two, but I divide exercise into cardiovascular activity and strength training as they are used to achieve different results. So my three prongs then are Diet, Cardio, and Strength. (If we're going to be nit picky, I suppose we could make a fourth prong for a good night's sleep but as there's not much more to say about that, I left it off.) Let's look at Diet first. 

Diet: This is such a broad topic that I barely even know where to begin. It is one area in which I will be doing a lot of research but for now I'll assume you have a rough idea of what to limit (fat, sugar, sodium, simple carbs, etc.), what to eliminate (trans and saturated fat, cholesterol, etc.) and what to increase (fiber, calcium, etc.). And I'll also assume that you know the basics about calories. If you're not sure how many calories you need each day I encourage you to check out  this site or this one. Keep in mind your caloric intake level will vary greatly depending on your weight, your goals, your activity level, etc. If you're anything like me, you're thinking that that's a lot to keep track of, so for those of you who just heard "blah, blah, blah," I have good news. By following a few basic dietary tips, we don't have to closely monitor much more than our calories. 

Do you remember those food pyramids we all learned about in school? The actual pyramid has changed numerous times, and isn't even a pyramid anymore (it's now a plate - see pic below), but they have always gotten one thing right: In no version will you find a category for processed foods. God, in His wisdom, purposefully gave us the foods that are good for us - He doesn't need our help in making foods to eat. Fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains, fresh meats, these are things that are good for us. Fruit is better than fruit juice, whole grains are better than processed grains, fresh meat is better than canned meat. Fresh, in-season fruits and veggies are better than out-of-season or frozen; both are better than canned. As it turns out, the way God made it is the way God intended it and who knows better about what's good for our bodies than the One who created them?

The new Food Plate gives a visual of the proportions that you can't quite see with the pyramid. Here it is:

While this is a good guide, it is not necessary to have all 5 groups at every meal. Oftentimes, my breakfasts are more fruit heavy and my dinners are more veggie heavy. As long as the fruits and veggie sides are the largest proportions, it's ok. For me, this meant I had to stop thinking of my meat dish as the main dish. It is now on the side of my veggies. Also to note: I think this plate is a little generous with the grains. But as long as I'm eating the correct things in the correct amounts, then I only need to worry about the overall caloric intake! The rest will fall into place.

The other important thing to consider about diet is meal size and timing. There is much debate about whether it's better to eat 5-6 smaller meals throughout the day or the traditional 3. What it boils down to at the end of the day is calories in vs.calories out. Meal size and timing really has little to do with how many calories are expended throughout the day - that is controlled almost exclusively by activity level. So then the difference only has an effect on how many calories are consumed throughout the day. This comes down to the individual. I know people who need to eat more frequent but smaller meals so that they feel more full throughout the day to help them with appetite control. (More often than not, I fall into this category.) Other people end up eating more if they're eating more often. You may already know which is better for you or you may need to do trial and error. Just remember the goal at the end of the day is to stay within your own individual calorie limit.

In the days to come, I'll post some rules I've created for myself to help me follow these guidelines.

Stay tuned for Planned Attack, Part 2: Cardio and Strength.

You Have to Start Somewhere

I imagine that most people who are looking to get healthy do not like the number that looks back at them while standing on the scale. I'm right there with you! It was made even worse yesterday when I gained 6 pounds simply by buying a scale that actually worked (and I was really hoping the doctor's office scales were wrong!) While I understand that weight is not the be all end all when determining how healthy we are, we do have to start somewhere and we may as well start there. As I was sharing this with some friends today, one of them asked me, "you're not going to post your weight on your blog, are you??" After only a moment I determined that YES, I am. One big part of this blog for me is personal accountability, and I can't think of anything more motivating than admitting my starting weight to the world ((gulp)) and being up front about my goals.

So here goes. I started my challenge on December 26, 2011 and on that day, I weighed 140 146 pounds, which may or may not sound bad until you pair it with my (non)height of 5'2". Unfortunately, that height and weight combination lands me firmly in the lower end of an overweight BMI- 26.1 to be exact. A healthy weight range for my height is 105-135, but knowing my propensity to gain weight rather than lose, my goal is get to the lower end of that range. But a goal without a deadline is completely pointless, so I needed to determine how long it would take. Instead of picking a deadline at random, I decided to map out the weight loss to see how long it should take. Healthy and maintainable weight loss stipulates a loss of 1-2 pounds per week, so on my planner I put a goal down each week. Some weeks I subtracted 2 pounds and 1 pound other weeks, but each time writing down my NEW weight. This helped me see my realistic goal of losing 30 pounds by May 28th... just in time for my wedding anniversary!! The added benefit of mapping out your weight loss like this is encouragement - it's very easy to get discouraged when a week goes by and you don't see much movement on the scale. But if you're comparing it to your weekly goal instead of your long term goal, you'll see that you're right on track and will be much more encouraged.

Well enough about weight, especially my weight! Hop on your (hopefully accurate) scale and get your starting weight, grab your planner, and create your own weight loss map!

It Was Bound to Happen Sooner or Later

Over the past year or so I've flirted with the idea of starting a blog but I hadn't found my niche, that one area that I could go on and on about that people might actually want to read. Adding that I don't really know much about blogs, it continued to be a peripheral thought - one that I'd come back to if I ever really found a passion, but not one in which I was investing too much time or energy. In its place, I discovered (and quickly became addicted to) Pinterest. So instead of acting on the thought of creating a blog, I started building pinboards. One board in particular, my Healthy is as Healthy does board, has become quite popular (WARNING: I'm a pin addict and much of this blog and my healthy board will go back and forth.)

I now have more than 200 strangers following my healthy board which took me off guard. That's when I realized that so many people really are trying to get healthy. But even if they have the motivation and the self control and the persistence needed to see it through, there's still so much contradicting information out there that success may not be as simple as working hard for it. I've spent time researching and using my God-given common sense to try and unravel the mysteries of what is healthy and what is not. I have not limited this to only diet and exercise but have also looked for the truth about skincare products, makeup, etc., and have tried to get healthier in all areas of my life. While this blog will focus primarily on eating right and exercising, it will also cover topics from financial health to mental health. It's my adventure through what works and what doesn't on the path to Whole Health. Will you join me on it?