After a few words, I will attach a link to an article I just read. It is an announcement related to a US News and World Report evaluation of popular meal patterns. Researchers and nutrition experts evaluated the
quality of several meal patterns or diets in regards to their
overall nutrition value, their use in weight control or loss, their impact on health and how easy it is to adopt the particular style of eating/cooking in the short and long terms.
I am partial to the Mediterranean pattern which is plant/fish and healthy oil based. It scored well in regards to improving ones health. I am also a constant promoter of Volumetrics which was only noted for weight loss, which is not why I endorse it. I do so because it focuses on low energy density which is a recommendation of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. You will see below that Volumterics is dinged for requiring extra preparation time. I remind you that I dedicate a You Tube channel to debunking that myth! The reporter should have interviewed me.
Lastly, I have consistently stated that the tenets of Weight Watchers and the results of the program participants are to be lauded. And today it sits on the top of the list of best diets!
Weight Watchers (3.8 stars) -- The
diet plan uses a points system to help people lose weight and keep it
off. Weight Watchers beat other diet plans for both short-term and
long-term weight loss in experts’ ratings.
Volumetrics (3.4 stars) -- The diet is based on eating foods
that are low in calories and high in volume to help people feel full
while losing weight. It got high marks for nutrition, but the diet
requires lengthy meal preparation.
The above is quoted directly from this article - READ MORE
I have shared that a low energy diet is endorsed by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and is the cornerstone to Volumetrics and Weight Watchers. Energy density of a food or meal is determined by dividing the total calories by the weight of the food(s) in grams.
Sometimes the serving size of a food is provided in ounces not grams. This is usually not a problem as ounces are easily converted to grams. If you are choosing between two products and they are both given in ounces, you can just divide calories by ounces to see which is the least caloric. Sometimes the serving size is given in ounces AND grams. But be careful....
I was choosing ice cream today - ice cream always gets me. When it is a tub of ice cream the serving size is 1/2 cup - which is not useful for two reasons. First it is unrealistic. We tend to eat more than one half. And Second, it isn't calories per half of cup that we need to be aware of but calories by weight - in grams. I have pointed out before that the 1/2 c serving sizes have unequal weights across products and flavors (the grams are always provided so you can do your own math).
When buying ice cream bars, (I choose from Weight Watchers and Skinny Cow). I read the grams per bar to know which one is REALLY the lower calorie option. The front of the box might say that they are 100 calorie bars, but that does not mean that you get the same amount of ice cream. I always want more ice cream for my calorie - more bang for my buck. Usually Skinny Cow wins the calories per gram contest. The Weight Watchers Fudge Bar is the exception.
But today something caught my eye in the small print on the front of the package. This led me to check those grams again. On all the packages (excluding the fudge), all flavors of both brands said 6- 2.65 fl ounce bars per package. How can they all be the same fluid ounces if they are NOT the same weight in grams? The 2.65 ounce bar in the Weight Watcher group weighs about 52 grams and the Skinny Cow ones weigh 63 or slightly more grams.
But wait... fluid ounces? Ice cream is not a liquid.
Either way the ounce to gram conversion doesn't equal what the product says. When using fluid ounces the conversion from 2.65 = 78g, when using the more appropriate ounce to gram conversion the 2.65 ounces = 75 grams. None of the conversions were true to the label grams.
When in doubt, ALWAYS refer to the grams..Actually, doubt or no doubt - its calories/gram so use the grams.
Now - time for some ice cream.
The first page of the search results below will link you to 4 previous posts that address the importance of moving your body (being active) throughout every day.
I am very passionate about this health behavior. The upshot is that sitting for more than one hour at a time, no matter how active you are otherwise, no matter what you weigh, is linked to higher rates of several diseases (e.g. heart disease, diabetes), disease risk factors (e.g. abnormal blood sugars, high blood pressure) and all causes of death (all cause mortality). The amount of increased risk is different based on your general health, weight and exercise level but extended periods of sitting are bad for everyone.
Remember when I taught my first college under grad course last fall? On the first day of class (they were 3 hour classes) I explained this sitting/disease risk to the students. Then I made sure that we always took two stand up and move breaks every class - even when we had guest speakers. {traditionally three hour classes contain one 15 minute break} If the only thing my students took away from class was the need to limit sitting time - I have done them a very big favor.
That brings me to Weight Watchers. The program is also doing their customers a very big favor. My sister, who is a successful loser/maintainer (almost 5 years now) attends Weight Watchers - more to support others than herself, I think. Today she told me that her meeting leader gave a great, graphical presentation on this very topic. And as is true, the leader emphasized that the "not sitting" is important for HEALTH above and beyond anything it might do for calorie burn or weight. To be clear, sitting doesn't make you fat. Eating more food than your body needs is the cause of weight gain. Sitting DOES make you unhealthy if you do a lot of it. We are learning that a lot doesn't mean the number of hours you sit in a day, but the number of minutes you go without standing.
Search Results on Sitting from this blog, with research links. HERE
