While many people with weight problems resort to expensive – and sometimes drastic – measures to lose weight, such as bariatric surgery, liquid diets, diet pills, and liposuction, the safest and most economic way to lose fat is to reintroduce activity that has been mechanized out of our lives.  Here are some very reasonable changes that the vast majority of the population can make:

Park your car at the farthest point from the workplace and store entrances.

Stop using escalators and moving walkways whenever possible.  And the same is true for elevators.

Eliminate the use of drive through banking and shopping of any kind.  Park your car and walk.

Use a broom and rake instead of a leaf blower.

Most importantly: Get off the sofa at home and chair at work at frequent intervals.  Simply standing up burns significantly more calories than sitting.  And sitting for prolonged periods has been shown to be very unhealthy.

If you think the lifestyle changes listed above are too simple or insignificant to make a difference, please read what researcher Dr. James Levine of the Mayo Clinic has to say.  He estimates that 100-200 calories of physical activity have been mechanized out of our daily lives and reversing that equation can potentially solve the obesity epidemic.  And here’s a concrete example: The average American woman takes less than 5,000 steps a day, while the average Old Order Amish woman takes 14,000 steps.  The Amish are amongst the least fat of any community in North America.

So let’s get moving!

German scientists recently examined the DNA of white blood cells in sedentary and active middle-aged men and women and found that the active subjects had telomeres that were much longer than their less active peers and only about 10 percent shorter than people half their age. Telomeres are located on the ends of chromosomes and protect them from damage.  When telomeres become too short, cells can die or lose function.  As a result of these findings, one of the researchers said that “exercise has an anti-aging effect at the molecular level.”  Another study found that people 55 to 72 years of age who had high levels of cardiovascular endurance also had longer telomeres.  So being more fit does keep cells young!  Read More

Here’s how sedentary living is affecting us: approximately 250,000 people die in the U.S. every year due to inactivity, and there are at least 17 unhealthy conditions related to sedentary living – including high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, obesity, breast and colon cancer, and heart disease.  Roughly 36% of adults in the U.S. do not get any leisure time physical activity, and at least 28% of all preventable deaths in the U.S. are due to the combination of inactivity and poor diet.

We inherited our genes from ancestors who were very active, and our genetic make-up has not changed.   Only our lifestyles have changed.  The average American watches 4 hours of television every day but lists a lack of time as the number one reason for not being more active.  It’s all about priorities.  And all it takes is a half hour a day of fairly brisk activity to make a difference.  It’s in your DNA to do it!

Research indicates that athletes participating in several hours of aerobic exercise each week have protein requirements 50%-100% greater than the RDA of 0.8 g/kg body weight.

Meredith (2) and Tarnopolsky (3) suggested that athletes training at moderately high intensities for several hours per week experience an increased catabolism of protein, and thus have an increased daily requirement for that nutrient. The Meredith study included two age groups (26.8 + 1.2 yrs; 52.0 + 1.9 yrs), and the protein requirement of the groups was the same. The six young subjects in the Meredith study and the six subjects in the Tarnopolsky study were very similar in age and activity levels (aerobic exercise > 12 hrs/week).

There is less agreement between studies that have investigated the protein needs of athletes performing strength training activities. Differences in methodology may have contributed to the disparity in results.

Celejowa & Homa (5) and Laritcheva et al (6) suggested the protein needs of strength athletes were more than 200% the RDA. Tarnopolsky (3) argued that the lack of sweat collection (to measure urea nitrogen loss), diet adaptation periods between trials, distribution of accurately analyzed diets, and a control group made the conclusions of those studies questionable.

In the 1988 Tarnopolsky study (3), two of the six subjects were in negative protein balance (determined by urea nitrogen loss in urine, sweat, and fesces) when fed a diet that provided 1.0 g/kg body weight for protein. The authors suggested more subjects would have been in negative protein balance had the intensity of the training routine, which was not clearly described, been higher.

In 1992, Lemon et al (8) performed a tightly controlled study on a group of 14 bodybuilders. This double-blind study incorporated two 1-month treatments that supplied a diet consisting of 1.35 g/kg or 2.62 g protein/kg body weight. There was a seven day washout between trials, and the high intensity workouts of the subjects were supervised by trained personnel. Muscle biopsy, hydrostatic weighing, and CAT scans were used to assess anthropometric changes during the two phases of the study. There were no significant differences in strength and anthropometric measures between diet treatments, and the authors concluded, based on measures of nitrogen balance, that an ideal intake for protein was 1.6 g/kg – 1.7 g/kg body weight.

The results of work by Butterfield (9,10) and Roy et al (11) indicate that limiting factor for muscle protein deposition and maintaining a positive nitrogen balance is total caloric intake, not protein. Roy examined the effects of the timing of glucose supplementation on muscle protein synthesis. The subjects in that study performed unilateral leg extension exercise and received either a placebo or a carbohydrate supplement immediately after exercise and one hour post exercise. The fractional protein synthetic rate of the exercise limb in the carbohydrate group was 36 % higher than the control limb, and in the placebo group the exercise limb exhibited a 6.3 % higher synthetic rate than the control limb. Urinary urea nitrogen and 3-Methylhistidine excretion were also significantly lower in the carbohydrate supplement group.

Butterfield and Calloway (10) studied previously untrained men initiating moderate intensity exercise (40 % – 50 % VO 2 max) for one and two hours a day. Energy intake was altered in both exercise conditions to produce periods of energy balance and deficit. The authors found that when caloric intake was 15% higher than that needed to maintain body weight, nitrogen balance was achieved on a diet consisting of only 0.57 g of egg white protein per kg body weight. In a separate study, Butterfield (9) reported that male runners receiving a diet deficient in total energy but high in protein (2.0 g protein/kg body weight) while running 5-10 miles per day, were in negative nitrogen balance.

Research indicates that the protein needs of athletes can be as much as 100 % greater than the RDA of 0.8 g/kg of body weight. The 2000 position stand of the American Dietetic Association states that 1.5 g protein/kg body weight may be needed to achieve maximum protein deposition. However, total caloric intake may be the limiting factor in maintaining a positive nitrogen balance, regardless of protein intake.

None of the studies reviewed examined the effects of aerobic exercise and strength training on protein requirements. Protein is oxidized during endurance exercise and it is used for muscle repair and muscle protein synthesis in body builders. Thus, it is hypothesized that the protein requirements for an athlete participating in regular aerobic exercise and moderate to high intensity strength training may be greater than the requirements of an athlete who does not regularly perform both modes of exercise.

The Scourge of Creeping Obesity

As many Americans move from young adulthood to middle age, they lose approximately 6.6 pounds of lean body mass (muscle and bone) each decade. At the same time, the average person gains 1.5 pounds of fat every year! This is what is called creeping obesity – the gradual loss of muscle and accumulation of body fat. And it has been estimated that up to 1/3 of our adult population is obese: men and women with at least 30% and 35% body fat, respectively. That’s 60 pounds of fat for a 200 lb. male with 30% body fat!

The weight and body fat were not added overnight, and we should not realistically expect to trim down quickly. A safe and effective weight loss program that includes physical activity is designed to result in a 1-2 pound weight loss per week – and no more.

It’s Really a Matter of Arithmetic – and Motivation

So, you’ve put on some weight and are motivated to take it off now. Where do you start? The goal should be to produce a caloric deficit of 500-1000 calories per week, and that is done by taking in fewer calories (eating less) and burning more than usual (increasing activity levels). This should lead to the recommended weight loss of 1-2 pounds per week, because one pound of fat equals 3,500 calories and a 500-1000 calorie deficit every day will result in a 3,500-7,000 pound weekly deficit.

If you modify your food intake by cutting back on the portion size of your meals (no more super sizing!), avoiding simple sugars (such as soft drinks, canned fruit packed in heavy syrup, and sweets), choosing the leanest cuts of meats, and avoiding late night snacks, while increasing your activity levels, you should be able to achieve long-term success. Yes, it can be a challenge to change our life-long habits, but there is no safer and more beneficial alternative than the combination of increased physical activity and better eating habits.

Also, research has shown that all carbs are not created equal. It is the simple sugars we want to avoid and the complex carbohydrates found in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables that we want to consume.

What About Physical Activity?

Physical activity is clearly a vital part of a sensible weight loss program. It should consist of a combination of cardiovascular exercise (walking, biking, etc.) and strength training – also called weight training or resistance training. Start off slowly to avoid injury and gradually add to your routine as you become more fit. Strength training is a very important piece of the weight loss puzzle, because research has shown that it helps us maintain muscle and lose primarily fat. We want to keep that muscle – and even increase it – because it burns calories much more than fat and helps us perform our daily activities. The more lean muscle you have, the higher your metabolism will be and the less difficult daily activities will become.

If you have been inactive, it is strongly recommended that you contact a physician before embarking on your new activity program!

That’s the simple truth about weight loss. With a moderate amount of motivation, support from family and friends, and consistent dedication to a new routine, the fat will gradually melt away.

Get more information about proper eating and weight loss.

 David Wernick, M.A., CSCS 

Research conducted over the past several years has proven that the decline in lean body mass that leads to disability can be dramatically reduced with strength training.  In fact, muscle mass and strength can be regained regardless of age and initial fitness levels.  In his book, Biomarkers – the 10 Keys to Prolonging Vitality, Dr. William Evans states that building muscle is the key to an older adult’s rejuvenation.  Dr. Wayne Westcott, author of Strength and Fitness and national strength consultant for several professional organizations, is also a firm believer in strength training for mature adults.  He states, “Our ability to perform any physical activity is dependent upon our muscles.  Therefore, stronger muscles are advantageous for everyday living.”

Men and women in the 80’s who begin a well designed strength training program can expect to add muscle at about the same rate as younger adults.  In addition to increased strength and lean body mass, older adults may experience many other benefits (see box).

According to a 1996 report from the U.S. Surgeon General, less than 5% of men and women older than age 65 strength train.  The reasons for not starting a strength training program may include a lack of interest, fear of getting hurt, lack of knowledge about the benefits, lack of time, and unfamiliarity with the equipment and proper training techniques.  Dr. Westcott reported that 90% of the men and women in one of his studies who previously had not been exercising were so pleased with their two-month results, they continued their workout program. Strength training for older adults has been proven to be very safe and highly beneficial.  Thirty minutes of strength training, three days per week, under the supervision of a qualified fitness professional, will bring about dramatic changes.  The end result will be what everyone is seeking – a better quality of life.

What Is Core Training?

Your core – the area around your trunk and pelvis, and where your center of gravity is located – is where all movement in the body originates. In addition to the abdominal muscles (rectus abdominus), core muscles include the internal and external obliques, multifidus, quadratus lumborum, and transverse abdominus. These, and other core muscles, not only help in making movement possible, they also function as spinal stabilizers. Thus, a strong, highly functioning core is important for all of us – not just professional athletes. A lack of core strength can lead to changes in posture and back pain and increase an older adult’s risk of falling. According to Dr. Edward Laskowski, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist at the Mayo Clinic, “The best brace you can give yourself is your muscle brace – the best corset is your muscle corset.”

According to Dr. Stuart McGill, researcher and author of Low Back Disorders: Evidence-Based Prevention and Rehabilitation, there are three exercises that should be included in every core training program: curl-ups; the side bridge; and the quadruped or ‘birddog’. These three core exercises have been shown to sufficiently challenge the targeted muscles, spare the spine of high compressive loads, and ensure sufficient stability. Each of these exercises is performed with no equipment; we work our body weight against gravity to provide the stimulus necessary for increased strength in the targeted muscles. And there are safe progressions for the exercises, so they can be performed by beginning, intermediate, and advanced exercisers.

Core training should serve as a perfect complement to traditional strength training exercises. And for maximal benefit, it should be performed three days per week.