Read 21 Pounds in 21 Days Online

Authors: Roni DeLuz

21 Pounds in 21 Days (10 page)

BOOK: 21 Pounds in 21 Days
13.92Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

When the body's pH is knocked out of equilibrium, we may start craving certain foods, as the body seeks out vitamins and minerals that will help it create homeostasis. Unfortunately, many of us have trained our brain that certain vitamins and minerals it needs are found in processed foods. Most processed foods are also acidic.

If you eat a diet high in refined foods, those are the foods you'll crave: potato chips, ice cream, extra crispy fried chicken, chocolate chip cookies. Unfortunately, some of the foods an acid body craves are also foods that it's allergic to. Again, this is because we've taught it that these foods are where it will find certain nutrients. Since we'll also experience an allergic reaction, eating these foods will actually make us feel worse.

By shifting to a balanced diet containing all the right vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and phytonutrients, an acid body can become more alkaline. As it becomes more alkaline, it immediately begins to produce healthier cells, making us feel better quickly. We can
intentionally flush the acid out of the body, helping it achieve equilibrium and making us feel more vibrant, energetic, and peaceful—the body's natural state. As we do this, the body automatically gravitates to a healthy weight—and you don't have to deprive yourself, exercise, or go on a diet.

The Confusion over Calories

The traditional American weight-loss diet encourages people to reduce the number of calories they eat in order to force the body to burn more fat. But there's a fundamental problem with this theory: the body of a
Homo sapiens
(Latin for “wise man” or “knowing man)” absolutely
hates
to burn fat. Why? For over two hundred thousand years, most of our ancestors were hunters and gatherers whose bodies adapted to having abundant amounts of food to eat after an animal was slaughtered or crops were harvested. Their bodies then allowed them to survive scarcity after that food had been consumed. To withstand this environment of literal feast or famine, the human body learned that whenever excess food was available, the body stood a better chance of riding out the inevitable lean months if it learned to convert any extra nutrients into fat. Fat not only kept our forbears warm and cushioned their organs, it stored nutrients the body could call upon to keep them alive during lean times. Given this history, it is literally human nature to store fat for future use. Though food is now plentiful in our society, we need only go back a few generations to see how this instinct to conserve flab helped our ancestors weather crop failures and famines.

With this as the backdrop, let's consider this modern-day activity we call dieting. At its essence, dieting consists of starving our body so it will lose weight. Already, you can see the problem.
Homo sapiens
's brain is so intelligent, has been fine-tuned for so many millennia, and is so intent on keeping our species alive that it outmaneuvers our dietary strategy of depriving ourselves to shed pounds. We only need to miss a meal or two before a warning alarm is sent out to the cells: “Oh, my goodness! She's starving again. Hang onto every nutrient you can. We have to
save her life!” The body then slows down our metabolism, the rate at which we consume nutrients to obtain energy from them, so that it consumes fewer while we're dieting than it does when we're nourishing ourselves properly. Once we end our diet and resume eating normally, our brain outthinks us, telling the body, “I know her by now. It's not going to be long before she starves herself again. Keep metabolizing food slowly and hang on to every nutrient you can. We've got extra room around her middle so stick everything extra onto her belly, thighs, and buttocks so we have a little extra in store for next time.”

Women's bodies, in particular, store fat around their middle so food is located close to the fetus should they become pregnant during a famine. After dieting, even if we eat the exact same amount of the exact same foods we ate before we started purging pounds, we're going to put on extra weight. Over time, repeat dieters train their bodies to hold onto more fat every time they try to lighten up. Of course, this is the average person's worst-case scenario. But placed within the context of humankind's struggle to survive scarcity and famine, who can blame our brain for taking our actions so seriously? The human body cannot overcome a quarter of a million years of conditioning in less than seventy-five years!

Adding insult to injury, since the body clings to every bit of food we feed it, it also clings to every toxin that we consume along with it—you know, those artificial flavors and colors, antibiotics, and hormones found in processed foods. The more toxins get stored in the body, the more they congest us, make us feel “off,” cause us to lose energy, and, eventually, make us sick. They also contribute to the cellulite that everyone dreads, causing our bottom to jiggle and leading us to start another diet. Now we're caught up in the cycle of rollercoaster weight loss, where we lose pounds only to gain back more weight and toxins.

Notice that as I describe this cycle of yoyoing weight, I am writing about nutrients but not calories. The culture of dieting teaches us that the number of calories we eat determines whether we gain or lose weight. While it is true that you'll gain weight if you eat more calories than you burn off, counting calories is not the answer to everyone's weight-loss dilemma. In fact, it is
even possible for the same person to gain more weight by eating fewer calories than they did in the past. How so? One way is to get caught in a cycle of rollercoaster dieting. Another is by eating low-nutrient foods.

While it's rare that we think of calories in terms of anything but weight, they're actually a measure of the amount of potential energy contained within our food. Different types of foods contain different amounts of energy: carbohydrates count four calories per gram; protein offers four calories per gram; and dietary fat weighs in at nine calories per gram. So for all the negative press it gets, dietary fat—that is, the fat you obtain from foods, as opposed to body fat, which you carry on your body—has the potential to give us more energy per gram than any other food. Unfortunately, many people have been misled into believing that because dietary fat contains the most calories, eating it automatically piles on body fat. They also mistakenly believe that reducing dietary fat means you automatically lose weight. In reality, the quality of the food we eat is a major determinant of how much fat the body holds on to and how easily we shed pounds. Food that contains a lot of nutrients gives us more energy than highly processed foods or “junk” foods, so called because they contain little nutrition. Just like your car becomes sluggish and operates inefficiently if you put cheap oil into it, your metabolism becomes lethargic if you eat poor-quality food. Low-quality calories do not burn off at the same rate as high-quality calories. To give you an example: One gram of dietary fat obtained from a low-nutrient, highly processed food like potato chips yields less energy than one gram of dietary fat from a nutrient-dense snack like a rice cake topped with almond butter. The body burns chips less efficiently. As a result, they are more likely to sit on your hips. That's why five hundred calories obtained from a nutrient-dense source can give you more energy and make your metabolism behave more efficiently than a thousand calories from junk food. This is one of the major reasons why big junk-food eaters can often be found sitting on the sofa.

Focusing solely on calories is misguided for other reasons as well. Consider a woman who plays tennis regularly so she has well-toned muscles and a low level of body fat. Because muscles
burn more energy than fat, even when she is sitting down, our tennis player will burn more calories than a couch potato or someone ill who doesn't have a lot of muscles and has a higher percentage of body fat. Yet she, too, will react negatively to eating junk food. Feed her a thousand low-nutrient calories and she'll have problems digesting them, feel sluggish, and her energy will drop. But if she eats a thousand nutrient-dense calories, she'll have a lot of energy.

So the number of calories that we eat isn't always as important as either the diet industry or manufacturers of low-calorie foods would like us to think. And the number of nutrients those calories contain is far more important than any manufacturer of processed foods wants you to know. This is just another reason why it is important to eat more whole, nutrient-dense, fresh foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, seeds, fish, poultry, and meats, and to avoid processed and refined foods, which contain the least amount of nutrients and the most toxins. If you do not eat enough food and/or that food does not contain much nutrition in it, not only will you lack stamina, rather than burning the food for energy, your body will slow its metabolism and cling to it for dear life. And where will it get stored? That's right—in your fat cells. If, on the other hand, you feed your body nutrient-dense food, it will shed fat easily and effortlessly and calorie counting will be unnecessary.

FACTOID

If you don't provide your body with adequate nutrition, it will hold on to fat for dear life. Give it enough nutrition and it will shed fat and pounds without your even making an effort!

Given all of these different factors, it's no wonder that diets don't work! Each and every time we try to lose weight using a strategy that deprives us of nutrients, we swim upstream against the tide of human evolution. Like cutting our hair off, shaving our beard or legs, or trimming our fingernails and hoping they won't grow back, whenever we embark on a diet, we're fighting against human nature! For a low-calorie approach to weight loss to work, it must feed you high-quality foods that contain a lot of nutrition. Although the concept seems to defy logic, you must eat in order to lose weight!

The Pros and Cons of Popular Diets

For many years I counted myself among America's millions of diet kings and queens. As toxic as my body was and as efficiently it held on to weight, I think I went on every diet known to man. I have suffered through the process like everyone else. Following is a summary of what I like and dislike about a number of popular weight-loss approaches, evaluated through the lens of both my personal experience and that of a health care professional.

The Atkins Diet

Pro:
Causes people to lose weight quickly.

Con:
The brain cannot function normally when fed less than ninety grams of carbohydrates daily, which the Atkins Diet encourages. Because the diet creates high levels of acidity in the body, eating in the manner the Atkins Diet recommends flushes out major minerals, including calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium; creates a condition in the body called ketosis, in which fat is being broken down very quickly, which can damage the kidneys; and because you starve yourself of nutrition, Atkins dieters often experience a major weight-gain rebound effect.

Verdict:
Don't try it. This diet is very dangerous. It has destroyed many a kidney!

Dr. Bob Arnot's Revolutionary Diet

Pro:
This is essentially a therapeutic nutritional plan designed to prevent heart attacks and cancer, especially colon cancer, and appropriately nourish people already diagnosed with chronic diseases, such as diabetes.

Con:
The plan is complicated and highly scientific, since the nutritional regime is designed for hospitals to use to treat chronic illnesses such as cancer.

Verdict:
This is a good diet for health care professionals to teach their patients suffering from chronic diseases. It's too complicated for the average person to practice every day.

Dr. Shapiro's Picture Perfect Diet

Pros:
This very creative book contains photographs of what you should and should not eat, plus over 180 food equations that give readers an abundance of options. Dr. Shapiro dieters can eat in restaurants, as long as they can remember what they should and should not consume.

Cons:
This diet offers too much freedom, and dieters have to remember too many plans.

Verdict:
When following a diet that allows you the freedom to eat so many foods, you risk unknowingly triggering food allergies that will cause your weight loss to be less successful than it could be.

Eat Right for Your Type

Pros:
Eat Right
instructs readers to customize their food choices according to their body chemistry, as reflected in their blood type: A, AB, B, or O. Adjusting your diet in the way this book advises makes weight loss easier, eliminates cravings, strengthens your immune system, and combats digestive ailments, fatigue, and allergies.

Con:
Restricts you to eating certain foods that are supposedly most compatible with your blood type; however, the four-blood-type nutrition concept is very controversial.

Verdict:
There is no genetic or molecular evidence of an association between any specific blood type and a corresponding set of food choices.

Fit for Life Rotation Diet

Pros:
This approach involves eating only foods that are in the same food group each day, say, dairy products or meats. For that reason, it's a good diet for people with a weak digestive system and helps to eliminate allergies and food intolerances.

Cons:
Has too many constraints. The amount of scientific information it contains is overwhelming.

Verdict:
Very limited in its ability to help you keep weight off.

The Glycemic Index

Pros:
This book teaches readers to use the glycemic index, a ranking of carbohydrates based on their effect on blood glucose levels, to select the carbs they should eat, thereby helping them to control their weight. Effectively levels blood sugar and causes weight loss.

Cons:
Too many numbers, charts, and graphs.

Verdict:
Requires too much studying for the average person to succeed with it.

Jenny Craig

Pros:
The Jenny Craig diet makes everything practical. Prepacked food eliminates the need to select healthy food at the grocery store, thereby reducing your temptation to purchase unhealthy items. The weekly support that is included with the program provides good motivation.

Cons:
The plan is expensive—even discounted meals may cost $21.99 on top of the groceries you have to buy. The fact that the food is prepackaged makes it difficult to share meals with family and friends or to dine out. Some don't like the taste of the food.

Verdict:
Too restrictive, so you can't do it for long.

The Perricone Diet

Pro:
Dr. Perricone recommends eating foods containing antioxidants, vitamins, and amino acids, and often natural substances rich in antioxidants and foods like brightly colored vegetables, berries, tomatoes, and pineapple, as well as foods rich in essential fatty acids like salmon.

Con:
In an ideal world, this diet does work. In reality, only a select few people will have the ability to follow it to the letter. It's strict on calorie intake.

Verdict:
It is a great diet for antiaging and resolving appearance-and skin-related issues, but it is not for everyone because of the high carbs and calorie restriction.

The Pritikin Diet

Pro:
One of the first books to do a good job of explaining the quality of your food as opposed to quantity. If you like carbs, you'll like Dr. Pritikin's book.

Cons:
Requires strict portion control. The diet is high in carbs, which can lead to insulin surges and subsequent cravings. That can lead to rapid weight gain after you complete the diet.

Verdict:
It is very restrictive, so you cannot do it for long.

The Raw Foods Diet

Pro:
This diet is full of natural enzymes, and you can eat as much as you want and still lose weight. It is very healthy and will prevent disease.

Con:
You can eat only raw foods, which is very restricting.

Verdict:
Teaching that cooked food is poison is too one-sided—cooking, for instance, kills lethal and harmful bacteria. Too strict for most people to implement.

The South Beach Diet

Pro:
Created by a cardiologist, the popular South Beach Diet includes many tasty recipes containing a great balance of the right kinds of fats and carbs.

Cons:
Those who are accustomed to carb-rich diets will find it very demanding. It's also low in protein and heavy in fiber.

Verdict:
A great way to lose weight initially, but the weight loss slows down after the first phase of diet.

Weight Watchers

Pros:
Weight Watchers is a safe diet promoting good eating habits so you can lose weight without starving yourself. Group support helps dieters adhere to the program.

Cons:
Because there are so few restrictions and many different food offerings, people have too much freedom to choose, which makes the program difficult to manage. Many people end up eating everything because it becomes way too complicated. Many people say weight loss is too slow; others hate going to weekly meetings, especially during those times when they're not losing weight.

Verdict:
Dieters lose weight too slowly and eventually lose interest.

The Zone

Pros:
This diet promotes mindful eating and portion control and regulates sugar intake, normalizing insulin levels. Zone dieters are encouraged to use omega-3 and omega-6 monosaturated fats, obtained from fish, cereals, whole grains, poultry, and eggs, and to avoid trans fats, commonly found in fast and processed foods. Dieters who stick to these guidelines will experience more energy and greater mental clarity.

Cons:
The Zone is a calorie-restricted diet that starves the body, setting it up to gain weight later. Its dietary rules are very complicated to follow and almost impossible to maintain. Plus, the diet promotes eating too much protein, causing the body to become overly acidic.

Verdict:
Very low in carbohydrates and is too restrictive.

BOOK: 21 Pounds in 21 Days
13.92Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

Dead Letters Anthology by Conrad Williams
The Imposter by Judith Townsend Rocchiccioli
Breaking Josephine by Stewart, Marie
The Aftermath by Jen Alexander
Mind Over Psyche by Karina L. Fabian
The Bull Rider's Twins by Tina Leonard
A Sunday at the Pool in Kigali by Gil Courtemanche
Twilight's Dawn by Bishop, Anne