ScienceDaily (Nov. 23, 2009) — Researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine set out to address a question that has been challenging scientists for years: How does dietary restriction produce protective effects against aging and disease? And the reverse: how does overconsumption accelerate age-related disease?

An answer lies in a two-part study led by Charles Mobbs, PhD, Professor of Neuroscience and of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, published in the November 17 edition of the journal PLoS Biology. The study examines how dietary restriction and a high-caloric diet influence biochemical responses.

Dr. Mobbs and his colleagues unraveled a molecular puzzle to determine that within certain parameters, a lower-calorie diet slows the development of some age-related conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, as well as the aging process. How the diet is restricted — whether fats, proteins or carbohydrates are cut — does not appear to matter. “It may not be about counting calories or cutting out specific nutrients,” said Dr. Mobbs, “but how a reduction in dietary intake impacts the glucose metabolism, which contributes to oxidative stress.” Meanwhile, a high calorie diet may accelerate age-related disease by promoting oxidative stress.

Dietary restriction induces a transcription factor called CREB-binding protein (CBP), which controls the activity of genes that regulate cellular function. By developing drugs that mimic the protective effects of CBP — those usually caused by dietary restriction — scientists may be able to extend lifespan and reduce vulnerability to age-related illnesses.

“We discovered that CBP predicts lifespan and accounts for 80 percent of lifespan variation in mammals,” said Dr. Mobbs.

“Finding the right balance is key; only a 10 percent restriction will produce a small increase in lifespan, whereas an 80 percent restriction will lead to a shorter life due to starvation.”

The team found an optimal dietary restriction, estimated to be equivalent to a 30 percent caloric reduction in mammals, increased lifespan over 50 percent while slowing the development of an age-related pathology similar to Alzheimer’s disease.
The first part of the study looked at C. elegans, a species of roundworm, that were genetically altered to develop Alzheimer’s disease-like symptoms. Dr. Mobbs and his team reduced the roundworms’ dietary intake by diluting the bacteria the worms consume. In these types of roundworms, human beta amyloid peptide, which contributes to plaque buildup in Alzheimer’s disease, is expressed in muscle, which becomes paralyzed as age progresses. This model allowed researchers to readily measure how lifespan and disease burden were simultaneously improved through dietary restriction.

The researchers found that when dietary restriction was maintained throughout the worms’ adulthood, lifespan increased by 65 percent and the Alzheimer’s disease-related paralysis decreased by about 50 percent.

“We showed that dietary restriction activates CBP in a roundworm model, and when we blocked this activation, we blocked all the protective effects of dietary restriction,” said Dr. Mobbs. “It was the result of blocking CBP activation, which inhibited all the protective effects of dietary restriction, that confirmed to us that CBP plays a key role in mediating the protective effects of dietary restriction on lifespan and age-related disease.”

In the second part of study, Dr. Mobbs and his team looked at the other end of this process: What happens to CBP in a high-calorie diet that has led to diabetes, a disease in which glucose metabolism is impaired? Researchers examined mice and found that diabetes reduces activation of CBP, leading Dr. Mobbs to conclude that a high-calorie diet that leads to diabetes would have the opposite effect of dietary restriction and would accelerate aging.

Dr. Mobbs hypothesizes that dietary restriction induces CBP by blocking glucose metabolism, which produces oxidative stress, a cellular process that leads to tissue damage and also promotes cancer cell growth. Interestingly, dietary restriction triggers CBP for as long as the restriction is maintained, suggesting that the protective effects may wear off if higher dietary intake resumes. CBP responds to changes in glucose within hours, indicating genetic communications respond quickly to fluctuations in dietary intake.

“Our next step is to understand the exact interactions of CBP with other transcription factors that mediate its protective effects with age,” said Dr. Mobbs. “If we can map out these interactions, we could then begin to produce more targeted drugs that mimic the protective effects of CBP.”

A New England Journal of Medicine study published this month indicated that obesity was likely to wipe out 40 years of health improvements from combating cigarette smoking. Under one scenario of obesity and smoking trends, by 2020 the future life expectancy of a typical 18-year-old would be shortened 8 months, according to the report.

“We found that in a horse race between obesity and smoking, obesity won, in a bad way,” said Susan Stewart, an author of the study and a researcher at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

This month’s good news?  Two Congresswomen, Marcia L. Fudge of Ohio and Kay Granger of Texas, have introduced a resolution in the House to designate September as Childhood Obesity Awareness Month.  And one poll out last week indicated that childhood obesity was the “food-related story” of the decade. Some people apparently recognize the scope of the problem, but several public interest groups believe that the food and beverage industry continues to cover their eyes and ears about their contribution to the epidemic of childhood obesity..

An analysis by Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) of food ads on Nickelodeon, the popular children’s network, revealed that 80% of these ads promoted food of poor nutritional quality.  While this is down from 90% in 2005, the results were disappointing considering that between the 2005 and 2009, the food industry instituted a self-regulatory program through the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI).

CSPI also took a closer look at the practices of the food companies that participate in the CFBAI self-regulatory program.  They found that of the 452 foods and beverages that companies say are acceptable to market to children, that 267 (or nearly 60 percent) do not meet CSPI’s recommended nutrition standards for food marketing to children. The list includes: General Mills’ Cookie Crisp and Reese’s Puffs cereals, Kellogg Apple Jacks and Cocoa Krispies cereals, Kellogg Rice Krispies Treats, Campbell’s Goldfish crackers and SpaghettiOs, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, and many Unilever Popsicles.

So it came as no surprise when a University of Arizona study commissioned by Children Now, a California-based public policy group that advocates for children concluded that the CFBAI self-regulatory initiative had failed. The study’s key finding is that, despite industry self-regulation, nearly three out of four, 72.5 percent, of the foods advertised on television to children are for products in the poorest nutritional category (down from 84% in 2005).  Known as “Whoa” foods, these products should be consumed only on special occasions, such as birthdays, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Advertising for truly healthy foods such as vegetables and fruits, known as “Go” foods, is virtually invisible. Commercials for these foods account for only one percent of all food advertising to children.

The day after this University of Arizona report was issued, a federal working group convened by the Federal Trade Commission proposed that the FTC begin to regulate marketing of unhealthful foods and beverages to children, largely due to the apparent failure of industry self-regulation. This proposal comes on the backdrop of concerns expressed by public health advocates and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz that the food industry isn’t doing enough to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. Food and beverage companies spend $1.6 billion annually on ads aimed at children, according to an FTC report on food marketing and obesity from 2008.  The FTC plans to update that report in 2010, and Leibowitz said he plans to send subpoenas to 44 food and beverage companies soon to get their marketing data.  The FTC sent similar subpoenas to companies in 2007. Not much good happened then and we suspect not much good will happen along these lines in the next few years.

Giving credit where credit is due, we did see some progress on the product side, if not with regard to marketing.  General Mills announced it would reduce the sugar content in 10 of its products to less than 11 grams per serving, following up on product modifications begun two years ago.  Unfortunately, 11 grams of sugar per serving, still makes for a lot of sugar.  Among the nutritional all stars in cereals and kid-appeal, Kix, for example, only has 3g of sugar per serving.  In view of a Consumer Reports study that showed that children usually serve themselves 50-65% more than the recommended serving, cereals with 11 grams of sugar will yield more sugar for breakfast than a glazed doughnut.

A recent study published by Yale’s Rudd Center, which listed the 10 least healthy cereals, found that General Mills made six of the cereals on the list. It also found that the cereal giant markets to children more than any other cereal maker, the news service reported.  The study also found that children eat twice as much of the highly sweetened cereals as low-sugar cereals. This means that General Mills and most other producers of foods marketed to young people continue to contribute substantially to the cornucopia of junk food that threatens the health of the present and next generation.

Which has more calories?

• One ounce of chocolate or five ounces of bread?

• One teaspoon of ice cream (premium, high fat type) OR one pint of cottage cheese?

• One teaspoon of corn oil OR ½ teaspoon of pure animal fat?

Professor Paul Rozin and his colleagues obtained answers to these and other questions about nutrition from 184 college students, 121 physical plant (blue collar) workers, and 81 randomly selected adults.  The following graph shows the bases for the correct answers:

In view of the dramatic differences in calories among the choices shown in the graph, you might think that most people would pick the correct answers.  Did you pick them correctly yourself?

The researchers found that the following percentages of people picked the wrong answers:

• Chocolate: 75%
• Ice Cream: 56%
• Animal Fat: 78%

If people had absolutely no idea about the correct answers, then we’d expect 50% correct/incorrect responses, not 75% or 78% incorrect.  Clearly most people believe the wrong answers were the right ones.  At a time when most adults are either overweight and/or have dieted repeatedly in their lives, why would such seemingly obvious nutritional facts get confused by so many people?

The authors of this study suggested several explanations.  First, apparently most of us try to simply our worlds by viewing things in simple categories, like good or bad.  Also, a type of distortion in reasoning accompanies this categorical thinking: the principle of contagion (first described by writers 150 years ago).  That is, if we view a food as bad, then we think that even small amounts of that food is tainted or bad, too.  The badness of the food apparently is viewed as contaminating all of it.

Categorical thinking leads to thinking in terms of contagion, which in turn makes us insensitive to dosage effects.  This means that we often fail to recognize that small amounts of some substances can help us, whereas large amounts cause problems.

Examples of this dose insensitivity abound.  For example, our bodies need small amounts of fat in the diet (3-5 grams), whereas 100 grams of fat per day creates serious problems – and even a quarter of that amount is probably too high for effective weight control.  In a similar way, small amounts of vitamins improve health, whereas overdoses can kill us.  Moderate exercise greatly improves fitness and effectiveness of weight control, but excessive exercise can cause serious injuries.

Many millions of intelligent people have followed dietary recommendations that are as incorrect as the nutritional choices made by most people in this study.  We’re obviously quite susceptible to biased thinking (categorical, contagious, dose insensitive) about nutrition and diet.  These biases merely reflect a very natural tendency to keep our lives simple and predictable.  In this incredibly important arena of health, however, now is the time to adjust those biases.  It is time to rely on science to help you decide how to eat and stay healthy.  Science clearly tells us that very low fat eating and lots of movement and exercise contribute to success at lifelong weight control; low-carb dieting does not.

________________________________________________________________

*Rozin, P., Ashmore, M., & Markwith, M. (1996). Lay American conceptions of nutrition: Dose insensitivity, categorical thinking, contagion, and the monotonic mind. Health Psychology, 15, 438-447.

Daniel Kirschenbaum, Ph.D., ABPP

When you really know the facts, very low-fat diets clearly make the most sense.  We know that everyone wants to believe that they can eat very high-fat foods (Atkins) or high-fat foods (South Beach) and still lose weight.  Why wouldn’t you want to have your cheeseburger (not cake for low-carbers) and eat it, too (without the bun, of course)?  Yet, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that very low fat diets should and do work best. (If you want to read more details about this, see Chapter 2 of my book The Healthy Obsession Program (2005, BenBella Books).  Now, let’s consider for reasons that help explain why all former low-carb dieters aren’t thoroughly persuaded – yet.  Explanations abound for this cultural resistance to very low-fat eating.  Understanding these four explanations might help you believe more clearly and fully in the dietary truth that very low fat diets work best.

Losing the Forest Because of the Trees

Which of these dietary dilemmas sounds familiar to you?

• Should I eat because I have a certain body type?
• Should I eat because of my blood type?
• Should I avoid certain combinations of foods?
• Should I discontinue eating anything with sugar?

The sheer number of recommendations about dieting could overwhelm anyone. Some of these recommendations actually conflict with each other (e.g., eat many small meals vs. don’t snack at all).  Research Capsule 1-1 makes the point that most people seem very confused about basic nutrition for several complex reasons.  So, how do you know who to follow to escape this dense forest of misinformation?

The pied piper, known as science, can show you the way.  Scientists are those who publish in peer-reviewed journals.  I’ve published more than 100 articles in such journals.  These journal articles and those published by thousands of other scientists provide objective information.  Such research uses well defined (and described) methods, accepted statistical tests, and other devices that allow other scientists to accept, reject, or build upon the findings.  This work becomes readily available to all, in such journals as:  Obesity ; International Journal of Obesity; Journal of the American Medical Association; Health Psychology; American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; Behavior Therapy; and Annals of Internal Medicine.

Very few authors of popular books, even those with doctoral degrees, have published anything about weight loss in scientific journals.  Drs. Atkins (The Diet Revolution), Sears (The Zone), Agatston (The South Beach Diet), and the Hellers (Carbohydrate Addicts Diet) have doctoral degrees, but none has published in peer-reviewed scientific journals about weight loss.  They have, collectively, sold tens of millions of books, but they don’t qualify as experts on weight loss.  Science itself doesn’t prescribe one clear simple method for weight loss.  Scientists disagree about research evidence.  Knowledge gained in research doesn’t yield simple answers to complex questions.  Yet, the trend in the published science of weight control clearly indicates that very low-fat diets work better than low-carb diets:  better health, better weight losses, and better maintenance of weight losses.

Capitalism Trumps Science

We Americans have had our thinking about food dramatically affected by big business.  Many billions of dollars have been made by those selling products that clearly increased weight problems in this country.  These powerful forces continue to flood the airways and magazines with misinformation, basically communicating the desirability and acceptance of very unhealthy foods and drinks.

In his 2003 expose Fat Land, journalist Greg Critser traced the fattening of America to the aggressive and effective effort of the eighteenth secretary of agriculture, Earl Butz.  In the early 1970s, Secretary Butz managed to get governmental regulation of grain sales thoroughly relaxed.  This greatly improved the profitability of corn productions and the availability of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  HFCS, six times sweeter than sugar, enabled prices to be slashed in frozen foods and improved the appearance, shelf life, and availability of high fat bakery goods (including vending machine pastries).  Foods very high in fat and sugar thus became cheaper and omnipresent, contributing to the acceleration of the obesity epidemic worldwide over the past several decades.

Drs. Kelly Brownell and Katherine Horgen of Yale University wrote a remarkable treatise published in 2004, Food Fight. In a chapter entitled, “Big Food, Big Money, Big People,” they argued very convincingly that huge food and beverage companies used billions in marketing dollars to sell us obesogenic foods and drinks.  These companies also entrenched themselves in schools, using substantial financial incentives to create a dependence on them by school administrators all across America.

The same marketers, who sell overpriced vacuum cleaners and unreliable luxury cars, sell obesogenic foods and gimmicky diets.  Consumers remain susceptible to believing slick, logical, repeated, catchy pitches.  Books with authors who seem credible and charismatic and whose books have appealing titles and premises can sell millions – if marketed aggressively and cleverly.  If it gets on TV, it seems, at least, acceptable.

Scientists do their work quietly.  We receive no payment for articles published in scientific journals, even in the best journals in the world.  Scientists rarely publish books like this one.  These “trade books” take considerable time and specialized writing skills.  They also demand a willingness (eagerness actually) to do scores of interviews, travel, and other things that take even more time and effort, often with modest payoffs.

You can see why capitalism creates and sells more books than science.  Millions get poured into creating and selling trade books, even lousy ones. Billions get spent convincing us that foods that contribute to weight gain are just fine, normal, part of the greatness of our culture.  How can objective sciences, gathering dust in obscure journals, compete with that for your attention?

Spurious Correlations

In the late 1800s, some medical authorities believed that riding in trains caused Syphilis.  This venereal disease had spread widely and caused madness, then a torturous death.  Some physicians believed that bouncing on trains must cause this “nervous disease.”  After all, they asserted, traveling salesmen often get Syphilis and priests rarely contract it.  The salesmen bounced on lots of trains, whereas priests did not.

Decades later a bacteria was discovered that caused the disease via direct contact, usually during sexual intercourse.  Although traveling salesmen did ride trains more than most, they apparently had unprotected sex more than most, as well.  Train riding was coincidentally associated with Syphilis (a classic spurious or false correlation), but trains didn’t cause it.

The authors of the recent spate of low-carb diets have argued that Americans gained lots of weight in the past 25 years – just as they became increasingly aware of the desirability of eating less fat.  Therefore, they have claimed, low-fat diets cause weight gain by encouraging people to eat too many carbs.

Awareness of the importance of low-fat eating spuriously correlated with Americans gaining weight.  Just because we Americans increase our awareness of the value of eating less fat didn’t result in Americans actually eating less fat.  Americans ate about 80 fat grams in 1980 and in 2004.  That awareness also didn’t cause Americans to gain weight.  Eating more calories, continuing to eat too much fat, and failing to stay active, among other things, caused the weight gain.

Using the before-and after- testimonials to sell something also relies on spurious correlations.  Just because your neighbor Mary lost weight when she used a low-carb diet, doesn’t mean that the diet caused weight loss.  Perhaps Mary significantly increased her workouts just when she started the low carb diet.  Perhaps she started taking medication that decreased her appetite just when she started.  Perhaps she consciously decided to eat less (total calories) just when she started.  If Mary took any of these steps, then her weight loss was associated (correlated) with beginning a low-carb diet, but not caused by it.

The Dosage Problem:  Very Low-Fat Diets Work Better than Low or Moderate Fat Diets

“I had a splitting headache.  I took ½ of an aspirin and it did nothing!  Aspirin just doesn’t work for headaches.”

Two aspirins, not half of one, can reduce typical headache pain.  In a similar vein, very low-fat eating, but not moderate-fat eating, leads to substantial and well maintained success in weight control.  Most Americans currently consume about one-third of their calories from fat.  America will continue to gain weight rapidly, as it has in the last few decades, unless it can change that percentage to about 10% of calories from fat.  Many health oriented groups do not recommend such a stringent standard, partly because they don’t think people can do it.  But, this only contributes to America’s failure to lose weight and keep it off.  If you decrease your percent of calories from fat from 34% to 30% (as recommended by the American Heart Association, for example) you won’t lose the weight or keep it off.  You may as well take a half-aspirin when you have a splitting headache and expect that to work, as well.

Conclusions

Successful weight loss and maintenance of weight loss requires consistency.  Weight control is not a part time job.  These four explanations help make sense of people’s resistance to accepting the value of very low fat eating.  Now is the time to make the switch to very low fat eating if you’re serious about losing weight permanently.

The bad news is that several studies have shown that overweight people gain more weight during the winter holidays than non-overweight people.  In one study, overweight participants in professional weight control programs gained 500% more weight during holiday weeks compared to non-holiday weeks (in Health Psychology, 1998, 17: 367-370).  This means that winter holidays and related traditions in the winter are risky times for those who seek weight loss.

The good news is that weight controllers can not only learn to manage the challenges of the winter months, they can master them.  Research has pointed two several critical elements of effective weight control during such high risk occasions.  Consider taking the following steps if you want to join the ranks of those actually lose weight during the coldest months of the year.

• Establish a solid foundation on high risk days. The foundation for effective weight management is activity.  Almost every study on those who succeed in maintaining weight losses over time shows that frequent activity contributes substantially to success.  So, on days with celebrations planned or even just relatively cold days, if you begin the day with a brisk walk or some other activity, then you will stay focused on your goals and get your body activated.  Your metabolic rate (the amount of energy your body needs at rest) can either work for you or against you.  If you stay active every day, you’ll keep your metabolic rate from becoming too efficient (needing less calories).  Some sage once said, “There is no such thing as a day that is too cold; these supposedly cold days are those on which you are under-dressed and unprepared for the weather.”  Wear the right clothes and you could walk or jog comfortably even with temperatures well below freezing.

• Controlled eating, especially in the morning, will also help you stay focused, building a foundation of the kind of habits that you’ll need throughout your life for successful weight control.  Consider having a relatively high protein breakfast (like an egg white omelet or fat free cheese melted on an English muffin) to keep your hunger relatively quiet prior to the party.

• Plan ahead. When you plan ahead, you can predict and control your world.  For example, think about your next party:

• Who is going to be there?
• What kind of food will be served?
• When are you going to leave?

You can call your host and get a preview of the menu.  You can make a list of what you will eat, with whom you will talk, and how you will stay focused on successful weight control even during the party.  Controlling alcohol intake may be critical along those lines.  How about considering a 2-drink limit?  That leads to better restraint and better focus on the big picture of your life.

• Avoid starvation before celebration. Starving before a big meal or party can increase the chances of binge eating.  Starving produces deprivation and strong biological drives to eat anything.  An alternative approach would have you eating low-fat low-sugar foods throughout the day as usual, and making sure to eat some source of protein immediately prior to the event (e.g., low fat beef or turkey jerky; fat free cheese or yogurt).

• Study the food scene. After arriving at a friend’s house or a party, you can quickly survey the available options.  Perhaps you will notice that there are fresh fruits or vegetables that will work for your eating plan.  You might also discover that the main course will keep you on target (for example, a turkey dinner works well).  This initial survey of the territory should enable you to avoid the incredibly high fat chips and dips, nuts, and appetizers.

• Monitor the details of your eating and activities. The research on this point is especially clear.  Those who write down virtually everything they eat and their activities are far more likely to lose weight during the holidays, and during non-holiday weeks, as well.  If you use goals for your eating plan (like no more than 20 fat grams per day), then by self-monitoring you’re eating every day, you can bring those goals to life – and use them as motivators.  Every time you eat something, you’ll compare that food to the 20 fat gram goal and see if you are on course to beat the goal.  In a similar way, if you use a pedometer to keep track of your steps, then by monitoring the number of steps taken each day, you’ll encourage yourself to reach your step goal (like 10,000 steps per day).

• Refocus your winter. You can break the winter tradition of focusing on special foods and parties.  Why not focus on other people, special projects, helping others, and finding new ways to relax?

A new study by University of Maine Researchers demonstrates that the most effective treatments for combating childhood obesity are the most intensive and comprehensive programs.

Specifically, according to Dr. Douglas Nangle, Professor of Psychology and director of clinical training at the University of Maine, increasing the “dose” of behavioral interventions – the use verbal and tangible rewards, self-monitoring and stimulus control – as well parental involvement enhances the effectiveness of established diet and exercise regimes for combating childhood obesity.

The research reviewed 11 published studies on the treatment of childhood obesity conducted since 1994 and sought to identify patterns among the therapeutic components and with successful outcomes.

“Whereas meta-analyses typically examine the effectiveness of interventions versus control (i.e., no treatment) conditions, this study employed a variation of the statistical techniques to estimate whether or not modifying or adding to obesity treatments helps youth lose more weight. This statistical approach has not previously been used in social science or medical research. This is the first of its kind, in the obesity or other treatment literatures,” says Professor Nangle.

The Maine analysis demonstrated that interventions that combine diet/decreased sedentary lifestyle with increased exercise components could be made even more effective through enhanced cognitive-behavioral interventions – rewards such as praise and incentives – for meeting physical activity and dietary goals, as well as teaching children to improve their self-regulatory skills.  This involved encouraging consistent self-monitoring of their eating and exercise patterns,and using techniques like stimulus control (i.e., making healthy foods more easily accessible) ”

The study also found that parents can make a huge differences in effectiveness of the approach. Parents who provide nutritious foods in the home and lose weight themselves (by eating the right foods and increasing activity levels) often help their children do especially well at weight control.

The results of the Maine study have been accepted for publication in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.

To mark Earth Day last week, a team of researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine released a new study showing a link between the obesity epidemic and the long-term challenge of global warming.

Because food production is a major contributor to global warming, a population at a healthy weight will produce fewer greenhouse gases than an overweight or obese population.  In addition, transportation-related emissions would also be lower, as it takes less energy to transport less weight.

As a result, the researchers calculated that if 1 billion overweight or obese peoplereached healthy weights,  carbon dioxide emissions would decrease by 1,000 million tons.

These researchers weren’t the only ones making the comparison between obesity and climate change.  At a State Department celebration of Earth Day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton : compared the daunting prospect of decreasing global warming to losing weight, noting  “It’s kind of like trying to lose weight – which I know something about. Where you think, you know, ‘Oh, I only have to lose X number of pounds.’ But it can seem like such a faraway goal.”

Secretary Clinton frames the problem exactly.  “It can seem like such a faraway goal.”  And earlier this month, researchers at Northwestern University and the University of Hong Kong published a study that explains one of the key challenges: solving global warming and losing weight both require focusing on important and very positive long term goals, instead of giving in to short term conveniences and the usual patterns of our lives.

The researchers found that participants showed less self-control on health tasks when they focused on their immediate situations. In contrast, when they looked to the future, really focusing on the benefits of  long-term goals, they exerted self-control and were not affected by being tired or depleted. (This was true even when participants were asked to read long medical articles.)

Some of Secretary Clinton’s former colleagues have been struggling to focus on those long term goals, particularly the personal health challenge of weight control.

The following segments are excerpted from an article published on Politico.com titled “Members Battle the Bulge.”

“I wish I didn’t have the five-minute rule. And I wish we didn’t have so many members. And I wish I could lose weight without dieting.”

- Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), House Financial Services Committee Chairman

Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) hops on the treadmill for 30 minutes every night in the Senate gym, takes a brief bike ride and does upper body strength training sometimes. His busy days rarely leave him an opening before 8 p.m.     Yet, he’s focused on the health benefits of achieving a healthier weight and that puts his weight controlling efforts high on his list of priorities every day.

Representative Phil Hare (D-Illinois) lost 40 pounds in the 90-plus days since President Obama’s inauguration. His wake-up call came when he experimented by carrying around three 16-pound bowling balls to measure how much extra weight he was  carrying.  His suits have already been taken in once, and he’s headed toward a second fitting after losing 6 inches off his waist.  He says the demands on his time require that carefully schedule every day, including what he has come to call a mandatory one-hour gym session each day.  “I just love food,” said Hare, who admits he used to take full advantage of the Longworth cafeteria dessert line.  “When I used to get pizza, I thought you were supposed to eat the whole thing.  Now when I go to Longworth in the morning, I’ll have coffee and fruit. And when I see people coming out with trays, I just don’t look at them,” he said, laughing.

In his Weighty Matters blog of today, Dr. Yoni Freedhoff discusses the latest non-fat fad to enter the California mainstream – the Chugay tongue patch, sewn onto one’s tongue for 30 days to “make chewing of foods difficult and painful” and encourage a liquid diet.

Ouch. That’s a high price to pay (not to mention the high cost of such a cosmetic procedure!) for weight losss. What will they think of next?

The answer to that question is “Anything”! Yep, that’s right, if the public wants to lose weight in a quick and (relatively) painless manner, then someone out there will find a way to give the consumer what he/she wants. There are thousands of weight loss products out there that state they are a “healthy” and “fast” way to shed extra pounds. And they may lead to success in the short-term. But these quick fixes will never replace the weight loss results that behavior change and hard work will produce.