Why do we always make excuses?

Excuses are everywhere, and it's precisely because they are so prevalent that they are not effective at all.  When we hear the words, "I'm sorry but..." most of us know exactly what's coming is an excuse.  The dog ate the homework.  Traffic was terrible.  My appointment went over. The boss is to blame.  The equipment is broken… and there are hundreds more.

All the good excuses have already been taken.  In fact, the high-quality excuses have been used, reused, overused and abused.

When you tell someone that you are going to do something at a certain time then be there to do it.  There is nothing that speaks louder to the person you are working with or meeting that they really are not that important.  It brings the message that you are more important than they are. When I was Clerk of Court I used to have a judge that was always late.  Up to 45 minutes before we would start and he always said “It is 9 until it is 10”.  I always felt this was so disrespectful to the person who was waiting in court for whatever reason.  Everyone’s time is as important as the next.

So, next time you are tempted to spend time trying to concoct a new and improved excuse, don’t bother.  A far better strategy is this:  Make a decision and do the work.  Then let your actions speak for itself.

Can you get to much Protein

Once again, the NY Times is fear-mongering about nutrition. This time, in a Dec. 6, 2016 article entitled “Can You Get Too Much Protein?” the target is protein powders. Think about it. You can get too much vitamin A, vitamin B6, sugar, even water; nutrition is powerful, and many nutrients have defined safe upper limits of intake. So it should come as no surprise that it’s possible to consume too much protein. If someone asks you “Is excessive X harmful?”, the answer is straightforward even if you know nothing about X; you only need to understand the meaning of excessive. The NYT article reads a bit like that, raising alarms but not shedding light. The article’s implication that people are doing themselves harm by high protein intake, and that the cause of the high protein intake is protein powders, is poorly supported by the contents of the article or by the scientific literature.

Let’s begin by considering what protein is: an essential nutrient. You can’t live without consuming some minimal amount of available protein that provides all nine essential amino acids in adequate amounts. The article correctly states the Institute of Medicine’s (IoM) adult Dietary Reference Intakes for protein, 56 g per day for men and 46 g per day for women. It would have provided useful perspective if the article had also mentioned the IoM’s additional guidelines on acceptable macronutrient ranges. Protein in adults, according to the IoM, can range from 10-35% of calories. Based on a 2000 calorie diet, that translates to 50-175 g per day. And let’s keep in mind there is nothing sacred or historically relevant about the 2000 calorie diet. I’m currently enjoying a book by Jane Ziegelman & Andrew Coe, A Square Meal: A Culinary History of the Great Depression. Ziegelman and Coe cite a 1923 survey of Midwestern farm families, which found these farmers consumed more than 4300 calories per day, “more than enough calories and protein to perform their arduous work.” Throughout most of recorded history humans were more physically active than our modern lifestyles require — or in many cases, allow.

Protein powders are described in the article as a relatively new invention. That’s a true statement if you consider space flight or color TV a relatively new invention. Protein powders have been on the market since at least the early 1960s. The article makes minimal attempt to distinguish between possible downsides of consuming protein from animal based “whole foods” such as bacon, relative to the option of for example a plant based protein in powder form. It also fails to mention the evidence that protein intake is better when evenly distributed across one’s daily meals, as opposed to heavily weighted towards one meal. Since many breakfast options are low in protein, or only contain reasonable amounts of protein when accompanied by a good deal of calories and saturated fat, there is a good rationale for a protein powder as the foundation of a healthy breakfast.

For the second time in recent weeks a NY Times article concerned with excess nutrient intake has failed to mention the importance of meeting the requirements during pregnancy and lactation. While the Dietary Reference Intake for protein for adult women is only 46 g, for women who are pregnant or lactating the figure increases to 71 g – a 54% increase. It’s truly unconscionable that the higher requirement at a critical life stage received no mention. There is also ample evidence that the protein requirement is higher in the elderly. The article mentions that protein intake in the elderly “falls short,” but only hints at the need for more protein in this age group by having the point raised by an academic “whose research has been supported by trade groups like the National Dairy Council and the National Cattleman’s Beef Association.” Why doesn’t the NY Times rise above ad hominem arguments and consult the scientific literature? Muscle loss in the elderly (sarcopenia) is a serious health issue.

Finally, I cringed at the technically flawed statements in the article; in some cases, I hope the experts were misquoted. For example, whole grains, fruits and vegetables are not “macronutrients” as stated in one quote. Citing one “recent small trial” is far short of a literature review when joined to the conclusion that high protein intake might block improvement in insulin sensitivity (I could easily mention several studies with findings to the contrary). And the press should always be careful when citing epidemiology studies to clearly state for the benefit of lay readers that such studies do not establish causality.

Bruce P. Daggy, PhD, FACN, Chief Science Officer & SVP R&D, Shaklee Corp.

Rid yourself of joint pain!

+

Check it out further here  :  http://bit.ly/myjointpainrelief

Puzzled by weight loss? The 4 pieces you need to succeed.

If you have ever wondered what the key to successful weight loss is, you are not alone. Many people have tried lots of different approaches that may lead to some weight loss but for most, that is not sustained. Weight loss is a hard puzzle to crack. And maintaining that weight loss is even more challenging. But scientific studies do provide validation for effective strategies for losing weight and provide us help in understanding how to be successful in keeping it off over time.

The key is to commit to a holistic approach that includes your diet, exercise, and lifestyle. Can you successfully lose weight by just changing (for example) your diet? Yes, but when you add regular physical activity and behavior modification to the mix, you greatly increase your chances to achieve and maintain a healthier weight.

Let’s take a look at each piece and see how they fit into the puzzle:

• Diet: According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in order to lose about 1 to 2 pounds per week, you’ll need to reduce your caloric intake by 500—1000 calories per day. The biggest problem with calorie reduction is that you feel like you are losing something. The best way to achieve this reduction and not feel hungry is to eat foods that help you feel full. Low glycemic index foods are typically low sugar/high protein/high fiber foods. These foods are slowly digested and absorbed, which helps manage hunger and energy levels. Fill your dinner plate with an array of colorful vegetables—they are highly nutritious yet low in calories. Make sure when you cut calories that you are still giving your body the nutrition it needs; a good multivitamin is another way to make certain you aren’t missing essential nutrients.
• Meal Replacements: Look for protein-rich fortified protein shakes and meal bars that are designed to help you reduce calories yet not be hungry.
• Physical activity: The Mayo Clinic suggests that being active is an important part of any weight-loss or weight-maintenance program. Exercise really should be a lifelong habit. Maintaining your weight loss may very well be impossible without some form of exercise. Activities of daily living, like walking the dog, count. Resistance exercise is also important; it helps maintain muscle mass during weight loss, and that keeps your metabolism up. Recent research suggests that how hard you exercise matters, so pick up the intensity as you adapt to an exercise routine. Check with your doctor if you are just beginning an exercise program or have any physical limitations.
• Behavior modification: When you think about it, we are all a collection of habits and our habits influence how we eat, why we eat (stress), our engagement with physical activity, how we sleep, and more. Many of these habits may be getting in the way of your success. Behavior modification means changing what you are doing and moving towards healthier choices—like learning how to navigate the grocery store to avoid unhealthy foods. Look for a weight loss program that includes plenty of education and help with adopting healthy habits.

On your path to losing weight, making small positive changes can lead to success. Start your journey today!

Don’t be fooled by the headlines

This is such a good article by Dr Daggy (scientist and friend)  as he points out the facts being first a scientist and understanding analysis and just reporting.  This happens so often in the industry that the reporting has a lot of opinion in it. Enjoy!!!

Jane Brody, long time science writer for the NYT and bestselling author, recently published a 2-part critique of the use of dietary supplements. While the article raised some good points such as the use of diagnostics to detect nutrient deficiencies and the importance of alerting your doctor to your supplement use to mitigate the risk of deleterious drug-nutrient interactions, the overall tenor of the article ran counter to the sensible advice to use quality dietary supplements to support health.

I would like to directly respond to a few serious faults in her analysis, focusing on the second of her two reports.  Multivitamins: “If you are a healthy adult with no known nutrient deficiencies, save your money.” Where do I begin on this ill-considered recommendation? According to research findings cited by healthypeople.gov, by the validated measure of self-assessed health, in 2007 only 9.5% of US individuals considered their health to be fair or poor (https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation-health-measures/General-Health-Status). In that case, I suppose many people would take Ms. Brody’s advice to mean that a multivitamin is not for them. However, the same healthy people.gov article noted that nearly half of US adults over the age of 18 had at least one of the following conditions: cardiovascular disease, arthritis, diabetes, asthma, cancer, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). I might add about a third of US adults are obese, a condition that increases the risk of about 80 health conditions. So all things considered, how many of us can say that we’re truly healthy, much less near optimal health?

Let’s continue to consider this statement. If you have “no known deficiencies, save your money.” Brody does sensibly state that vitamin D and vitamin B12 status are not hard to measure; if your doctor will approve the test, you might have to pay for it, but it can be done. That’s two of the essential nutrients. There are quite a few more, and many other non-essential yet important nutrients for which the government does not yet have an RDA. Lutein, for example, important to eye health; your eyes have active transporters to collect this nutrient from the bloodstream for good reason. So, is ignorance bliss? Would we be worrying over nothing? Not so, says the US government, in the form of its national nutrition survey, NHANES. Even if you simply consider a small subset of important nutrients, it is easy to show that the diets of the vast majority of Americans fall short. This state of affairs has resulted in both the US government and the WHO identifying ‘nutrients of concern.” Of concern why, if not for the effect poor nutrition has on health?

Brody cites the opinion of medical societies such as the AHA that a multivitamin cannot prevent heart disease. While it is also very difficult to conduct the long-term, randomized controlled trials (RCT) of nutrients that might show such a benefit, it is comparatively easy to conduct an RCT on a prescription drug. There is no convincing evidence that statins work in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. That does not stop the AHA and most doctors from recommending statins for just that purpose. Rejection of evidence-based medicine is apparently limited to expensive pharmaceuticals; essential nutrients must run the gauntlet laid out by a healthcare system centered around the treatment of disease via Rx medication.

Any suggestion that multivitamins are a waste of money should at minimum explicitly state that such advice does not extend to the prenatal period. Nutrient gaps during pregnancy can cause permanent harm to the baby. Unfortunately, not all supplements sold as prenatal vitamins in the US are worthy of the name. For example, many prenatal multis deliver less than 150 micrograms of iodine. Iodine deficiency is common, and can result in a permanent reduction in IQ of the child, in addition to the harm dealt to the mother. This is a matter that deserves more attention from the industry and responsible media.

A low point of her article was this statement: “….another major study [in 2013] linked fish oil supplements to a raised risk of prostate cancer….” This statement is misleading in so many ways that I hardly know where to begin. It might give one pause that the study cited did not examine fish oil supplement use.  For a rather thorough critique of the study and of the press coverage that resulted, this analysis from the Mayo Clinic is instructive: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(13)01000-8/pdf

Americans as a whole are overfed and undernourished. We need more nutrients delivered in fewer calories; and those nutrients should be delivered without harmful levels of contaminants such as heavy metals and pesticides. Yes, we should encourage wiser food choices, and a more responsible food and beverage industry. But let’s also recognize reality: quality supplements are a proven means to achieve this goal, and consumption of supplements is obviously more likely to happen than for all Americans to suddenly consume more than 5 servings of veggies a day and giving up all fast food and sodas. It is foolhardy that some health experts are so accepting of people consuming a handful of Rx drugs daily, while wringing their hands if those pills are dietary supplements instead. Brody acknowledges that she uses supplements herself. Americans are correct to do the same.

Bruce Daggy, Ph.D., FACN,  SVP, R&D & Chief Science Officer, Shaklee Corporation