The NetNutritionist Blog

People who set daily walking goals for themselves and clip on a pedometer to count the number of steps they take go farther in life than those who don't - a whole mile farther, in fact.

New research from Stanford Medical School shows that people who use a pedometer walk about 2,000 steps - or 1 mile - more every day than those who don't, and along the way they lose a little weight and lower their blood pressure.

The Stanford research, published Wednesdayin the Journal of the American Medical Association, is the first to pool results from earlier studies on pedometers. Researchers looked at 26 studies during the past 40 years involving 2,767 people.

Study participants who had daily walking goals - for example, the popular 10,000-steps-a-day target recommended by many fitness programs - took about 2,000 more steps a day than they did before setting the goal. People who did not use pedometers, or who did not set a goal, did not increase their walking, on average.

"I never would have expected these results. At least for the three or four months of the average study, it's a remarkable effect," said Dr. Dena Bravata, lead author of the study and a senior research scientist at Stanford. Bravata has a private practice at California Pacific Medical Center, where she treats many overweight and inactive patients.

"My sedentary patients know they need to be doing more, but they haven't been motivated," she said. "I'm certainly recommending a pedometer and a step goal now."

In addition to walking more, study participants lost a few pounds over the course of the pedometer trials, which lasted on average 18 weeks, and their systolic blood pressure improved slightly. Researchers said they weren't convinced that the walking was directly related to the weight and blood pressure improvements.

Pedometers have become increasingly popular in recent years as a cheap, easy-to-use tool for encouraging relatively inactive people to exercise. Doctors frequently recommend them to sedentary patients, and they've become especially popular in workplace exercise programs designed to encourage employees to adopt healthy lifestyles.

The tiny devices cost between $5 and $50 - from cheap plastic toys given away at trade fairs or with a gym membership to electronic models that can be hooked up to computers for tracking information over weeks or months. The devices are usually worn clipped at the waist, and they count steps by monitoring each time a person's foot hits the ground.

Despite the positive results of the research, doctors noted that it is unknown just how useful pedometers can be in the long term. And as with just about every exercise and diet tool available, pedometers are hardly a quick-fix solution to the nation's obesity epidemic.

"The bottom line is, everything works for a month. Everything that's novel works, and as soon as it stops being novel, it doesn't work," said Dr. Robert Lustig, a UCSF pediatrician and obesity expert. "Can a pedometer help you? If you have the motivation, sure. If you don't, it's useless. So how do you get motivation? I don't know. Clearly the motivation isn't future health. We've demonstrated that."

Still, many physicians who struggle to find anything to motivate their patients hail the pedometer as a useful tool for promoting self-awareness and holding people accountable to their exercise goals.

It helps that pedometers are something that anyone can use - they're simple, and while many sedentary folks may not be ready to take up jogging or join a gym, just about anyone can get out and walk, said Dr. Scott Gee, a Kaiser Permanente pediatrician and director of prevention and health information for Kaiser Northern California.

"Pedometers for a lot of people are a good starting place," Gee said. "Most people can walk without discomfort. It works for people of all ages, except maybe kids because they tend to be really hard on them or lose them."

The Stanford researchers noted that the weight loss reported in many studies wasn't usually the result of the extra walking, leading Bravata to wonder whether people who use pedometers are also paying more attention to their diet or picking up other healthy behaviors.

Berkeley resident Megan Lynch, 42, said the pedometer she's been wearing for six months holds her accountable.

She feels guilty on days when she doesn't meet her goal of 10,000 steps a day, and she makes special efforts to get extra steps - walking down the stairs at work, for example, or walking to the post office a mile away instead of to the one around the corner.

"The pedometer makes you much more aware of how sedentary you were. You look at the numbers and it's pathetic," Lynch said. "It gives you a goal to shoot for. You pay attention, and you feel a sense of pride when you make it."
About pedometers

-- Pedometers are matchbook-size devices usually worn clipped at the waist. They count the number of steps a person takes based on the impact of each foot hitting the ground.

-- Prices range from about $5 to $50.

-- High-end models can measure distances traveled based on the user's stride length, and record step information over long periods of time. They can also be used with computers to track progress.

-- Not all pedometers are equally reliable, especially when it comes to measuring distance. Pedometers can be especially finicky when users are walking slowly and the foot impact doesn't register with the device.

http://www.netnutritionist.com/bodybugg.htm

FIORELLA BELPOGGIa, MORANDO SOFFRITTIa, EVA TIBALDIa, LAURA FALCIONIa, LUCIANO BUAa AND FRANCESCA TRABUCCOa

a Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Foundation for Oncology and Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini," 40010 Bentivoglio, Bologna, Italy

Key Words: Coca-Cola • carcinogenicity • long-term bioassay • rat

Address for correspondence: Morando Soffritti, M.D., Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, European Ramazzini Foundation, Castello di Bentivoglio, 40010 Bentivoglio (BO), Italy. Voice: +39-051-6640460; fax: +39-051-6640223. e-mail: crcfr@ramazzini.it; http://www.ramazzini.it

Coca-Cola was invented in May 1886 in Atlanta, Georgia by a pharmacist who, by accident or design, mixed carbonated water with the syrup of sugar, phosphoric acid, caffeine, and other natural flavors to create what is known as "the world's favorite soft drink." Coca-Cola is currently sold in more than 200 countries and in early 2000, the company sold its 10 billionth unit case of Coca-Cola branded products. Given the worldwide consumption of Coca-Cola, a project of experimental bioassays to study its long-term effects when administered as substitute for drinking water on male and female Sprague-Dawley rats was planned and executed. The objective of the project was to study whether and how long-term consumption of Coca-Cola affects the basic tumorigram of test animals. The bioassays were performed on rats beginning at different ages, namely: (a) on males and females exposed since embryonic life or from 7 weeks of age; and (b) on males and females exposed from 30, 39, or 55 weeks of age. Overall, the project included 1999 rats. During the biophase, data were collected on fluid and feed consumption, body weight, and survival. Animals were kept under observation until spontaneous death and underwent complete necropsy. The results indicate: (a) an increase in body weight in all treated animals; (b) a statistically significant increase of the incidence in females, both breeders and offspring, bearing malignant mammary tumors; (c) a statistically significant increase in the incidence of exocrine ademonas of the pancreas in both male and female breeders and offspring; and (d) an increased incidence, albeit not statistically significant, of pancreatic islet cell carcinomas in females, a malignant tumor which occurs very rarely in our historical controls. On the basis of the results of this study, excessive consumption of regular soft-drinks should be generally discouraged, in particular for children and adolescents.

Bodybugg Special-
http://www.netnutritionist.com/bodybugg.htm

Bodybugg Testimonials-
http://www.netnutritionist.com/bodybugg.htm

Bodybugg Weight Loss-
http://www.netnutritionist.com/bodybugg.htm

By Anne Underwood
Newsweek

Oct. 30, 2006 issue - When Rebecca Faill began manning the baker's hot line at King Arthur Flour Company in Norwich, Vt., she expected run-of-the-mill cooking questions, like "Why aren't my biscuits fluffy?" or "How do I convert my pancake recipe to serve 300 for the church dinner?" But over the past year, another query has moved to the fore—a more basic nutritional question: "My doctor just told me I have to eat whole grains. What does that mean?"

It's a question that consumers have been asking with increasing urgency since 2005, when the USDA's Dietary Guidelines started recommending that people eat three or more servings of whole grains a day (or, as the government slogan put it, "Make half your grains whole"). The USDA action came in response to a growing body of research showing that people who eat the most whole grains have a 20 to 40 percent reduced risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes, not to mention better colon health. The reasons for the health benefits aren't hard to fathom. Whole grains include not just the starchy interior of a kernel, but also the fibrous bran that surrounds it, together with the vitamin- and mineral-rich germ (or seed). In contrast, fluffy white refined flour—the kind in most cakes, cookies and crackers—has the highly nutritious bran and germ stripped away.

Manufacturers have taken the USDA's cue and started mixing whole grains into foods ranging from Fig Newtons to Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, and even new varieties of Wonder Bread. By some estimates, 300 new whole-grain products reached grocery-store shelves in 2005 alone. But there's one huge catch. Not all the new products are as healthful as others—and some items positioned as whole grains are outright impostors. Phrases such as "made with whole grains" tell you very little, as a mere sprinkling of whole-wheat flour could justify such a claim. Even "organic," "stone-ground" and "multigrain" are no guarantee. "Multigrain simply means it contains several types of grain," says Bonnie Liebman at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "It doesn't tell you whether those grains are whole or refined."

The Whole Grains Council (wholegrains council.org) has tried to help consumers sort out the confusion, with its black-and-gold stamps on product packaging. The stamp, which the council recently revamped, now states precisely how many grams of whole grains you get per serving of a given product. Directly below the stamp is the recommendation "Eat 48g or more of whole grains daily"—in other words, three 16-gram servings. But not all companies are registering their products with the council. If that's the case, then make sure the first item on the ingredients list contains the word "whole"—not "enriched" or "unbleached," both code words for refined. Another great indicator is a claim of "100 percent whole grain," which means whole-grain flour hasn't been mixed with refined. And the fewer ingredients in the product, the healthier it is likely to be; fewer ingredients mean that a higher percentage is probably whole grain.

Even better, eat actual grains, such as quinoa, wild rice and millet. That's where you'll find the greatest nutritional benefits. Lisa Hark's recent book "The Whole Grain Diet Miracle" ($24.95) includes recipes for 16 different whole grains, along with nutritional profiles of each one.

If nutritionists have one worry about this whole-grain trend, it's that consumers will now feel free to indulge in high-calorie snacks just because they're labeled "whole grain." True, says Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at New York University, the whole-grain version of Chips Ahoy! cookies is somewhat better than the regular variety. But, as she warns, whole-grain chocolate-chip cookies are still chocolate-chip cookies.

See Sugarlessdelight.com for more healthy holiday goodies

Most of us claim that we watch what we eat. We also claim we change the oil every 3,000 miles. Do we really? It has been shown in tests that we tend to forget some of the bites that we make throughout the day. It turns out that most of us do remember that hamburger and french fries we had on the way home. But the things we tend to forget are the 50 grams of chocolate, the can of Coke, the bag of popcorn, and the few cookies we had before we went to bed. Unfortunately, those little details make all the difference and the only way to stay on track is to have a clear and complete picture of what we really eat throughout the day.

Tracking calories is probably one of the oldest dieting methods, and throughout all these years it still has not lost any of its appeal. We all know that consuming 1000 calories a day is rather little, and 3000 is too much for most of us. So why not pick a number in between, make sure to eat just that many calories, and observe the results a few weeks later. No change? Pick a lower number of calories. Gained weight? Pick a lower number of calories. Lost more than you expected? Make sure you eat enough nutrients.

Dieting really is that simple. The reason why so many of us fail, is because we understimate the number of times we opened the fridge. So put a notepad on the door of your fridge, and start recording the foods and the times at which you consumed them. This way you will not only determine the number of calories you may consume, but you also may be able to detect any unhealthy eating patterns. Last but not least, after having spent a few minutes writing down all the foods, you will think twice about eating them in the future.

http://www.netnutritionist.com/bodybugg.htm

Bodybugg Testimonial from Nicole.
I have been bugged for 14 months now and have learned the importance of tracking every bite I eat and how it relates to my body weight, energy level, and heatlh. I really started using the bodybugg with netnutritionist to eat healthier and have more energy. I never dreamed I would lose the unwanted bodyfat around my midsection, 17 pounds and 3% bodyfat. I have to admit that is was nerve racking to begin with having to log and record everything I ate. I had to be honest about what I was eating so the Netnutritionist (Gay Riley) could really help me improve. After awhile it became like brushing my teeth or washing the dishes. I just did it. She made it so simple. Gay would look at what I was eating and know exactly how I could improve, make substitutions, and get more nutrients for my calories without disrupting the dynamics of my life or habits. She also made major changes in my fitness lifestyle. Before I was wasting time, trying to get to the gym and working out too hard while the rest of the day I was not moving at all accept from the car, to the desk, to the couch to the bed. She referred to me as a sedentary exerciser! I hated that. With her guidance and my bodybugg, I actually burn more calories now on my "non workout" days. Gay gave me a whole plan of action with recommendations for health, nutrition, food, supplements and exercise. It was so comprehensive and sensible..It has been like taking a course on my personal health and lifestyle. Thanks Netnutritionist and bodybugg!